known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.
The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant.
SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.
Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.
Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.
Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California
Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals.
Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.
Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment
Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.
EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri
Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD.
Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research
were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment.
Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY
Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.
Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California
Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands.
Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.
Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for nonpublic health professionals.
Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane
rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill.
This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia
Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort.
Client: Confidential, Escondido, California
Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense nonaqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner
that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site.
Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fiftyyear old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.
Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site.
Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school).
The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.
IT Corporation, North Carolina
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels.
Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
California Redevelopment Association (CRA)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations:
Books and Book Chapters
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.
Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.
Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.
Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water:
Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.
Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.
Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment.
Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.
Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI.
Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.
Journal and Proceeding Articles
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN.
March 20, 2003.
Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.
Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.
Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD).
Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.
Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water.
Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.
Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors.
Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998.
Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.
Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996.
Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14.
Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118.
Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.
Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.
McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.
Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute
Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.
Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.
Exhibit C
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Gavin Newsom, Governor
Yana Garcia, Secretary for Environmental Protection
Lauren Zeise, Ph.D., Director
Science for a Healthy California | oehha.ca.gov
Headquarters: 1001 I St., Sacramento, California 95814 | Mailing address: P.O. Box 4010, Sacramento, California 95812-4010 | (916) 324-7572 Oakland office and mailing address: 1515 Clay St., Suite 1600, Oakland, California 94612 | (510) 622-3200
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shervin Milani, Water Resource Control Engineer
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 West 4th St., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
FROM: Jim Carlisle, DVM, Staff Toxicologist
Air and Site Assessment and Climate Indicators Branch
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
DATE: July 12, 2023
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF LIMITED SOIL REMEDIATION WORK PLAN FOR THE EASTERN PORTION OF 2200 NORTH ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD,
SOUTH EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA
SWRCB # R4-22-056 OEHHA # 880660-00
Document Reviewed
Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California 91733, dated April 25, 2023, prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Scope and Limitations of Review
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) was requested to review the above document with specific attention to the use of the 95% upper confidence limit on the mean (UCL) as an exposure metric. OEHHA recommends the UCL as the workplace exposure metric for both baseline assessment and postremediation verification. The lead target, originally 320 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), is changed to 500 mg/kg reflecting a change in the DTSC screening level) for lead.
OEHHA did not review threats to groundwater from soil contaminants nor classification, stockpiling, and disposal of excavated soils. Soil for re-use should be evaluated just as it would be in a baseline assessment and should be subject to post-remedial verification.
1-32
Shervin Milani
July 12, 2023
An accurate risk assessment depends on adequate site characterization. Since OEHHA was not involved in the characterization of this Site, we reviewed this report assuming the available data accurately reflect the conditions at the Site.
In this memo, risk estimates are presented in scientific notation. For example, a risk of 1 per million (0.000001) is written as 1E−6, and 1 in 10,000 (0.0001) is written as 1E−4.
Site Description and Background
The site is generally located north of Rush Street and east of Rosemead Boulevard in the City of South El Monte, California. The easternmost and most significant portion of the site was occupied by Ditty Container, Inc. Ditty subleased the property from Pacific Coast Drum Company (PCD) from 1996 and has left the site. Both PCD and Ditty cleaned, refurbished, and in some cases, repainted drums and refurbished plastic tote containers since the 1940s, primarily for the food industry. The northwestern-most portion of the site was formerly operated by BJ’s Tire Spot and used for tire and truck tire repairs. The two buildings south of BJ’s Tire Spot were occupied by DreamWorks Auto Center and were used for auto body repair. Some of the building office space was shared with both Ditty and DreamWorks Auto Center.
The recent soil investigation report indicates high levels of lead in shallow soil.
Construction of a new warehouse is planned for this commercial site. There are mobile homes to the southern portion of the site. A soil vapor extraction system is currently operating.
Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs)
Environmental assessments indicated the presence of metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) , and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil. COPCs are organic compounds detected in soil at concentrations above laboratory reporting limits and inorganic compounds detected at concentrations exceeding both background levels and screening levels. OEHHA does not recommend comparisons with screening levels as a basis for exclusion of chemicals as COPCs.
The only elements selected in soil as COPCs were antimony, arsenic, hexavalent chromium (Cr+6), cobalt, lead, and molybdenum. In addition to these, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc also exceeded background levels and should be evaluated as COPCs.
Exposure Concentrations (EPCs)
For arsenic and molybdenum, all Arochlors, and TPH-g, the reported 95% upper confidence limits (UCLs) are less than the mean concentrations for detects. 1-32
Shervin Milani
July 12, 2023
Conceptual Site Model
Leighton evaluated soil exposure and associated risks and hazards to onsite outdoor workers and onsite construction workers. Soil gas exposure was not evaluated.
Soil Risk Assessment
Leighton
In their baseline soil risk assessment, Leighton used the UCL as the exposure concentration when it could be calculated, otherwise the maximum detected concentration. Exposure parameters were standard values from HHRA Note 1 (DTSC, 2019a) except that the exposure duration for the construction worker was 91 days rather than the usual 1 year, resulting in a four-fold reduction in risk. No site-specific basis for this departure from standard exposure parameters was provided. This The calculated risk for outdoor workers exposed to contaminants in soil and dust through the ingestion, dermal, and inhalation pathways was 2E-5, exceeding the benchmark of 1E-5. The calculated risk for construction workers exposed to contaminants in soil and dust through these pathways was 1E-5, equaling the benchmark of 1E-5. The risk driver identified in soil was Cr+6. Although not widely dispersed throughout the site, Cr+6 contributed 97% and 67% of the estimated cancer risk for construction workers and outdoor workers, respectively. The hazard index (HI) for construction workers exceeded the benchmark of 1. The lead UCL was 1443 mg/kg, exceeding the DTSC screening level of 500 mg/kg.
Table 1: Leighton Risk and Hazard Estimates
Exposure Scenarios Estimated Risk Estimated HI
Construction Worker 1E-5 2
Outdoor Worker 2E-5 0.6
Table Notes: Risk estimates are presented in scientific notation. For example, a cancer risk of 1 in a million (0.000001) is written as 1E−6. HI is the estimated hazard index.
OEHHA
To calculate cumulative risk and hazard for chemicals in soil, OEHHA used the equations from DTSC’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Manual (DTSC 2015, Section 2.5). Values for exposure parameters were taken from DTSC’s HERO Note 1 (DTSC 2019a) and toxicity values were from Note 10 (DTSC 2019b). This was done for all metals detected, except lead. Exposure concentrations were the UCLs. OEHHA entered the petroleum hydrocarbon data as TPH gasoline, TPH diesel, and TPH motor oil, rather than converting these values to assumed fractions. OEHHA’s results differed from Leighton’s results, as shown in Table 2:
1-32
Shervin Milani
July 12, 2023
Table 2: OEHHA’s Partial Risk and Hazard Estimates
Exposure Scenarios OEHHA risk OEHHA HI
Construction Worker 3.4E-6 6.8
Outdoor Worker 2.3E-5 1.9
Table Notes: Risk estimates are presented in scientific notation. For example, a cancer risk of 1 in a million (0.000001) is written as 1E−6. HI is the estimated hazard index. The modifier “partial” is in the title to indicate that some COPCs were omitted due to lack of statistical analysis.
OEHHA Both Leighton and OEHHA predicted construction worker risks below 1E-5 and outdoor worker risks exceeding 1E-5. Both Leighton and OEHHA predicted HIs above 1 for construction workers. OEHHA’s HI for outdoor workers exceeded 1. Risk drivers were arsenic, Arochlor 1248, tetrachloroethene, and naphthalene. OEHHA did not assess the metals that were rejected as COPCs because no statistics were supplied for these metals. Risk and hazard estimates would be higher if all the metals that were detected above background were included.
Risk-based Concentrations (RBCs)
Leighton’s Table 13 lists RBCs five metals five Arochlors, and six TPH ranges plus a background-based goal for arsenic. OEHHA has the following comments:
• OEHHA agrees that the RBCs for antimony, cobalt, hexavalent chromium, molybdenum, and the Arochlors yield risk estimates of 1E-5 or hazard quotients (HQs) of 1 when used as EPCs in a one-at-a-time forward calculation. But see comment below regarding additivity.
• The TPH RBCs yield HQs ranging from 0.41 to 1200. Only the RBC for TPH aliphatic high is less than 1.
• The construction worker risk estimates at the RBCs meet the target of 1E-5 only because of the shorter-than-usual exposure duration. If the standard exposure duration is used the RBC for hexavalent chromium would be 21 mg/kg.. • The Work Plan does not state what exposure metric (e.g. UCL or maximum) will be compared to the RBCs. This should be discussed with the Water Board. • Since the RBC for arsenic (10.63 mg/kg) is based on the 95th percentile of background, the 95th percentile of current and post-remedial arsenic concentrations should be the metric to be compared to the clean-up goal for comparison, not the UCL.
• The RBCs should be applied in an additive manner, i.e., the ratios of the exposure concentrations to the respective RBCs for all carcinogens and other 1-32
Shervin Milani
July 12, 2023
chemicals that may act in an additive manner should be added and the total compared to 1 (unity). An example follows:
Risk index = EPCa/RBCa + EPCb/RBCb + EPCn/RBCn
Risk index should be less than or equal to 1.
Hazard index = EPCa/RBCa + EPCb/RBCb + EPCn/RBCn
Hazard index should be less than or equal to 1.
• Lead is considered separately; it may be compared directly to the DTSC (2022) screening level of 500 mg/kg.
• Verification of post-remedial risk and hazards should be conducted in a manner similar to baseline risk assessment, i.e., the assessment should include all chemicals remaining on-site, not just those that were COPCs. Risk should be the cumulative risk from remaining concentrations of all carcinogens. The hazard index should be the combined HQs of all compounds that have the same target organ or the same mechanism of action.
Risk Management
The request notes that the USEPA lead RSL for protection of groundwater is 14 mg/kg, lower than the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 320 mg/kg Environmental Screening Level (ESL, SFBRWQCB, 2019) for direct exposure to soil for protection of human health. OEHHA defers to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding protection of groundwater. Leighton proposes to remove contaminated soil until the lead UCL concentration is 500 mg/kg or less. OEHHA agrees with this approach.
Leighton discusses risk management in Section 7.0 of Appendix B. OEHHA defers to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding risk management. 1-32
Shervin Milani
July 12, 2023
Conclusions
• OEHHA cannot support Leighton’s baseline risk assessment because it does not include all metals that were detected above background. Risk and hazard estimates would be higher if all the metals that were detected above background were included.
• RBCs will be needed for all metals detected above background. DTSC (2022) Note 3 screening levels may be used.
• Leighton should provide the basis for the reduced exposure duration for construction workers if this value is to be used in the verification assessment. • OEHHA cannot support Leighton’s RBCs for TPH.
• RBCs should be employed in an additive manner as noted above. • Verification of post-remedial risk and hazards should include all remaining chemicals, not just those that were COPCs and should be based on cumulative risk and hazard indices.
Reviewed by
Hristo Hristov, MD, PhD, MEnvSc
Staff Toxicologist
Carmen Milanes, M.P.H.
Chief, Climate Indicators and Site Assessment Section
References
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2015. Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual, California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, January 1994 (Revised October 2015) DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2019a. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number: 1. Recommended DTSC Default Exposure Factors for Use in Risk Assessment at California Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities, April 9.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2019b. Human Health Risk Assessment Note 10 – Toxicity Criteria. 25 February.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2022. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 3. DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs). May
7554-004acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
October 30, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Guillermo Arreola, Director
Community Development Department
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
Email: [email protected]
Re: Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse
Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046)
Dear Mr. Arreola and Ms. Marquez:
We are writing on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) to provide preliminary comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared by the City of South El Monte (“City”) for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (“Project”), proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”).
The Project would construct an approximately 156,877 square foot (“SF”) concrete tilt-up warehouse and 13 dock doors. Of the 156,877 SF, the Project would have 113,703 SF of warehouse space, 7,879 SF of retail use, 20,305 SF of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 SF of warehouse storage. The Project site is located at 2200, 2212, 2218, and 2226 Rosemead Boulevard in the northwestern portion of the City of South El Monte, Los Angeles County, California. The approximately 5.14-acre project site includes four parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 8102-039-029, 8102-039-030, 8102-039-031, and 8102-039-035). 2-1
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
We reviewed the IS/MND with the assistance of transportation expert Norm Marshall.1 The City must separately respond to these technical comments.
Based upon our review of the IS/MND and supporting documentation, the IS/MND’s project description is inaccurate, preventing meaningful review of the Project’s impacts. Further, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project would have potentially significant public health, air quality, energy, GHG emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities impacts that are not adequately mitigated by the mitigation proposed in the IS/MND. The City cannot approve the Project until the errors in the IS/MND are remedied by preparing an environmental impact report (“EIR”) which fully discloses and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant impacts.
We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later proceedings and hearings related to the Project.2
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
1 Mr. Marshall’s comments and curricula vitae and are attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Marshall Comments”). 2 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
2-1
cont.
2-2
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
I. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
The IS/MND does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include an accurate and complete Project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate. California courts have repeatedly held that “an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”3 CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.4 Without a complete project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus minimizing the project’s impacts and undermining meaningful public review.5 Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to obtain a complete and accurate project description.6
CEQA Guidelines section 15378 defines “project” to mean “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”7 “The term “project” refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental 3 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85– 89; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193. 4 14 CCR § 15124; see, Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 192-193. 5 Id.
6 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (“Sundstrom”) (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. 7 CEQA Guidelines § 15378.
2-2
cont.
2-3
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
agencies. The term project does not mean each separate governmental approval.”8 Courts have explained that a complete description of a project must “address not only the immediate environmental consequences of going forward with the project, but also all “reasonably foreseeable consequence[s] of the initial project.”9 “If a[n]…EIR…does not adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project, informed decision-making cannot occur under CEQA and the final EIR is inadequate as a matter of law.”10
A. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable
Warehouse Uses
The MND explains that the Project is proposed as a speculative warehouse without specific end uses or tenants,11 yet the IS/MND fails to describe or analyze the Project’s reasonably foreseeable end uses, in violation of CEQA. The IS/MND explains that, of the Project’s 156,877 SF, the Project would have 113,703 SF of warehouse space, 7,879 SF of retail use, 20,305 SF of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 SF of warehouse storage.12 However, the IS/MND states that “the retail and warehouse end users are unknown at this time.”13 In the absence of more specific information or restrictions on the types of retail and warehouse uses that will occur after Project buildout, the City has a duty to analyze the impacts of all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project site.14 Instead, the IS/MND limits its analysis to the least intensive categories of warehouse use, thereby omitting an analysis of impacts from common warehouse uses that would result in more severe air quality, transportation, energy and noise impacts.
Transportation expert Norm Marshall explains that warehouse trip generation rates and air quality impacts vary greatly by type of warehouse.15 In order to determine the trips generated by the proposed Project, the IS/MND utilizes statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual for the proposed Project’s land uses.16 The IS/MND 8 Id., § 15378(c).
9 Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 398 (emphasis added); see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 449-50. 10 Riverwatch v. Olivenhain Municipal Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 1186, 1201. 11 IS/MND, pg. 5. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311.
15 Marshall Comments, pg. 2.
16 IS/MND, Appendix A, Table 2, PDF pg. 5; Appendix F, pg. 18. 2-3
cont.
2-4
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
characterizes this Project as ITE land use code 150 (Warehousing).17 Mr. Marshall explains that this land use code is just one of many land use codes potentially applicable to the Project, and does not reflect all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project.18 The figure below shows other warehousing land use codes and compares trips generated by each land use.19
The IS/MND lacks evidence to support the City’s assumption that the other warehouse land use codes shown above would be inapplicable to the Project. Rather, it the opposite. The IS/MND lacks sufficient information about the Project’s end uses and configuration for the public and decisionmakers to exclude any of these end uses from its impact analysis. For example, the IS/MND states that “[t]he Project does not propose refrigeration as part of the warehouse operations,” but the IS/MND does not identify any conditions of approval or mitigation measures preventing cold storage uses. Cold storage is therefore a reasonably foreseeable use of the Project site. Similarly, there is no restriction prohibiting subsequent parcel hub or fulfillment center uses. The Project could therefore be used as a parcel hub 17 Id.
18 Marshall Comments, pg. 4.
19 Id. at 2.
1.40 1.71 1.81
2.12 4.63
6.44 1.71
Transload and
Short-Term
Storage
Warehouse
Warehousing Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
Cold Storage
Warehouse
Parcel Hub
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
DEIR
2-4
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
or fulfillment center warehouse – two highly common warehouse uses by large warehouse distributors such as Amazon, Walmart, and grocery chains – which would result in more intensive land uses and impacts than the “Warehouse” category analyzed in the IS/MND. Since the Project’s future uses are broadly described as warehouse and retail, CEQA requires the City to analyze and mitigate the impacts associated with all reasonably foreseeable warehouse and retail uses, including high-intensity uses like those outlined by Mr. Marshall.
Courts have held in situations such as this that “the identity of a tenant is irrelevant to CEQA review.”20 The court in Maintain Our Desert Environment v.
Town of Apple Valley explained that “land use entitlements such as conditional use permits and development approvals run with the land and do not belong to the permittee…. had [the developer] developed the Project and then held it out for sale to any interested buyer, no additional CEQA review would have been necessary for the new owner so long as the use was consistent with that that had already been approved.”21 Here, the project analyzed in the IS/MND is a Conditional Use Permit and Lot Merger to develop an 156,877 sf warehouse, which could be used for many potential warehousing end uses. Because the IS/MND fails to analyze the full range of uses that would be authorized under these entitlements, the IS/MND’s project description is inadequate.
The defects in the project description affect the IS/MND’s environmental impacts, as different types of warehousing have differing severities of environmental impacts. For example, Mr. Marshall explains that the land use code selected by the IS/MND would underestimate the number of car and truck trips generated by the Project. As shown above, the IS/MND applies a rate of 1.71 daily trips per 1000 sq. ft. of warehouse.22 The daily trips would be significantly higher if the Project includes cold storage uses or is developed as a parcel hub or fulfillment center. Mr. Marshall explains that whereas the ITE Warehouse category used in the IS/MND results in an estimated 89 daily truck trips, the Cold Storage Warehouse rate is estimated to generate daily 111.6 truck trips.23 By underestimating the overall trips generated by the Project, the IS/MND underestimates the Project’s health risk, air quality, GHG, and VMT impacts.
20 Am. Canyon Cmty. United for Responsible Growth v. City of Am. Canyon (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1074 (citing Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430, 443–449)). 21 Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 444. 22 Marshall Comments, pg. 2. 23 Marshall Comments, pg. 3.
2-4
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
The IS/MND’s assumption that the Project will include no cold storage uses results in underestimation of health risk, air quality, energy, GHG, and noise impacts. Cold storage generates more trips per square foot and has higher energy impacts due to the low temperatures required by the facility’s transport refrigeration units (“TRUs”) and on-site storage. TRUs are refrigeration systems powered by integral diesel engines.24 The refrigeration systems are used to control the environment of temperature-sensitive products transported in insulated trucks, trailers, shipping containers, or railcars. The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states that TRUs emit diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), fine particulate matter (“PM2.5”), oxides of nitrogen (“NOx”), and GHGs while in transit and during stationary operation at refrigerated warehouses or distribution centers, grocery stores, seaport facilities, intermodal railyards, and other locations of operation.
CARB explains that communities near facilities where TRUs operate bear a disproportionate health burden:
PM2.5 pollution contributes to more fatalities than other air pollutants and can lodge deep in the lungs or pass through the lungs to enter the blood stream and affect the heart, brain, and other organs. Adverse health effects from long-term exposure to PM2.5 pollution include increased risk of heart attacks and heart disease, impaired lung development in children, the development and exacerbation of asthma, and premature death. NOx is a precursor to ozone, which can cause irritation and damage lung tissue, worsen asthma and chronic illnesses including obstructive pulmonary disease and reduce lung function.25
CARB also explains that TRUs’ emissions of GHGs contribute towards climate change,26 and that TRUs generate noise impacts: “TRU operations produce noise that can be problematic when deliveries that often occur late evening or early morning are near residential neighborhoods, hotels, hospitals, and elder care facilities… One study conducted by LSA Associates found that a diesel-powered TRU operating at high idle produces an A-weighted decibel (dBA) noise rating of 104 dBA, while a diesel truck at idle produces a noise rating of 96 dBA.”27 In the California Attorney General’s (“AG”) guidance for warehouse projects, the AG recommends that, if the agency intends to prohibit cold storage, unless a developer adopts mitigation measures limiting cold storage impacts, the developer 24 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 1, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
10/CARB%202022%20TRU%20Technology%20Assessment%2010-14-22.pdf. 25 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 26 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 27 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 17-18. 2-4
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
should record a covenant on the title of the underlying property to ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.28 No such mitigation or land use covenants are described in the IS/MND. If the City intends to prohibit cold storage during Project operations, the City should include such title restrictions for this Project. Alternatively, the City must prepare an EIR that analyzes and mitigates impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable cold storage uses and all other reasonably foreseeable intensive warehousing uses at the Project site.
B. The IS/MND Is Unclear Regarding the Project’s Hours of Operation
The IS/MND is internally inconsistent regarding whether truck movement, loading, and unloading activities would be authorized between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The IS/MND states:
The retail and warehouse end users are unknown at this time. The hours of operation would be determined by the lessee; however, at this time, the hours are proposed to be seven days a week and operate 24 hours a day. However, all on-site truck movement and loading and unloading activities at the proposed loading docks, which are located behind electronic gates, would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.29
This statement is contradicted by Mitigation Measure (“MM”) NOI-1, which states that the nighttime prohibition of onsite truck activities is optional:
Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the City of South El Monte Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that either: (1) require the installation of a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site; or (2) prohibit truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.30
28 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 9, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf (“Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.”). 29 IS/MND, pg. 5; see pg. 6 (“As previously noted, the gates would be closed between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.”).
30 IS/MND, pg. 97.
2-4
cont.
2-5
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
The IS/MND is internally inconsistent because it states that truck movement, loading, and unloading would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM31 while also stating that such activities would be authorized if a masonry wall is constructed. Clarity on whether nighttime truck activities are proposed by the Project is necessary because the noise study shows that nighttime operations would result in significant noise impacts unless mitigation is adopted.32 C. Use of Back-Up Generators is a Reasonably Foreseeable Consequence of the Project that the IS/MND Fails to Describe The IS/MND fails to disclose that the Project would include back-up generators in its discussion of the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. The IS/MND’s CalEEMod analysis of criteria air pollutants fails to include emissions from backup generators,33 and the IS/MND’s qualitative discussion of health risk impacts fails to disclose use of back-up generators.34 The use of backup generators is a reasonably foreseeable activity during Project operation due to the prevalence of power safety shutoffs, extreme heat events, and other emergencies which lead to temporary losses of power.
In East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland,35 the Court of Appeal upheld an EIR’s analysis of emissions from backup generators. The EIR’s analysis assumed that generators would operate for 50 hours of testing and maintenance annually, while allocating no time for actual emergency use. In discussing the lead agency’s duty to analyze backup generator emissions, the Court stated that “if the annual need for emergency generator use is reasonably foreseeable, the EIR was not entitled to disregard such use merely because it would occur at unpredictable times.”36 The Court explained that use of a generator was reasonably foreseeable because, “[a]s noted in the EIR, some parts of the Bay Area are subject to predictable, sustained power outages undertaken to reduce the risk of fire.”37 Thus, “[t]he EIR was required to make neither a generally applicable nor a worst-case assumption; rather it was required to make a reasonable estimate of likely annual use of the generators at the project site.”38
31 IS/MND, pg. 5.
32 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. iii, iv.
33 IS/MND, Appendix A, PDF pg. 160.
34 IS/MND, pg. 40-41; Appendix A, pg. 56.
35 (2023) 889 Cal. App. 5th 1226.
36 Id. at 1252.
37 Id. at 1253.
38 Id.
2-5
2-6
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Here, as in East Oakland Stadium Alliance, backup generator emissions are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project due to increasingly common Public Safety Power Shutoff (“PSPS”) events and extreme heat events (“EHE”).
EHEs are defined as periods where in the temperatures throughout California exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.39 From January 2019 through December 2019, Southern California Edison reported 158 of their circuits underwent a PSP event.40 In Los Angeles County, two circuits had 4 PSPS events during that period, lasting an average of 35 to 38 hours. The total duration of the PSPS events lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. According to the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) de-energization report41 in October 2019, there were almost 806 PSPS events that impacted almost 973,000 customers (~7.5% of households in California) of which ~854,000 of them were residential customers. The California Air Resources Board estimates that with 973,000 customers impacted by PSPS events in October 2019, approximately 125,000 back-up generators were used by customers to provide electricity during power outages.42 The widespread use of back-up generators to adapt to PSPS and EHE events suggests that back-up generators are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project. In addition to emergency use, any generators included in the Project would be operated for routine testing.
Generators can emit criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants. This equipment commonly relies on fuels such as natural gas or diesel,43 and thus can significantly impact public health through DPM emissions.44 39 Governor of California. 2021. Proclamation of a state of emergency. June 17, 2021. 40 SCAQMD. 2020. Proposed Amendment To Rules (PARS) 1110.2, 1470, and 1472. Dated December 10, 2020. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1110.2/1110- 2_1470_1472/par1110-2_1470_wgm_121020.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 41 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/deenergization/ as cited in CARB, 2020. Potential Emission Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage associated With Power Outage.
42 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps. 43 SCAQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators (“Most of the existing emergency backup generators use diesel as fuel”).
44 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps (showing that generators commonly rely on gasoline or diesel, and that use of generators during power outages results in excess emissions); California Air Resources Board, Use of Back-up Engines for Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events (October 25, 2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/use-back-engines-electricity-generation-during-publicsafety-power-shutoff (“When electric utilities de-energize their electric lines, the demand for back-up 2-6
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
This equipment can emit significant amounts of NOx, sulfur dioxides (“SO2”), particulate matter (“PM10”), carbon dioxide (“CO2”), carbon monoxide (“CO”), volatile organic compounds (“VOC”), particulate matter less than 10 microns (“PM10”), PM less than 2.5 microns (“PM2.5”), and air toxins such as DPM.45 the IS/MND’s omission of an impact analysis for an onsite generator system thus results in an underestimation of the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts.46
II. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.47 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment, but also informed self-government.”48 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”49 power increases. This demand for reliable back-up power has health impacts of its own. Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer-causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.
Much of the back-up power produced during PSPS events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California’s 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts)”).
45 University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering—Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Air Quality Implications Of Backup Generators In California, (March 2005), pg. 8, available at
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=84c8463118e4813a117db3d768151 a8622c4bf6b; South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators (“Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from diesel-fired emergency engines are 200 to 600 times greater, per unit of electricity produced, than new or controlled existing central power plants fired on natural gas.
Diesel-fired engines also produce significantly greater amounts of fine particulates and toxics emissions compared to natural gas fired equipment.”), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators#Fact2. 46 Clark Comments, pg. 5. 47 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21000; CEQA Guidelines, § 15002. 48 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (“Goleta Valley”) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564, internal citations omitted.
49 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. 2-6
2-7
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
CEQA’s purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.50 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.51
In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but:
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.52
Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.”53 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration.54 An agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.55
50 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21100
51 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080, subd. (d), 21082.2, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subd. (k)(3), 15064, subds. (f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (“Laurel Heights II”) (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150- 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (“Quail Botanical”) (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601- 1602. 52 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5 (emphasis added). 53 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320.
54 Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754 55 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street v.
City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 (“Friends of B Street”) (“If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a 2-7
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
“Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”56 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining whether an EIR is required, the lead agency is required to apply the principles set forth in Section 15064, subdivision (f):
[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.57
Furthermore, CEQA documents, including EIRs and MNDs, must mitigate significant impacts through measures that are “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.”58 Deferring formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies is generally impermissible.59 Mitigation measures adopted after Project approval deny the public the opportunity to comment on the Project as modified to mitigate impacts.60 If identification of specific mitigation measures is impractical until a later stage in the Project, specific performance criteria must be articulated and further approvals must be made contingent upon meeting these performance criteria.61 Courts have held that simply requiring a project applicant to obtain a future report and then comply with the report’s recommendations is insufficient to meet the standard for properly deferred mitigation.62
With respect to this Project, the IS/MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The IS/MND fails to adequately disclose, investigate, and analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts, and fails to provide substantial evidence to conclude that impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. Because the negative declaration, because it could be ‘fairly argued’ that the project might have a significant environmental impact”).
56 CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).
57 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5.
58 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).
59 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309; Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.
60 Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1393; Quail Botanical, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1604, fn. 5.
61 Id.
62 Id.
2-7
cont.
2-8
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
IS/MND lacks basic information regarding the Project’s potentially significant impacts, the IS/MND’s conclusion that the Project will have a less than significant impact on the environment is unsupported.63 Moreover, substantial evidence shows that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts that are not reduced to less than significant levels with the mitigation measures included in the IS/MND.
Therefore, a fair argument can be made that the Project may cause significant impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.
A. The IS/MND Fails to Disclose and Mitigate Significant Health Risk Impacts
Project construction and operation would generate DPM, a type of toxic air contaminant (“TAC”).64 DPM would be emitted during construction by heavy equipment and diesel trucks, and likely during operations by a diesel backup generator or other diesel-fueled stationary equipment.65 DPM has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. The Project’s emissions of DPM would impact sensitive receptors near the Project site, including residents of a mobile home park directly south of the Project site. The IS/MND fails to analyze and mitigate health risk impacts from construction activities or evaluate the combined lifetime risk of exposure to both the Project’s construction and operational TAC emissions.
CEQA requires analysis of human health impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) provides that the City is required to find a project will have a significant impact on the environment and prepare an EIR if the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings.66 The Supreme Court has also explained that CEQA requires the lead agency to disclose the health consequences that result from exposure to a project’s air emissions.67 Courts have held that an environmental review document must disclose a project’s potential health risks to a degree of specificity that would allow the public to make the correlation between the project’s impacts and adverse effects to human health.68 63 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5.
64 SCAQMD, Classification of Diesel PM as a Carcinogen, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/toxic-hot-spots-ab-2588/iws-facilities/dice/dice-b2; OEHHA, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust (May 21, 2001),
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 65 Id. 66 PRC § 21083(b)(3), (d). 67 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523. 68 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 2-8
cont.
2-9
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, the court found that the EIR’s description of health risks were insufficient and that after reading them, “the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin.”69 Likewise, in Sierra Club, the California Supreme Court held that the EIR’s discussion of health impacts associated with exposure to the named pollutants was too general and the failure of the EIR to indicate the concentrations at which each pollutant would trigger the identified symptoms rendered the report inadequate.70 Some connection between air quality impacts and their direct, adverse effects on human health must be made. As the Court explained, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.”71 CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.72
For development projects like this one, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) risk assessment guidelines also recommend a formal health risk analysis (“HRA”) for short-term construction exposures to TACs lasting longer than 2 months and exposures from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project.73 In an HRA, lead agencies must first quantify the concentration released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern.74 Following that analysis, then the City can make a determination of the relative significance of the emissions. Here, the IS/MND states that exposure to TACs would be significant if it would result in an incremental cancer risk of 10 in one million or greater.75 Here, the IS/MND fails to quantify the magnitude of TACs that would be emitted by the Project’s operations and construction. The IS/MND also fails to 69 Id. at 1220.
70 Sierra Club, at 521.
71 Id. at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514–515.
72 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522. 73 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Risk Assessment Guidelines:
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015 (OEHHA 2015), Section 8.2.10: Cancer Risk Evaluation of Short Term Projects, pp. 8-17/18; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0. 74 Id. 75 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 25.
2-9
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
quantify sensitive receptors’ exposure to TACs and whether significance thresholds would be exceeded. As such, the MND fails to adequately connect the Project’s emissions and their direct, adverse effects on human health.76 The IS/MND reasons that health risks from exposure to TACs emitted during operations would be less than significant because “[t]he most recent Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Land Use Projects prepared by CAPCOA (July 2009) recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).”77 The IS/MND states that because the Project is estimated to generate 89 truck trips a day, “significant TAC impacts from the project-related operational DPM sources are not anticipated and no significant long-term operations-related TAC impacts from the proposed project to nearby sensitive receptors would occur.”78
This reasoning is not supported by substantial evidence. First, as explained by Mr. Marshall, the Project could foreseeably generate more than 89 daily truck trips, depending on the warehouse’s ultimate uses. As shown herein, the 89-truck trip estimate assumes that the Project would be used for a relatively low intensity warehousing use (ITE 150). Mr. Marshall shows that the Project’s warehouse component could result in more than 100 daily truck trips if different ITE land use codes are applied.79 And because there is no restriction on cold storage at the Project site, the Project may generate over 40 TRUs. Thus, the Project’s criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions may be substantially higher than assumed in the IS/MND.
Second, the IS/MND’s focus on daily truck trips ignores that the Project would foreseeably include other sources of TAC emissions. Emissions from a backup generator and fire pump would combine with truck trip emissions to result in potentially significant health risks to nearby sensitive receptors.
Third, the IS/MND fails to properly apply the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) guidance cited in the IS/MND. CAPCOA’s siting guidance states:
76 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 77 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 43.
78 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 43.
79 Marshall Comments, pg. 2-3.
2-9
cont.
2-10
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.80
The IS/MND purports to follow the CAPCOA guidance, but fails to conduct the second half of the CAPCOA’s recommended analysis by failing to take into account existing distribution centers. As will be discussed in more detail below, the IS/MND fails to identify cumulative projects or otherwise characterize the Project’s combined effects with other industrial projects in the area. The IS/MD also fails to consider the location of the Project’s entry and exit points in relation to sensitive receptors. As shown below, the Project’s loading docks would be located near the southern border of the Project site.81 Trucks would access these loading docks via a driveway along the southern property line. Directly across the southern border of the Project site are mobile homes.
80 CAPCOA, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, Table 2, Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities, available at
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/glsdzpx3/capcoa_hra_lu_guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 81 Excerpt of Figure 6, Site Plan, IS/MND, PDF pg. 24. 2-10
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
By locating the loading docks and a driveway by the southern property line, emissions from truck idling and movement would be generated nearby residential sensitive receptors. Per the CAPCOA siting guidance, this Project’s configuration would result in heightened health risk impacts. The Project’s configuration is therefore a factor justifying preparation of an HRA pursuant to the guidance relied upon by the City.
Regarding exposure to construction TACs, the IS/MND states that “[g]iven the temporary and short-term construction schedule (approximately 12 months), the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure as a result of project construction.”82 This reasoning ignores that OEHHA guidance explains that health risks from construction activities lasting for as little as two months can result in significant health risk impacts. The Project’s one-year construction schedule exceeds OEHHA’s two-month threshold for preparing an HRA. OEHHA’s guidance explains that exposure to TACs is a function of the breathing rate, the exposure frequency, and the concentration of a substance in the air.83 The exposure 82 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 30.
83 OEHHA, Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, pg. 5-23.
2-10
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
frequency and concentration of TACs near sensitive receptors increase the closer construction activities occur to sensitive receptors.84 Because emissions of TACs during construction would occur across the property line from residences, sensitive receptors’ exposure to TACs is potentially significant.
The IS/MND states that Project construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (“LSTs”).85 But analysis of LSTs does not address DPM and other TACs that would be emitted by the Project.86 LSTs are based on the number of pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project that would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts.
But LSTs only apply to four criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs do not apply to DPM and other TACs, which contain carcinogenic compounds not found in criteria pollutants, and thus do not disclose the magnitude of the Project’s health impacts from exposure to the Project’s air emissions. Thus, the IS/MND’s analysis of LSTs does not answer the question required by CEQA Appendix G as to whether the Project would “expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations”87 and is no substitute for the IS/MND’s failure to analyze health risk impacts from exposure to TACs.
The IS/MND thus fails to meet CEQA’s information and analytical requirements, and the Project’s health risk impacts remain potentially significant and unmitigated. These potentially significant impacts must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR.
B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
84 Id. at 1-3 (“The process by which Districts identify priority facilities for risk assessment involves consideration of potency, toxicity, quantity of emissions, and proximity to sensitive receptors such as hospitals, daycare centers, schools, work-sites, and residences.”). 85 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. iv.
86 SCAQMD, Localized Significance Thresholds, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds; SCAQMD, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (June 2003, revised June 2008), available at www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 87 CEQA Appendix G, III(d). 2-10
cont.
2-11
2-12
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
An EIR must evaluate a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.”88 This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental impacts “viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”89 Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.”90
1. The IS/MND’s Cumulative Air Emissions Analysis Does
Not Comply with CEQA or Attorney General Warehouse
Guidance
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the significance of the Project’s cumulative air quality emissions. The IS/MND asserts that, under South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) guidance, that a project would not have cumulatively-considerable impacts if its individual emissions of criteria air pollutant that fall below SCAQMD’s threshold for individual projects.91 Similarly, the IS/MND provides that projects’ health risk impacts that exceed the projectspecific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable, and vice versa.92
This reasoning contravenes CEQA because projects that do not have significant individual impacts may nonetheless create significant cumulative impacts.93 In addition, a proper cumulative impact analysis considers whether a project has a cumulatively considerable impact in the context of a particular existing cumulative impact.94
88 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a).
89 Id., §§ 15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
90 Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.
91 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 41.
92 Id.
93 See Kings Cty. Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720. 94 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15065, subd. (a)(3). (“The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”) 2-13
2-14
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
In People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, the Attorney General’s petition for writ of mandate challenged an MND that erroneously applied SCAQMD guidance in the same way as the instant IS/MND.95 The petition explained:
[T]he MND’s cumulative air quality impact analysis does not account for—or even acknowledge—the multitude of other warehouses near the Project.
Rather than consider the environmental setting within which the Project will be situated, the MND simply states that the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions because the Project’s individual air quality impacts will be less than significant. The MND even applies this reasoning to its analysis of health impacts from localized emissions, despite making no attempt to determine or disclose the severity of the existing health impacts from localized emissions in the community.96 The Attorney General further explained that merely citing to SCAQMD guidance does not justify a failure to analyze a Project’s cumulative impacts:
The MND cites Appendix D of an August 2003 white paper published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) entitled “White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution” (“2003 SCAQMD White Paper”). To the extent that the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper asserts that any project with less than significant individual air quality impacts also necessarily has less than significant cumulative air quality impacts, it is inconsistent with CEQA for at least the reasons stated above. Moreover, the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper lacks substantial evidence to support such a contention, and thus the MND’s reliance on it violates CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.7, subd. (c).) The MND further violated CEQA by failing to provide substantial evidence to support its reliance on the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper, Appendix D as “guidance.” (Ibid.) Finally, even if the MND’s reliance on the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper were proper and supported by substantial evidence, the MND did not consider other evidence—such as public comments and the existence of many other sources of pollution near the Project site—showing that the Project could have a 95 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/casedocuments/2021/20210723_docket-CIVSB2121829_petition-for-writ-of-mandate.pdf. 96 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, pg. 9, paragraph 32.
2-14
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
significant cumulative air quality impact. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (b).) [emphasis added]97
The Attorney General’s litigation resulted in a settlement which requires compliance with an ordinance adopted on April 12, 2022, that establishes sustainability standards for warehouses in Fontana, including standards intended to address cumulative air quality impacts. For example, the standards include requirements that rooftop solar panels supply 100% of power for non-refrigerated portions of facilities with buildings over 400,000 square feet, trees in automobile parking areas, zero emission motorized operational equipment, other equipment electrification requirements, and solar-ready buildings roofs.98 The City of Fontana’s decision to suspend its erroneous reliance on SCAQMD’s drop-in-thebucket approach and to address the cumulative impacts of warehouse projects in the City as a component of its settlement with the Attorney General’s office reflects an approach consistent with CEQA. The Fontana settlement also demonstrates that there is feasible mitigation available to reduce cumulative air quality impacts from warehouse projects, in compliance with CEQA.
Here, the IS/MND’s analysis fails to account for health risks resulting from emissions of TACs from existing industrial development in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The IS/MND acknowledges that there are multiple existing and proposed warehouses in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, but does not describe these projects or consider them in its analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts.99 The IS/MND discloses the CalEnviroScreen scores for the census tract, which reflect the census tract’s pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state, but fails to account for this information in its cumulative impacts analysis. This census tract scores 78.4 for particulate matter and 91.6 for DPM.100 These are high scores that demonstrate that the Project’s emissions of air pollutants would contribute to cumulative impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.101 The IS/MND’s cumulative impacts analysis violates CEQA by failing to take this context into account.
97 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, pg. 13, paragraph 49.
98 Id., Stipulation For Entry Of Final Judgment On Consent, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/20220414_docketCIVSB2121605-CIVSB2121829_stipulation.pdf. 99 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 41 (“There are a number of cumulative projects in the project area that have not yet been built or are currently under construction”). 100 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. PDF pg. 163-164.
101 Id. (The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.). 2-14
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
In addition to violating CEQA, the SCAQMD approach used in the IS/MND also directly conflicts with the recent Attorney General guidance document setting forth best practices for evaluating the environmental impacts of warehouse projects like this one under CEQA.102 With respect to cumulative air quality and GHG emissions analysis, the Attorney General’s guidance states that best practices include “[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold [emphasis added].”103 The IS/MND also fails to note that SCAQMD’s cumulative impacts significance thresholds, adopted in 2003, are being revised to reflect current conditions.104 The updates are statedly being prepared in response to recent CEQA cases such as People of the State of California v. City of Fontana.105 The updated cumulative impacts significance thresholds will reflect projects’ existing background MATES cancer risk and additional criteria such as whether the project would generate a high volume of diesel-fueled trucks.106
In sum, the IS/MND’s cumulative air quality impacts analysis does not comply with CEQA. The City must prepare an EIR that properly evaluates and mitigates such impacts.
C. The IS/MND Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
The IS/MND does not include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project. The IS/MND concludes that operational energy impacts of the Project would be less than significant because the buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance 102 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf . 103 Id., pg. 7. 104 See e.g., http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-3_20230124.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 105 San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2121829; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) pg. 6 106 SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm4_20230602_final.pdf?sfvrsn=16; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting #5, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (March 20, 2024) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/documents/wgm-5-20240320-final.pdf?sfvrsn=20. 2-15
2-16
2-17
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
with the State’s Title 24 guidelines and regulations.107 However, compliance with Title 24 regulations alone does not support a conclusion that energy impacts are less than significant, and the IS/MND does not sufficiently consider energy conservation measures like solar facilities, use of alternate fuel sources, or passive energy efficiency measures to ensure the Project’s energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. This lack of analysis violates CEQA.
CEQA requires an environmental document to discuss mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts, including “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.”108 The CEQA Guidelines require discussion of energy conservation measures when relevant, and provide examples in Appendix F:109
1) Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. 2) The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste.
3) The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
4) Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5) Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
Courts have rejected CEQA documents that fail to include adequate analysis investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for a project.110 In California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”),111 the Court of Appeal reviewed an EIR for a shopping center on undeveloped agricultural land. Similar to the IS/MND here, the EIR in CCEC concluded that, due to the proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 guidelines and regulations, the project would be expected to have a less-thansignificant impact regarding the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. But the lead agency’s EIR did not include discussion regarding the different renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project. The Court held “the City's EIRs failed to comply with the requirements of 107 IS/MND, pg. 50.
108 Pub. Resources Code, § 21100(b)(3); Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 930. 109 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”). 110 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256; Spring Valley Lake Ass’n v.
City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91. 111 (2014) 225 CA4th 173. 2-17
cont.
2-18
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Appendix F to the Guidelines by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.”112 The lead agency argued that compliance with the Building Code sufficed to address energy impact concerns for the project.113 But the Court explained:
Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of a new commercial construction, it does not address many of the considerations required under Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines… These considerations include whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope. Here, a requirement that Gateway II comply with the Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of the project.114
The Supreme Court of California agreed with the CCEC court’s decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer, holding that even projects that find a less-than-significant energy impact must “discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project.”115 In Save Lake Tahoe, the Court considered an EIR for a land use specific plan and rezoning to permit residential and commercial development and preserve forest land near Truckee and Lake Tahoe. The EIR did not consider whether it was feasible to power the project on 100 percent renewable electrical energy or some lesser percentage, nor evaluate strategies for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, increasing reliance on renewable resources, reducing peak loads, and reducing the impacts of relying on remote generation facilities. The lead agency reasoned that this analysis was not required because energy impacts would be less than significant. Citing CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, subdivision (b) and the decision in CCEC, the Court held that when an EIR analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project. The Court found that the EIR violated CEQA for not discussing whether the project could increase its reliance on renewable energy sources to meet its energy demand.
Here, the IS/MND lacks basic analysis of energy consumption measures in violation of CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The IS/MND fails to analyze the feasibility of onsite solar facilities, such as rooftop, parking lot, or ground-level solar 112 Id. at 213.
113 Id. at 210, 211. 114 CECC (2014) 225 CA4th 173, 213. 115 (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167–68.
2-18
cont.
2-19
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
photovoltaics. This analysis must address considerations such as the technical and economic feasibility of installing solar facilities on the Project site, the potential size of the Project’s solar zone, and the potential magnitude of mitigation provided by installing solar facilities.
The IS/MND also fails to evaluate the extent to which mobile source energy consumption could be reduced during Project operations through electric vehicle charging infrastructure (above what is required by existing regulations).
The IS/MND’s discussion of construction energy conservation measures also violates CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The IS/MND fails to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
In sum, the IS/MND’s energy analysis fails adequately analyze measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, and fails to meaningfully address Appendix F’s considerations of whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope.116 This analysis must be provided in an EIR.
D. The IS/MND Fails to Fully Mitigate the Project’s Significant VMT Impact
The IS/MND states that the Project is anticipated to generate 16.4 (actually
16.5)117 VMT per worker, which exceeds the City-established threshold of 15.83 VMT per worker.118 The IS/MND states that MM TRANS-1 would reduce the Project’s VMT impact to a less than significant level (i.e., 15.80 VMT per worker).119 MM TRANS-1 calls for implementation of a Commute Trip Reduction Program (which is measure T-5 in the CAPCOA Handbook).120
116 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256, 264. 117 Mr. Marshall explained that IS/MND Appendix F correctly shows that the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool shows that the project would result in 16.5 VMT per worker per day, but the number is incorrectly reported as 16.4 VMT per worker per day in the body of the MND. Marshall Comments, pg. 1.
118 IS/MND, pg. 104. 119 Id.
120 CAPCOA) publication Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (Final Draft, December 2021). 2-19
cont.
2-20
2-21
2-22
2-23
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Mr. Marshall explains that this measure would not reduce VMT impacts to a less-than-significant level.121 The CAPCOA Handbook states that Measure (T-5) can reduce employee commute VMT by up to 4.0%. However, the IS/MND’s reliance on the maximum 4.0% reduction is unsupported because Measure (T-5) would not apply to Project workers during night shifts, resulting in lower reductions.122 Moreover, even assuming the maximum reduction, Mr. Marshall shows that a 4.0% reduction reduces VMT to 15.84 per worker per day, which still exceeds the threshold value of 15.8.123 Therefore, VMT remains significant and unmitigated.
Additional mitigation must be proposed in an EIR to reduce the Project’s VMT to less than significant levels.
E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate
Potentially Significant Noise Impacts
1. The IS/MND’s Noise Significance Thresholds Are
Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the Project would cause a significant noise impact if it would result in “[g]eneration of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.”124 The IS/MND violates this requirement by failing to correctly apply the noise standards in the municipal code.
The IS/MND states that “[c]onstruction noise is regulated within City of South El Monte Municipal Code Section 8.20.030(D).”125 Section 8.20.030(D) prohibits nighttime operation of construction equipment resulting in noise disturbances.126 The IS/MND incorrectly states that this is the only limitation applicable to construction noise, but Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code sets forth standards applying to all sources of noise:
121 Marshall Comments, pg. 4. 122 Id. 123 Id. 124 IS/MND, pg. 25. 125 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 29. 126 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 16 (“No person shall operate or cause or authorize the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across the real property line of an adjacent or nearby property developed entirely or partially for residential use.”)
2-23
cont.
2-24
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased or occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
b. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus five dbA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
c. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus ten dbA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
d. The exterior noise limit plus fifteen dbA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus twenty dbA for any period of time.
The IS/MND states that these noise limits only apply to stationary noise,127 but this interpretation conflicts with the plain language of the code. Section
8.20.020 does not include language limiting its provisions to stationary noise, and Section 8.20.030(D) does not contain language stating that it is the only limit on construction noise. The code is properly read as imposing a prohibition on nighttime construction resulting in noise disturbances, as well as imposing limits on noise generated by daytime construction activities. Because the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s construction noise impacts to the thresholds in Section 8.20.020, the IS/MND fails evaluate whether noise would exceed standards established in the local noise ordinance, as required by the CEQA Guidelines.
The IS/MND’s reliance on Section 8.20.030 as a significant threshold also fails to meet CEQA’s requirement that lead agencies analyze the increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project.”128 California courts have clearly held that “the lead agency should consider both the increase in noise level and the absolute noise level associated with a project”.129 The courts have held that reliance 127 Appendix E, pg. 30 (“[a]s shown above, the project is exempt from the stationary noise ordinance standards presented in Tables 5 and 6 as long as it is in compliance with the hours outlined in Section 83.20.030(D).”).
128 Id., Appendix E, pg. 30; Section 8.20.030(D).
129 Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 733; see King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 894 (citing Keep Our Mountains Quiet).
2-24
cont.
2-25
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
on a maximum noise level as the sole threshold of significance for noise impacts violates CEQA because it fails to consider whether the magnitude of changes in noise levels is significant.130 In Keep our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara,131 neighbors of a wedding venue sued over the County of Santa Clara’s failure to prepare an EIR for a proposed project to allow use permits for wedding and other party events at a residential property abutting an open space preserve.
Neighbors and their noise expert contended that previous events at the facility had caused significant noise impacts that reverberated in neighbors’ homes and disrupted the use and enjoyment of their property.132 Similar to the City’s thresholds in this case, the County’s EIR relied on the noise standards set forth in its noise ordinance as its thresholds for significant noise exposure from the project, deeming any increase to be insignificant so long as the absolute noise level did not exceed those standards.133 The Court examined a long line of CEQA cases which have uniformly held that conformity with land use regulations is not conclusive of whether or not a project has significant noise impacts134 in holding that the County’s reliance on the project’s compliance with noise regulations did not constitute substantial evidence supporting the County’s finding of no significant impacts.135
In King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern,136 the Court of Appeal cited Keep our Mountains Quiet and decisions cited therein when it rejected the use of a single “absolute noise level” threshold of significance (construction and operational noise impacts were only deemed significant if they exceeded 65 dBA CNEL) on the grounds that the sole use of such a threshold fails to consider the magnitude or severity of increases in noise levels attributable to the project in different environments. The Court explained the lead agency failed to “refer to evidence showing why the magnitude of an increase was irrelevant in determining the significance of a change in noise.”137
130 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC, 45 Cal.App.5th at 865.
131 Keep our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714. 132 Id. at 724.
133 Id. at 732.
134 Id., citing Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1338; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881–882; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1416 (project’s effects can be significant even if “they are not greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan”); Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354, (“CEQA nowhere calls for evaluation of the impacts of a proposed project on an existing general plan”).
135 Id. at 732-734; see also King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 893, as modified on denial of rehearing (Mar. 20, 2020). 136 King and Gardiner Farms, LLC, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 814. 137 Id. at 894. 2-25
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Here, the IS/MND fails to meet CEQA’s requirement that the lead agency consider the increase in noise level. As in King and Gardiner Farms, the IS/MND fails to refer to any evidence showing why the increase in noise over ambient levels is irrelevant to establishing the significance of a noise impact. Per Keep our Mountains Quiet, conformity with the City’s noise ordinance and general plan is not conclusive of whether a project has significant noise impacts. An EIR must be prepared that applies legally adequate noise thresholds.
2. The Project’s Construction Noise Would Be Potentially Significant
The Project’s construction activities would generate noise in excess of standards in Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code, as well as result in a significant increase over ambient levels. In Table 12, shown below, the IS/MND applies the standards of Section 8.20.020 to the receptor land uses near the Project site.138
According to the table above, the daytime noise standard for the mobile home park (Receptor #4 in the table above) is 55 dBA. The table shows that the existing 138 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 36.
2-25
cont.
2-26
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
ambient noise level is 54 dBA. Table 11 in Appendix E of the IS/MND shows the noise levels generated by the Project’s construction.139 As shown above, the noise levels generated by the Project’s construction would exceed the 55 dBA threshold for the mobile home park. These exceedances would occur during each phase of the Project’s construction. These exceedances of the standards in Section 8.20.020 are significant impacts requiring disclosure and mitigation in an EIR.
The noise levels shown in Table 11 would also result in a significant increase over ambient levels. The 54 dBA existing ambient would be exceeded by approximately 20 dBA during demolition, grading, and building construction, 14 dBA during paving, and 7 dBA during architectural coating. Increases of this magnitude would be significant impacts, as the FTA Manual states that “[o]n average, each A-weighted sound level increase of 10 dB corresponds to an 139 Id. at 35.
2-26
cont.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
approximate doubling of subjective loudness.”140 Further, Figure 3-6 of the FTA Manual presents data from case studies showing that reactions to increases in noise between 5 to 10 dBA above existing levels vary from “widespread complaints” to “threats of legal action.”141 Increases in noise of 20 dBA over existing levels typically results in “vigorous action.” An EIR must be prepared that acknowledges and mitigates this significant noise increase.
F. The Project May Result in Potentially Significant Public Utilities Impacts.
Under CEQA, a public utilities impact is considered significant if a project would “[r]equire or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.”142 The IS/MND states that no off-site water line construction or upsizing of either the existing 6-inch or 10-inch water mains in Rosemead Boulevard and Rush Street would be required to provide water or fire protection service to the Project.143 But this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because the IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s fire flow requirement or the ability of existing infrastructure to supply adequate fire flow.
Without an evaluation of these factors, this public utility impact remains unanalyzed and potentially significant.
III. CONCLUSION
The City lacks substantial evidence to find that the Project will have less than significant impacts. Moreover, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project’s impacts may be significant and unmitigated. Due to the IS/MND’s deficiencies, the City cannot conclude that the Project’s impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level.
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR be prepared if there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of 140 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pg. 206, available at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. 141 Id. at 18, Figure 3-6 (Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment) 142 IS/MND, pg. 50.
143 IS/MND, pg. 7, 112.
2-26
cont.
2-27
2-28
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial.144 As discussed in detail above, there is a fair argument based on substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant adverse impacts not identified in the IS/MND.
We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA by withdrawing the IS/MND and preparing an EIR to address the issues raised in this preliminary comment letter. This is the only way the City and the public can ensure the Project’s significant environmental impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels.
Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachment
APM:acp
144 CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1).
2-28
cont.
EXHIBIT A
1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]
October 28, 2024
Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard
Dear Mr. Marshall,
I have reviewed trip generation, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of the City of South El Monte Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed warehouse project at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard dated October 2024 (“MND”). I make the following findings:
1) Project trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed. 2) Truck trip generation also could be significantly higher than assumed. In particular, it may be higher than the 100 trucks per day threshold for toxic air contaminants (“TAC”) analysis.
Therefore, TAC analysis should either be done now, or prior to occupancy after more is known about the warehouse operations if necessary.
3) The MND states that the proposed project would result in a significant VMT impact without mitigation.
4) MND Appendix F correctly shows that the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool shows that the project would result in 16.5 VMT per worker per day, but the number is incorrectly reported as 16.4 VMT per worker per day in the body of the MND. 5) With the higher correct number, 16.5, the proposed VMT mitigation Measure T-5, Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary), is insufficient to reduce project VMT to the required threshold, and additional VMT mitigation is required. 2-29
2 Trip Generation – The MND states: “The retail and warehouse end users are unknown at this time.” (MND, p. 5) Warehouse trip generation rates vary greatly by type of warehouse. The MND applies a rate of 1.71 daily trips per 1000 sq. ft. of warehouse. (MND, Appendix F, Table 2, p. 20). As shown in the figure below, this rate is considerably lower than some other warehouse trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation reference.
The MND states: “The Project does not propose refrigeration as part of the warehouse operations.” (MND, p. 5) However, there do not appear to be any conditions that would prevent the ultimate tenant from cold storage operations.
Given the uncertainty in future operations, trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed in the MND.
Toxic Air Contaminant (“TAC”) Emissions - The MND states:
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. (MND, p. 41)
1.40 1.71 1.81
2.12 4.63
6.44 1.71
Transload and
Short-Term
Storage
Warehouse
Warehousing Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
Cold Storage
Warehouse
Parcel Hub
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
MND
2-30
2-31
3 The estimated 89 trucks per day uses the same ITE warehouse category that was used to estimate overall trip generation in the MND. This rate is 0.60 per 1000 sq. ft. per day, and the calculation of warehouse truck trips is:
0.60 x 148.764 = 89.3 truck trips per day
This truck trip generation rate is lower than the rates for some warehouse types. For example, the Cold Storage Warehouse rate is estimated to generate 0.75 truck trips per 1000 sq. ft. per day, and the corresponding equation for this project is:
0.75 x 148.764 = 111.6 truck trips per day
This exceeds the 100 truck trips per day threshold. Given the current uncertainty about operations, and the lack of conditions that would prevent the ultimate tenant from cold storage operations, toxic air contaminant analysis should be done now and included in an EIR for public and decision maker review.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) – The MND states:
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. (MND, p. 104)
There is a discrepancy between the MND and the VMT Evaluation Tool results included in MND Appendix F. In Appendix F (PDF p. 97 of 176), the Project is shown to generation 16.5 VMT per worker per day. This is higher than the value of 16.4 given in the MND. I applied the Tool and found that the Appendix value of 16.5 is correct.
The MND states:
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). (MND, p. 104) Commute Trip Reduction Marketing/Education Program is mitigation Measure T-7 as described in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) publication Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (Final Draft, December 2021).
However, the MND also inconsistently describes mitigation measure MM-TRANS-1 as referring to CAPCOA measure T-5, Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program. 2-32
2-33
2-31
cont.
4 Regarding Measure T-5, Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary), the CAPCOA Handbook states:
Voluntary CTR programs must include the following elements to apply the VMT reductions reported in literature.
▪ Employer-provided services, infrastructure, and incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing (Measure T-8), discounted transit (Measure T-9), bicycling (Measure T10), vanpool (Measure T-11), and guaranteed ride home. ▪ Information, coordination, and marketing for said services, infrastructure, and incentives (Measure T-7).
As the Handbook considers T-7 to be a component of T-5, I assume that the MND is proposing Measure T-5, with Measure T-7 included as part of Measure T-5
The Handbook states that Measure (T-5) can reduce employee commute VMT by up to 4.0%. A 4.0% reduction is not sufficient to reduce the VMT estimated in the Tool to the required threshold. A 4.0% reduction reduces VMT to 15.84 per worker per day, and this exceeds the threshold value of 15.8.
Therefore additional mitigation is required.
In addition, it is unsupported to claim the maximum 4.0% reduction because the Measure would not apply to all workers. The Handbook requires that the reduction be reduced for:
Employees who might not be able to participate could include those who work nighttime hours when transit and rideshare services are not available or employees who are required to drive to work as part of their job duties.
The MND does not disclose how many employees would be subject to this exception. However, the MND explains that the Project’s hours are proposed to be “seven days a week and operate 24 hours a day.” (MND, p. 5) There will therefore be some regular employees who work nighttime hours when transit and rideshare services are not available who should not be included in the reduction. The City must provide a more accurate estimate of the actual trip reductions that would result from Measure (T5) given that not all Project employees will contribute to the reduction.
Moreover, the CAPCOA Handbook precludes taking separate reductions for measures T-5 and T-7. Re Measure T-5, the Handbook states:
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for Measures T-7 through T11. Measure T-5 accounts for the combined GHG reductions achieved by each of these individual measures. To combine the GHG reductions from T-5 with any of these measures would be considered double counting. However, the user may take credit for Measures T-12 through T-13 within the larger CTR subcategory, so long as the combined VMT reduction does not exceed 45 percent, as noted above.
Measure T-5 is insufficient VMT mitigation. One way to meet the threshold requirement would be to substitute Handbook Measure T-6 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring) for Measure T-5. This measure includes monitoring, reporting and 2-33
cont.
2-34
2-35
2-36
5 potential penalties. Another way to meet the threshold requirement is to include Measure T-12 Price Workplace Parking and/or Measure T-13 Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out.
The MND states:
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. (p. 105)
This TDM program should be prepared now and included in an EIR for public review prior to Project approval to ensure that the TDM program will include adequate TDM measures to reduce VMT to less than significant levels. The TDM program must also go beyond Measure T-5 as proposed in the MND and achieve the VMT reduction required.
Sincerely,
Norman L. Marshall
2-36
cont.
2-37
6 Resume
NORMAN L. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT
[email protected]
EDUCATION:
Master of Science in Engineering Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1982 Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 1977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (37 Years, 23 at Smart Mobility, Inc.) Norm Marshall helped found Smart Mobility, Inc. in 2001. Prior to this, he was at RSG for 14 years where he developed a national practice in travel demand modeling. He specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior and doing planning that coordinates multi-modal transportation with land use and community needs.
Regional Land Use/Transportation Scenario Planning
Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) – the Portland Maine Metropolitan Planning Organization. Updating regional travel demand model with new data (including AirSage), adding a truck model, and multiclass assignment including differentiation between cash toll and transponder payments.
Loudoun County Virginia Dynamic Traffic Assignment – Enhanced subarea travel demand model to include Dynamic Traffic Assignment (Cube). Model being used to better understand impacts of roadway expansion on induced travel.
Vermont Agency of Transportation-Enhanced statewide travel demand model to evaluate travel impacts of closures and delays resulting from severe storm events. Model uses innovate Monte Carlo simulations process to account for combinations of failures.
California Air Resources Board – Led team including the University of California in $250k project that reviewed the ability of the new generation of regional activity-based models and land use models to accurately account for greenhouse gas emissions from alternative scenarios including more compact walkable land use and roadway pricing. This work included hands-on testing of the most complex travel demand models in use in the U.S. today.
Climate Plan (California statewide) – Assisted large coalition of groups in reviewing and participating in the target setting process required by Senate Bill 375 and administered by the California Air Resources Board to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions through land use measures and other regional initiatives.
Chittenden County (2060 Land use and Transportation Vision Burlington Vermont region) – led extensive public visioning project as part of MPO’s long-range transportation plan update.
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization – Implemented walk, transit and bike models within regional travel demand model. The bike model includes skimming bike networks including on-road and off-road bicycle facilities with a bike level of service established for each segment.
Chicago Metropolis Plan and Chicago Metropolis Freight Plan (6-county region)— developed alternative transportation scenarios, made enhancements in the regional travel demand model, and used the enhanced
7 model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts.
Developed multi-class assignment model and used it to analyze freight alternatives including congestion pricing and other peak shifting strategies.
Municipal Planning
City of Grand Rapids – Michigan Street Corridor – developed peak period subarea model including nonmotorized trips based on urban form. Model is being used to develop traffic volumes for several alternatives that are being additional analyzed using the City’s Synchro model City of Omaha - Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non-motorized trips, transit trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. Scenarios with different roadway, transit, and land use alternatives were modeled.
City of Dublin (Columbus region) – Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for nonmotorized trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. The model was applied in analyses for a new downtown to be constructed in the Bridge Street corridor on both sides of an historic village center.
City of Portland, Maine – Implemented model improvements that better account for non-motorized trips and interactions between land use and transportation and applied the enhanced model to two subarea studies.
City of Honolulu – Kaka’ako Transit Oriented Development (TOD) – applied regional travel demand model in estimating impacts of proposed TOD including estimating internal trip capture.
City of Burlington (Vermont) Transportation Plan – Led team that developing Transportation Plan focused on supporting increased population and employment without increases in traffic by focusing investments and policies on transit, walking, biking and Transportation Demand Management.
Transit Planning
Regional Transportation Authority (Chicago) and Chicago Metropolis 2020 – evaluated alternative 2020 and 2030 system-wide transit scenarios including deterioration and enhance/expand under alternative land use and energy pricing assumptions in support of initiatives for increased public funding.
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin, TX) Transit Vision – analyzed the regional effects of implementing the transit vision in concert with an aggressive transit-oriented development plan developed by Calthorpe Associates. Transit vision includes commuter rail and BRT.
Bus Rapid Transit for Northern Virginia HOT Lanes (Breakthrough Technologies, Inc and Environmental Defense.) – analyzed alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) strategies for proposed privately-developing High Occupancy Toll lanes on I-95 and I-495 (Capital Beltway) including different service alternatives (point-to-point services, trunk lines intersecting connecting routes at in-line stations, and hybrid).
Roadway Corridor Planning
I-30 Little Rock Arkansas – Developed enhanced version of regional travel demand model that integrates TransCAD with open source Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) software, and used to model I-30 alternatives.
Freeway bottlenecks are modeled much more accurately than in the base TransCAD model.
8 South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) – In work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal South Caroline including a new proposed freeway.
Hudson River Crossing Study (Capital District Transportation Committee and NYSDOT) – Analyzing long term capacity needs for Hudson River bridges which a special focus on the I-90 Patroon Island Bridge where a microsimulation VISSIM model was developed and applied.
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (partial list)
DTA Love: Co-leader of workshop on Dynamic Traffic Assignment at the June 2019 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
Forecasting the Impossible: The Status Quo of Estimating Traffic Flows with Static Traffic Assignment and the Future of Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Research in Transportation Business and Management 2018.
Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the August 2018 Transportation Research Board Tools of the Trade Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities.
Vermont Statewide Resilience Modeling. With Joseph Segale, James Sullivan and Roy Schiff. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
Pre-Destination Choice Walk Mode Choice Modeling. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
A Statistical Model of Regional Traffic Congestion in the United States, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS
Associate Member, Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Member and Co-Leader Project for Transportation Modeling Reform, Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU)
DOC 7353247.D15
October 28, 2024
Ref. DOC 7334778
VIA EMAIL [email protected]
Mr. Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Dear Mr. Marquez:
NOI Response to 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the subject project located in the City of South El Monte on October 2, 2024. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 15. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:
1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Rush Street Trunk Sewer, located in Rush Street at Rosemead Boulevard. The Districts’ 15-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 1.4 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.0 mgd when last measured in 2013.
2. The expected average wastewater flow from the project, described in the NOI as 128,693 square foot warehouse, 7,879 square foot retail, and 20,305 square foot office, is 8,066 gallons per day. For a copy of the District’s average wastewater generation factors, click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.
3. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) located near the City of South El Monte, which has a capacity of 15 mgd and currently processes an average recycled flow of 9 mgd, or at the Los Coyotes WRP located in the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average recycled flow of 19.1 mgd.
4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727.
Mr. Gerardo Marquez 2 October 28, 2024
DOC 7353247.D15
5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service but is to advise the City that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the City of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts’ facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2742, or [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Patricia Horsley
Environmental Planner
Facilities Planning Department
PLH:plh
cc: D. Hatch
A. Howard
SENT VIA E-MAIL: October 30, 2024
[email protected]
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
J 1415 N. Santa Anita Ave.
South El Monte, CA 91733
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (Proposed Project) South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciate the opportunity to review the above-mentioned document. The City of South El Monte is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. To provide context, South Coast AQMD staff has provided a brief summary of the project information and prepared the following comments which are organized by topic of concern.
South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Information in the MND Based on the MND document, the Proposed Project consists of constructing a 156,877 square foot concrete tilt-up warehouse with 13 dock doors on 5.14 acres. The warehouse will consist of 113,703 square feet of warehouse space, 7,879 square feet of retail use, 20,305 square feet of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 square feet of warehouse storage. Based on a review of aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the nearest sensitive receptor (e.g., the existing residential/trailer park use) is located adjacent to the south of the Proposed Project site. Project construction is anticipated to take approximately 12 months and the construction is estimated to begin in fall/winter 2024. The project is located at 2200, 2212, 2218, and 2226 Rosemead Boulevard.
South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments
Warehouse Cold Storage Land Use and the Associated Emissions from Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU)
The project description in the MND does not specify whether the Proposed Project includes allocating warehouse land for cold storage. Cold storage warehouses typically utilize more trucks and trailers equipped with TRUs compared to those without cold storage. Therefore, it is recommended that the Lead Agency revise the project description in the Final MND to clarify if cold storage would be a part of the Proposed Project, and additionally, the Final MND should provide an estimate for the number of TRU trucks and trailers that would be involved in the operation of the warehouses with cold storage. If TRUs are planned to be used, the Lead Agency should also update the emissions calculations in the Final MND to include the emissions from the TRUs in addition to the those from truck operation. 4-1
4-2
Gerardo Marquez 2 October 30, 2024
Rule 2305: Warehouse Indirect Source Rule - Warehouse Actions and Investments To Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program
On May 7, 2021, South Coast AQMD’s Governing Board adopted Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program, and Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305. Rules 2305 and 316 are new rules that will reduce regional and local emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), including diesel PM. These emission reductions will reduce public health impacts for communities located near warehouses from mobile sources that are associated with warehouse activities. Also, the emission reductions will help the region attain federal and state ambient air quality standards.
Rule 2305 applies to owners and operators of warehouses greater than or equal to 100,000 square feet. Under Rule 2305, operators are subject to an annual WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation that is calculated based on the annual number of truck trips to the warehouse. WAIRE Points can be earned by implementing actions in a prescribed menu in Rule 2305, implementing a sitespecific custom plan, or paying a mitigation fee. Warehouse owners are only required to submit limited information reports, but they can opt in to earn Points on behalf of their tenants if they so choose because certain actions to reduce emissions may be better achieved at the warehouse development phase, for instance the installation of solar and charging infrastructure. Rule 316 is a companion fee rule for Rule 2305 to allow South Coast AQMD to recover costs associated with Rule 2305 compliance activities. Since the Proposed Project consists of the development of a 643,419 square foot warehouse, the Proposed Project’s warehouse owners and operators will be required to comply with Rule 2305 once the warehouse is occupied. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 to determine the potential WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation for future operators and explore whether additional project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures can be identified and implemented at the Proposed Project that may help future warehouse operators meet their compliance obligation1. South Coast AQMD staff is available to answer questions concerning Rule 2305 implementation and compliance by phone or email at (909) 396-3140 or waire[email protected]. For implementation guidance documents and compliance and reporting tools, please visit South Coast AQMD’s WAIRE Program webpage.2 South Coast AQMD Air Permits and Role as a Responsible Agency If the implementation of the Proposed Project would require the use of new stationary and portable sources, including but not limited to emergency generators, fire water pumps, boilers, spray booths, and etc., air permits from South Coast AQMD will be required and the role of South Coast AQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. In addition, if South Coast AQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, per CEQA Guidelines Sections15086, the Lead Agency is required to consult with South Coast AQMD. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets forth specific procedures for a Responsible Agency, including making a decision on the adequacy of the CEQA document for use as part of evaluating the applications for air permits. For these reasons, the Final MND should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring South Coast AQMD air permits and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project. 1 South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xxiii/r2305.pdf. 2 South Coast AQMD WAIRE Program. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/waire. 4-3
4-4
Gerardo Marquez 3 October 30, 2024
The Final MND should also include calculations and analyses for construction and operation emissions for the new stationary and portable sources, as this information will also be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). Please contact South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions regarding what types of equipment would require air permits. For more general information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD’s webpage at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits.
Conclusion
The Lead Agency is recommended to revise the CEQA analysis to address the aforementioned comments and provide the necessary evidence to sufficiently support the conclusions reached. If the requested information and analysis are not included in the final CEQA document, either the Final MND or other type of CEQA document, the Lead Agency should provide reasons for not doing so. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process and notify each public agency when any public hearings are scheduled. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted must be provided. In addition, if the Lead Agency decides to adopt the Final MND, please provide South Coast AQMD with a notice of any scheduled public hearing(s).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Sahar Ghadimi, Air Quality Specialist, at [email protected] should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sam Wang
Sam Wang
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Implementation
SG:SW
LAC241002-06
Control Number
4-7
4-4
cont.
4-5
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” STATE OF CALIFORNIA-------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 269-1124
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life
November 5, 2024
Gerardo Marquez
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
RE: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse
Development
SCH # 2024100046
Vic. LA-164/PM 4.236
GTS # LA-2024-04641-MND
Dear Gerardo Marquez:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced environmental document. The Project would result in the construction of an approximately 156,877-square-foot (sf) concrete tilt-up warehouse with 13 dock doors. Of the 156,877 sf, the Project would have 113,703 sf of warehouse space, 7,879 sf of retail use, 20,305 sf of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 sf of warehouse storage. The proposed warehouse would be at a maximum height of 48 feet 10 inches and have a site coverage of approximately 55 percent with a Floor-Area Ratio of 0.7. Access to the site would be from two driveways on Rosemead Boulevard.
The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Senate Bill 743 (2013) has codified into CEQA law and mandated that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all future development projects. You may reference the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for more information:
https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/#guidelines-updates
As a reminder, VMT is the standard transportation analysis metric in CEQA for land use projects after July 1, 2020, which is the statewide implementation date.
Caltrans is aware of challenges that the region faces in identifying viable solutions to alleviating congestion on State and Local facilities. With limited room to expand vehicular capacity, this project should incorporate multi-modal and complete streets transportation 5-1
5-2
Gerardo Marquez
November 5, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” elements that will actively promote alternatives to car use and better manage existing parking assets. Prioritizing and allocating space to efficient modes of travel such as bicycling and public transit can allow streets to transport more people in a fixed amount of right-of-way.
Caltrans encourages city planning that promotes complete streets and pedestrian safety through measures like road diets, recognized for enhancing safety and being costeffective when combined with street resurfacing. City planning should focus on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips, improving safety, lowering vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The project site is served by LA Metro Routes 266 and 287, with bus stops on both sides of Rosemead Boulevard, approximately 400 feet north of the site. Further transit access is available via the El Monte Station/San Bernardino Freeway Busway at 3501 Santa Anita Avenue, providing connections to Metrolink, regional transit, carpools, and vanpools. Sidewalks along Rosemead Boulevard will remain intact, preserving pedestrian access. There are no bicycle facilities adjacent to the project site. The project site will include bike racks to accommodate cyclists. Given the industrial nature of the proposed use, the project’s VMT per worker (16.4) exceeds the city threshold of 15.83, necessitating MM TRANS-1, a Commute Trip Reduction Marketing/Education Program, to mitigate VMT impacts to a level of 15.80 VMT per worker, meeting the established criteria for significance.
MM TRANS-1 is a mitigation requirement that, before the first occupancy permit is issued, the Applicant submits a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of South El Monte Public Works Department to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips associated with the project. The program, implemented upon occupancy, includes a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) strategy, which offers incentives and infrastructure to encourage alternative transportation methods like carpooling, transit, and biking, along with services such as ridesharing support, discounted transit, and guaranteed rides home for employees.
Given the project's VMT of 15.8, which is very close to the city threshold of 15.83, a postdevelopment VMT analysis is recommended to confirm project impacts and aid in future VMT threshold adjustments. If the analysis indicates any significant traffic impacts, additional mitigation measures should be implemented. The analysis, potentially including surveys of project occupants, could capture data such as trip origins, timing, transportation modes, and mode selection reasons. This data would be valuable for validating existing thresholds, setting future VMT benchmarks, and identifying effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for future applications. 5-2
cont.
5-3
5-4
Gerardo Marquez
November 5, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” A sight distance analysis was performed, confirming that both the desired and minimum stopping sight distances will be met, assuming no landscape obstructions. To maintain these sightlines in accordance with the Highway Design Manual and California MUTCD standards, it is recommended that on-street parking be prohibited on both sides of the project driveways along Rosemead Boulevard (Route 164). This prohibition should extend six feet from the curb return to ensure adequate visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the driveways.
Please be reminded that any work performed within the State Right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. Any modifications to State facilities must meet all mandatory design standard and specifications. A project (EA 39410) along Rosemead Boulevard (Route 164) is set to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Klingerman Street. It is essential to update the traffic impact assessment to incorporate this improvement when submitting the encroachment permit application.
As a reminder, any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which require use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend large-size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods. Truck drivers should cover construction trucks with tarpaulin to avoid debris spillage onto the State Highway.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Alan Lin, the project coordinator, at (213) 269-1124 and refer to GTS # LA-2024-04641-MND.
Sincerely,
Anthony Higgins
Acting LDR Branch Chief
email: State Clearinghouse
5-5
5-5
APPENDIX B
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board Approvals
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
November 5, 2024
Mr. Wayne Wang Via E-mail Only
Rosemead Holding L.L.C.
221 N. Orange Avenue
City of Industry, CA 91744
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
SITE: FORMER PACIFIC COAST DRUM COMPANY (ROSEMEAD HOLDING LLC), 2200-2226 N. ROSEMEAD BLVD, SOUTH EL MONTE,
CALIFORNIA (WIP NO. 107.0266, SITE ID NO. 2040647)
Dear Mr. Wang:
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles Water Board) staff has received and reviewed the Soil Management Plan (SMP), dated October 2024, that was submitted by your consultant, Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Haley Aldrich) for the abovereferenced site (Site). The SMP was submitted to propose procedures and protocols for managing excavated soils and other debris during the planned re-development of the Site.
SUMMARY OF SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The primary objectives of the SMP are to:
• Appropriately manage risks to human health and the environment due to soil disturbance activities; and
• Provide a framework to evaluate and manage potentially impacted soil during disturbance activities.
Procedures associated with the implementation of a remedial excavation program are listed below:
• Completion of a subsurface utility review and USA DigAlert notification • Acquisition of grading permits from the County of Los Angeles (if required) • Environmental and Health and Safety monitoring/screening • Excavation using an excavator, backhoe, or hand-held tools • Open excavation areas will be backfilled and compacted according to geotechnical requirements
Pacific Coast Drum Company - 2 - November 5, 2024
WIP No. 107.0266
• Excavated material will be stockpiled or directly loaded into trucks or covered containers
• Stockpiled soil intended for onsite re-use will be sampled and screened using established criteria approved by the Los Angeles Water Board • Stockpiled soil that exceeds the re-use criteria will be disposed at an appropriate offsite facility
If the excavation limits are not pre-defined or screening results indicate the pre-defined limits need to be modified, confirmation soil samples will be collected and analyzed.
Confirmation sampling for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-impacted soil will be completed in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Cleanup Plan. Confirmation sampling for other constituents of concern (COC) will be completed in accordance with the approved Limited Soil Removal Workplan (LSRWP) (Leighton, 2023).
Confirmation soil samples, soil and concrete samples screened for re-use purposes, and waste characterization samples will be sent to a laboratory and analyzed for various analyses. COCs to be analyzed include:
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEAP) Method 8260B
• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) (includes gas, diesel, and motor oil) USEPA Method 8015B
• Metals (includes arsenic, lead, and hexavalent chromium) USEPA Method 6010B and 7196A
• PCBs USEPA Method 8082
Maximum acceptable soil concentration and soil screening criteria for onsite re-use (for both soil and concrete) are provided below:
• Total PCBs : 1 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
• Lead : 500 mg/kg (re-use criteria : 380 mg/kg)
• Arsenic : 11 mg/kg
• Hexavalent chromium : 6.2 mg/kg
• TPH as diesel (TPH-D) : 1,000 mg/kg
• TPH as gasoline (TPH-G) : 500 mg/kg
• TPH as motor oil (TPH-MO) : 5,100 mg/kg
• VOCs : San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SFBRWQCB Screening Levels (SLs)-protection of groundwater
Waste generated during the implementation of the SMP will be appropriately managed to ensure proper characterization, profiling, handling, transportation, and disposal.
Pacific Coast Drum Company - 3 - November 5, 2024
WIP No. 107.0266
LOS ANGELES WATER BOARD COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS
Based on our review of the SMP and other information in the case file for the Site, Los Angeles Water Board staff approves the SMP with the following comments and conditions:
1. Per the approved LSRWP, confirmation soil samples from bottom of the excavation shall be collected at a minimum, on a grid system every 25 feet. Sidewall samples shall be collected for each sidewall greater than 3 feet in height (as opposed to the 4 feet proposed in the SMP). The entire extent of the excavation requires the collection of confirmation soil samples to confirm impacted soils above criteria were removed and to establish the lateral and vertical extent of impacted soil left in place below criteria.
2. Confirmation soil samples and soils considered for re-use must be laboratory tested.
Soil samples must be tested for all COC, including VOCs, TPH-(G,D,MO), Title 22 metals, hexavalent chromium, and PCBs.
3. Soils with COC concentrations above the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) but below Remediation Action Goals (RAGs) and set aside for re-use shall be placed in the same location where they were excavated from so as not to spread impacted soils laterally throughout the Site.
4. All imported fill material must be from a clean source and test results must be provided to the Los Angeles Water Board.
5. Soil stockpiling protocols will be followed as outlined in the Technical MemorandumResponse to Comments on the “Limited Soil Remediation Workplan Addendum” dated August 16, 2024, that was approved by the Los Angeles Water Board in a letter dated October 2, 2024. Soil stockpiling sampling and analysis protocols for soil re-use will meet the statistical requirements set forth in EPA SW-846.
6. Haley Aldrich indicated that the vapor intrusion mitigation plan will be submitted in a separate document. Any vapor intrusion mitigation measure will be implemented during the construction of the proposed warehouse; therefore, construction of the warehouse cannot begin until the VIMS work plan has been approved by the Los Angeles Water Board.
7. During the SMP implementation, you must submit a brief weekly report on the following Monday of each week summarizing site activities performed during the previous week, regulatory inspections, issues identified, deviations from the SMP and Addendum, discovery of unidentified structures, dust monitoring exceedances, and other relevant updates together with pictures.
Pacific Coast Drum Company - 4 - November 5, 2024
WIP No. 107.0266
8. Notify Los Angeles Water Board staff of the field schedule at least 10 days in advance of the start of the excavation activities and the installation of the vapor barrier.
9. After the implementation of the Soil Management Plan, you must prepare and submit a technical report documenting implementation of the proposed plan. The technical report must, at a minimum, include the following:
a) Description of the handling and management of excavated soil (outside the remediation zone) during removal activities;
b) List and provide a description of sub-surface structures encountered during excavation activities;
c) Description and analyses of imported fill used at the Site; d) Description of soil confirmation sampling activities; e) Description of offsite disposal;
f) Tables summarizing analytical results for assessment and confirmation samples, volumes of excavated soil disposed offsite, etc; g) Copies of laboratory analytical results for samples collected and imported fill, waste manifests for investigation derived waste, offsite disposal of excavated soil and other debris, agency permits, etc;
h) Photographs showing soil removal activities, handling and management of soil, confirmation soil sampling, and installation of vapor barrier.
The technical report must be submitted to the Los Angeles Water Board via Geotracker no later than ninety days after construction activities have been completed.
10.As presented in State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 92-49, professionals should be qualified, licensed where applicable, and competent and proficient in the fields pertinent to the required activities. Moreover, all final reports submitted to the Los Angeles Water Board must be reviewed, signed, and stamped by a California registered geologist, or a California registered civil engineer with at least five years hydrogeologic experience. Furthermore, the California Business and Professions Code Sections 6735, 7835, and 7835.1 require that engineering and geologic evaluations and judgments be performed by or under the direction of a registered geologist or registered civil engineer. A statement is requested in all final reports that the registered professional in responsible charge supervised or personally conducted all the work associated with all final reports.
11.The Los Angeles Water Board requires that you include a perjury statement in all reports submitted for Los Angeles Water Board review. The perjury statement should be signed by a senior authorized Rosemead Holding LLC representative.
The perjury statement should be in the following format:
I, [NAME], certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared by me, or under my direction or supervision, in accordance with a system
Pacific Coast Drum Company - 5 - November 5, 2024
WIP No. 107.0266
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Jennifer Nobui, Engineering Geologist, at (213) 620-6363 or via email at [email protected] or Mr. Bizuayehu Ayele, Unit Supervisor, at (213) 576-6623 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
___________________
Jennifer Nobui, PG
Site Cleanup Unit V
cc (via e-mail):
Mr. Holly Arrigoni, EPA Region 9 ([email protected]) Mr. Chris Tsiatsios, Haley Aldrich ([email protected]) Ms. Sylvia Tran, XBC Inc. ([email protected])
Ms. Shervin Milani, DTSC ([email protected])
Mr. Randy Schoellerman, Water Quality Authority ([email protected]) Mr. Dan Colby, Water Quality Authority ([email protected])
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
October 2, 2024
Mr. Wayne Wang Via E-mail Only
Rosemead Holding L.L.C.
221 N. Orange Avenue
City of Industry, CA 91744
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF LIMITED SOIL REMEDIATION WORK PLAN, LIMITED
SOIL REMEDIATION WORK PLAN ADDENDUM, AND TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE “LIMITED SOIL
REMEDIATION WORK PLAN ADDENDUM”
SITE: FORMER PACIFIC COAST DRUM COMPANY (ROSEMEAD HOLDING LLC), 2200-2226 N. ROSEMEAD BLVD, SOUTH EL MONTE,
CALIFORNIA (WIP NO. 107.0266, SITE ID NO. 2040647)
Dear Mr. Wang:
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles Water Board) staff has reviewed the Limited Soil Remediation Workplan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California (Soil Remediation Workplan), dated April 25, 2023, that was submitted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton), the Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum (Workplan Addendum), dated April 2024, and the Technical Memorandum – Response to Comments on the Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum (Tech Memo), dated August 16, 2024, that were submitted by your consultant, Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Haley Aldrich) the above-referenced site (Site).
The Soil Remediation Workplan was revised to address the Los Angeles Water Board staff comments communicated to Leighton and Haley Aldrich via emails and during multiple rounds of discussion. The Workplan Addendum and the Tech Memo were submitted to address the Los Angeles Water Board staff comments. All three documents collectively propose a remedial soil excavation in the eastern portion of the Site for the planned site re-development at the Site.
SUMMARY OF SOIL REMEDIAL EXCAVATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Historical subsurface investigations identified elevated concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in shallow soils within the eastern portion of the Site. These concentrations were detected in excess of their San Francisco Bay
Pacific Coast Drum Company - 2 - October 2, 2024
WIP No. 107.0266
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) respective commercial Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). As concluded in the human health risk assessment, current levels of these chemicals of concern (COCs) in soil required risk management prior to redevelopment of the Site for future commercial/industrial land use purposes. Impacted soil excavation and removal was the selected remedy to address the threat to human health and groundwater quality.
The proposed soil remediation will include excavation and removal of COC-impacted soils. PCB-impacted soils will be regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 CFR 761 and will be managed with the USEPA as the lead agency in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Cleanup Plan that was submitted to the USEPA. Other COCs are generally co-located with PCB shallow soil impacts and will be removed during the TSCA remedial excavation. Planned excavation locations for each COC that are within and outside of the proposed PCB excavation limits are provided on the attached figure.
The proposed soil remedial action goals (RAGs) will be used to identify areas of the Site where soil excavation is required to meet remedial action objectives (RAOs). The RAGs proposed for the COCs in soil were developed based on ambient-based (background) screening concentrations (ABSCs) or risk-based screening concentrations (RBSCs) developed in the human health risk evaluation.
The soil RAGs for this Site are summarized below:
• Total PCBs : 1 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
• Lead : 500 mg/kg (re-use criteria : 380 mg/kg)
• Arsenic : 11 mg/kg
• Hexavalent chromium : 6.2 mg/kg
• TPH-D : 1,000 mg/kg
• TPH as gasoline (TPH-G) : 500 mg/kg
• TPH as motor oil (TPH-MO) : 5,100 mg/kg
• VOCs : SFBRWQCB ESLs (protection of groundwater)
These RAGS are a starting point for making risk management decisions and a tool for defining and guiding the extent and depths of soil remediation.
Approximately 5,000 cubic yards of COC-impacted soil will be excavated to a maximum depth of 8.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The excavated soil will be segregated, stockpiled, sampled, profiled, and disposed at an appropriate waste disposal facility.
Confirmation samples will be collected per the TSCA Cleanup Plan and will include the collection of soil samples from the side walls and floor of the excavation after excavation limits have been reached. Stockpiled soil that exceeds the RAGs will not be re-used onsite. If stockpiled soil sampling results indicate RAGs are not exceeded, the stockpiled soil may be re-used onsite. Soil stockpile sampling will adhere to the minimum number of samples necessary to meet the statistical requirements set forth in USEPA SW-846. If
Pacific Coast Drum Company - 3 - October 2, 2024
WIP No. 107.0266
import soil is required, the import soil will be from a clean source, and test results will be provided for the imported fill.
LOS ANGELES WATER BOARD COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS
Based on our review of the Soil Remediation Workplan, Workplan Addendum, Tech Memo, meetings held between Los Angeles Water Board and Haley Aldrich, and other information in the case file for the Site, the Los Angeles Water Board approves the Soil Remediation Workplan, the Workplan Addendum, and the Tech Memo with the following comments and conditions:
1. Soils with COC concentrations above the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) but below RAGs and set aside for reuse shall be placed in the same location where they were excavated from.
2. Notify Los Angeles Water Board staff of the field schedule at least 10 days in advance of the start of the excavation activities and the installation of the vapor barrier.
3. After the implementation of the Soil Remediation Workplan and Workplan Addendum, you must prepare and submit a technical report documenting implementation of the proposed remediation. The technical report must, at a minimum, include the following:
a) Description of the handling and management of excavated soil during removal activities;
b) List and a provide a description of sub-surface structures encountered during excavation activities;
c) Description and analyses of imported fill used at the Site; d) Description of soil confirmation sampling activities; e) Description of offsite disposal;
f) Figures showing assessment and confirmation sampling locations, and soil excavation areas with cross-sections showing excavation depths and profiles; g) Tables summarizing analytical results for assessment and confirmation samples, volumes of excavated soil disposed offsite, etc; h) Copies of laboratory analytical results for samples collected and imported fill, waste manifests for investigation derived waste, offsite disposal of excavated soil and other debris, agency permits, etc;
i) Photographs showing excavation, handling and management of soil, confirmation soil sampling, and installation of vapor barrier.
The technical report must be submitted to the Los Angeles Water Board via Geotracker by December 31, 2024.
4. As presented in State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 92-49, professionals should be qualified, licensed where applicable, and competent and
Pacific Coast Drum Company - 4 - October 2, 2024
WIP No. 107.0266
proficient in the fields pertinent to the required activities. Moreover, all final reports submitted to the Los Angeles Water Board must be reviewed, signed, and stamped by a California registered geologist, or a California registered civil engineer with at least five years hydrogeologic experience. Furthermore, the California Business and Professions Code Sections 6735, 7835, and 7835.1 require that engineering and geologic evaluations and judgments be performed by or under the direction of a registered geologist or registered civil engineer. A statement is requested in all final reports that the registered professional in responsible charge supervised or personally conducted all the work associated with all final reports.
5. The Los Angeles Water Board requires that you include a perjury statement in all reports submitted for Los Angeles Water Board review. The perjury statement should be signed by a senior authorized Rosemead Holding LLC representative.
The perjury statement should be in the following format:
I, [NAME], certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared by me, or under my direction or supervision, in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Jennifer Nobui, Engineering Geologist, at (213) 620-6363 or via email at [email protected] or Mr. Bizuayehu Ayele, Unit Supervisor, at (213) 576-6623 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
___________________
Jennifer Nobui, PG
Site Cleanup Unit V
cc (via e-mail):
Mr. Holly Arrigoni, EPA Region 9 ([email protected]) Mr. Chris Tsiatsios, Haley Aldrich ([email protected]) Ms. Sylvia Tran, XBC Inc. ([email protected])
Ms. Shervin Milani, DTSC ([email protected])
Mr. Randy Schoellerman, Water Quality Authority ([email protected]) Mr. Dan Colby, Water Quality Authority ([email protected])
5FT (PCBS)
5 FT (PCBS) 1FT (PCBS) 1FT (PCBS)
1FT (PCBS) 4FT (PCBS) 2.5 FT (PCBS) 2.5FT 2.5FT (PCBS) 2.5 FT 6FT (TPH) (PCBS) 6FT (ARSENIC) 2 FT (TPH) 6FT (ARSENIC) 8.5FT (ARSENIC), 2 FT (CRVI) 6FT (ARSENIC) 3.5FT (TPH) 3.5 FT (ARSENIC) 2FT (PCBS) 2FT (PCBS) 3FT (PCBS) 3FT (PCBS) 3FT (PCBS) 2FT (PCBS) 2FT (LEAD) 3FT (ARSENIC, TPH 2 (CRVI) 3FT (ARSENIC) 2FT (PCBS) 3FT (ARSENIC) 2 (TPH) 3 (TPH) 3.5FT (TPH, LEAD) 3 (TPH) 1.5 (TPH) 2 (CRVI, LEAD) 3FT (LEAD) 3FT (LEAD) 3FT (LEAD) 2FT (LEAD) 3FT (LEAD) 4FT (LEAD) 2FT (LEAD) 3FT (LEAD) 2FT (LEAD) 2FT (LEAD) 2FT (LEAD) 2FT (LEAD) 3FT (LEAD) 3FT (LEAD) 3FT (LEAD) 2FT (LEAD) 2FT (LEAD) LP-32 LV-1 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 LV-2 SB-5 EFI5 SB-6 LP-31 SB-7 LV-3 SB-18 LV-5 SB-33 LP-34 SB-32 SB-31 SB-30 SB-29 SB-28 LP-33 SB-26 SB-27 LV-9 SB-25 LP-30 EFI1 LP-28 LP-27 SB-24 LP-26 LV-20 LP-29 LDB-10 LP-25 LV-19 B3 LDB-9 LP-21 B4 LP-22 LV-10 LP-23 B2 LP-24B1 SB-21 LP-20 LP-19 SB-20 B5 LP-18 SB-22 LV-17 SB-23 LP-17 LDB-8 LP-14 LP-13 B8 LDB-6 LV-8 B7LP-15 B6 LP-42 LP-16 LP-40 LP-39 LP-38 LP-41 LP-37 SB-19 LV-14A LV-14B LP-12 LP-36 LP-35 B9 LP-11 LP-10 EFI2 LP-9 LDB-4 LV-15 LDB-2/3 SB-15 B10 LP-6 LP-5 B12 SB-14 B13 LDB-1 LP-1 LV-12 LV-11 B15 LP-2 B14 SB-13 SB-12 B-16 LP-3 SB-10 LV-13 EFI4 LP-4 SB-9 SB-8 LV-16 LV-7 SB-17 EFI3 LP-8 LV-4 SB-11 LP-7 B11 SB-16 LDB-5 LV-18 LV-6 LP-38 HA-SB-05 HA-SB-03 HA-SB-11 HA-SB-09 HA-SB-07 HA-SB-06 HA-SB-14 HA-SB-15 HA-SB-13 HA-SB-12 HA-SB-08 HA-SB-04 HA-SB-02 HA-SB-01 LP-32 LV-1 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 LV-2 SB-5 EFI5 SB-6 LP-31 SB-7 LV-3 SB-18 LV-5 SB-33 LP-34 SB-32 SB-31 SB-30 SB-29 SB-28 LP-33 SB-26 SB-27 LV-9 SB-25 LP-30 EFI1 LP-28 LP-27 SB-24 LP-26 LV-20 LP-29 LDB-10 LP-25 LV-19 B3 LDB-9 LP-21 B4 LP-22 LV-10 LP-23 B2 LP-24 B1 SB-21 LP-20 LP-19 SB-20 B5 LP-18 SB-22 LV-17 SB-23 LP-17 LDB-8 LP-13 LDB-7 B8 LDB-6 LV-8 B7LP-15 B6 LP-42 LP-16 LP-40 LP-39 LP-38 LP-41 LP-37 SB-19 LV-14A LV-14B LP-12 LP-36 LP-35 B9 LP-11 LP-10 LP-9 LDB-4 LV-15 LDB-2/3 SB-15 B10 LP-6 LP-5 B12 SB-14 B13 LDB-1 LP-1 LV-12 LV-11 B15 LP-2 B14 SB-13 SB-12 B-16 LP-3 SB-10 LV-13 EFI4 LP-4 SB-9 SB-8 LV-16 LV-7 SB-17 EFI3 LP-8 LV-4 SB-11 LP-7 B11 SB-16 LDB-5 LV-18 LV-6 LP-32 LV-1 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 LV-2 SB-5 EFI5 SB-6 LP-31 SB-7 LV-3 SB-18 LV-5 SB-33 LP-34 SB-32 SB-31 SB-30 SB-29 SB-28 LP-33 SB-26 SB-27 LV-9 SB-25 LP-30 EFI1 LP-28 LP-27 SB-24 LP-26 LV-20 LP-29 LDB-10 LP-25 LV-19 B3 LDB-9 LP-21 B4 LP-22 LV-10 LP-23 B2 LP-24 B1 SB-21 LP-20 LP-19 SB-20 B5 LP-18 SB-22 LV-17 SB-23 LP-17 LDB-8 LP-13 LDB-7 B8 LDB-6 LV-8 B7LP-15 B6 LP-42 LP-16 LP-40 LP-39 LP-38 LP-41 LP-37 SB-19 LV-14A LV-14B LP-12 LP-36 LP-35 B9 LP-11 LP-10 LP-9 LDB-4 LV-15 LDB-2/3 SB-15 B10 LP-6 LP-5 B12 SB-14 B13 LDB-1 LP-1 LV-12 LV-11 B15 LP-2 B14 SB-13 SB-12 B-16 LP-3 SB-10 LV-13 EFI4 LP-4 SB-9 SB-8 LV-16 LV-7 SB-17 EFI3 LP-8 LV-4 SB-11 LP-7 B11 SB-16 LDB-5 LV-18 LV-6 LP-32 LV-1 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 LV-2 SB-5 EFI5 SB-6 LP-31 SB-7 LV-3 SB-18 LV-5 SB-33 LP-34 SB-32 SB-31 SB-30 SB-29 SB-28 LP-33 SB-26 SB-27 LV-9 SB-25 LP-30 EFI1 LP-28 LP-27 SB-24 LP-26 LV-20 LP-29 LDB-10 LP-25 LV-19 B3 LDB-9 LP-21 B4 LP-22 LV-10 LP-23 B2 LP-24 B1 SB-21 LP-20 LP-19 SB-20 B5 LP-18 SB-22 LV-17 SB-23 LP-17 LDB-8 LP-13 B8 LDB-6 LV-8 B7LP-15 B6 LP-42 LP-16 LP-40 LP-39 LP-38 LP-41 LP-37 SB-19 LV-14A LV-14B LP-12 LP-36 LP-35 B9 LP-11 LP-10EFI2 LP-9 LDB-4 LV-15 LDB-2/3 SB-15 B10 LP-6 LP-5 B12 SB-14 B13 LDB-1 LP-1 LV-12 LV-11 B15 LP-2 B14 SB-13 SB-12 B-16 LP-3 SB-10 LV-13 EFI4 LP-4 SB-9 SB-8 LV-16 LV-7 SB-17 EFI3 LP-8 LV-4 SB-11 LP-7 B11 SB-16 LDB-5 LV-18 LV-6 LP-32 LV-1 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 LV-2 SB-5 EFI5 SB-6 LP-31 SB-7 LV-3 SB-18 LV-5 SB-33 LP-34 SB-32 SB-31 SB-30 SB-29 SB-28 LP-33 SB-26 SB-27 LV-9 SB-25 LP-30 EFI1 LP-28 LP-27 SB-24 LP-26 LV-20 LP-29 LDB-10 LP-25 LV-19 B3 LDB-9 LP-21 B4 LP-22 LV-10 LP-23 B2 LP-24 B1 SB-21 LP-20 LP-19 SB-20 B5 LP-18 SB-22 LV-17 SB-23 LP-17 LDB-8 LP-13 LDB-7 LP-14 B8 LDB-6 LV-8 B7LP-15 B6 LP-42 LP-16 LP-40 LP-39 LP-38 LP-41 LP-37 SB-19 LV-14A LV-14B LP-12 LP-36 LP-35 B9 LP-11 LP-10EFI2 LP-9 LDB-4 LV-15 LDB-2/3 SB-15 B10 LP-6 LP-5 B12 SB-14 B13 LDB-1 LP-1 LV-12 LV-11 B15 LP-2 B14 SB-13 SB-12 B-16 LP-3 SB-10 LV-13 EFI4 LP-4 SB-9 SB-8 LV-16 LV-7 SB-17 EFI3 LP-8 LV-4 SB-11 LP-7 B11 SB-16 LDB-5 LV-18 LV-6 HA-SB-05 HA-SB-03 HA-SB-11 HA-SB-10 HA-SB-09 HA-SB-07 HA-SB-06 HA-SB-14 HA-SB-15 HA-SB-13 HA-SB-12 HA-SB-08 HA-SB-04 HA-SB-02 HA-SB-01 HA-SB-29 HA-SB-21 HA-SB-22 HA-SB-20 LV-15-01-NLV-15-02-E LV-15-03-S LV-15-01-W HA-SB-28 HA-SB-19 HA-SB-16 HA-SB-17 HA-SB-25 HA-SB-24 HA-SB-26 HA-SB-23 HA-SB-18 HA-SB-27 LP-32 LV-1 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 LV-2 SB-5 EFI5 SB-6 LP-31 SB-7 LV-3 SB-18 LV-5 SB-33 LP-34 SB-32 SB-31 SB-30 SB-29 SB-28 LP-33 SB-26 SB-27 LV-9 SB-25 LP-30 EFI1 LP-28 LP-27 SB-24 LP-26 LV-20 LP-29 LDB-10 LP-25 LV-19 B3 LDB-9 LP-21 B4 LP-22 LV-10 LP-23 B2 LP-24 B1 SB-21 LP-20 LP-19 SB-20 B5 LP-18 SB-22 LV-17 SB-23 LP-17 LDB-8 LP-13 LDB-7 B8 LDB-6 LV-8 B7LP-15 B6 LP-42 LP-16 LP-40 LP-39 LP-38 LP-41 LP-37 SB-19 LV-14A LV-14B LP-12 LP-36 LP-35 B9 LP-11 LP-10EFI2 LP-9 LDB-4 LV-15 LDB-2/3 SB-15 B10 LP-6 LP-5 B12 SB-14 B13 LDB-1 LP-1 LV-12 LV-11 B15 LP-2 B14 SB-13 SB-12 B-16 LP-3 SB-10 LV-13 EFI4 LP-4 SB-9 SB-8 LV-16 LV-7 SB-17 EFI3 LP-8 LV-4 SB-11 LP-7 B11 SB-16 LDB-5 LV-18 LV-6 LP-32 LV-1 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 LV-2 SB-5 EFI5 SB-6 LP-31 SB-7 LV-3 SB-18 LV-5 SB-33 LP-34 SB-32 SB-31 SB-30 SB-29 SB-28 LP-33 SB-26 SB-27 LV-9 SB-25 LP-30 EFI1 LP-28 LP-27 SB-24 LP-26 LV-20 LP-29 LDB-10 LP-25 LV-19 B3 LDB-9 LP-21 B4 LP-22 LV-10 LP-23 B2 LP-24 B1 SB-21 LP-20 LP-19 SB-20 B5 LP-18 SB-22 LV-17 SB-23 LP-17 LDB-8 LP-13 LDB-7 LP-14 B8 LDB-6 LV-8 B7LP-15 B6 LP-42 LP-16 LP-40 LP-39 LP-38 LP-41 LP-37 SB-19 LV-14A LV-14B LP-12 LP-36 LP-35 B9 LP-11 LP-10EFI2 LP-9 LDB-4 LV-15 LDB-2/3 SB-15 B10 LP-6 LP-5 B12 SB-14 B13 LDB-1 LP-1 LV-12 LV-11 B15 LP-2 B14 SB-13 SB-12 B-16 LP-3 SB-10 LV-13 EFI4 LP-4 SB-9 SB-8 LV-16 LV-7 SB-17 EFI3 LP-8 LV-4 SB-11 LP-7 B11 SB-16 LDB-5 LV-18 LV-6 \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0209476\CAD\2024-0307-HAI-SO-BASEPLAN- ALL -EXCAVATIONS.DWG SBURNS HA-FIG-E-L 3/11/2024 4:35 PM Sheet: Printed: Saved by: FIGURE 8 ROSEMEAD HOLDING LLC 220 N ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD SOUTH EL MONTE, CA REMEDIAL EXCAVATION PLAN SCALE: AS SHOWN APRIL 2024 0 20 40 60 80 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND SOIL BORING APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY NOTES 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: NEARMAP, 9/12/23. EXCAVATION DEPTH LEGEND 1 FOOT 1.5 FEET 2 FEET 2.5 FEET 3 FEET 3.5 FEET 4 FEET 5 FEET 6 FEET 8.5 FEET DATA GAP
February 19, 2025
kimley-horn.com 1100 Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 Responses to the Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09, Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, and Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13 for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project
Introduction
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) and Phil Martin and Associates prepared the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (Project). The Draft IS/MND was released for public review and comment by the City of South El Monte (City) on October 1, 2024, for a 30-day public comment period ending on October 30, 2024. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development (“CREED LA”; https://creedla.com/), submitted a comment letter dated October 30, 2024.
Kimley-Horn and Ganddini Group, Inc. addressed comments raised in the October 30, 2024 letter, and the responses to comments were incorporated into the City’s staff report and are contained within the administrative record; see Attachment A.
On November 18, 2024, CREED LA submitted another comment letter in response to the responses to comments. Due to the last-minute submittal of the November 18, 2024 comment letter, the Applicant and consultants provided oral responses at the November 19, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. On November 19, 2024, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 24-09, adopting the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and approved CUP No. 21-13, as conditioned, for the Project.
On November 27, 2024, CREED LA filed an Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09, Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program and Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13 for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (“Appeal”).
On behalf of the City, Kimley-Horn has reviewed the appeal letter and has prepared the following responses for the lead agency’s review and consideration. It should be noted that a majority of the issues presented in both the comment letter dated November 18, 2024, and the appeal letter dated November 27, 2024, have been previously raised in the comment letter dated October 30, 2024, and have been addressed in prior written and oral responses. As noted above, the responses to comments were incorporated into the City’s staff report and are contained in the administrative record.
For purposes of addressing the filed Appeal, this response letter addresses issues pertaining to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the associated environmental issues. As explained in the attached responses, the IS/MND satisfies the environmental review requirements pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code §§21000-21189.3), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title
ATTACHMENT E
EXHIBIT D
TO RESOLUTION NO. 25-035
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 14, Chapter 3, 15000-15387), and the City of South El Monte’s policies for implementing CEQA. The following are responses to the Appeal for the administrative record.
CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(b) states that “persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should:
1. Identify the specific effect,
2. Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and
3. Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(d) states, “Reviewing agencies or organizations should include with their comments the name of a contact person who would be available for later consultation if necessary. Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
7554-006acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
agraf @adamsbroadwell.com
printed on recycled paper
November 18, 2024
VIA E-Mail and Overnight Mail
Planning Commission
c/o Renee Reyes
Community Development Department
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
[email protected]
VIA E-Mail Only
Guillermo Arreola, Director
[email protected]
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 7.c.: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project
Dear Commissioners, Ms. Reyes, Mr. Arreola, and Mr. Marquez:
We write on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) regarding Agenda Item No. 7.c., which concerns the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) (SCH No. 2024100046),1 a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 21-13) for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (“Project”) proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”).
The City of South El Monte (“City”) Community Development Department Staff (“Staff”) recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 24- 09, adopt the MND and MMRP, and approve the CUP for a new 156,877 square foot warehousing building.2 Staff’s recommendation is premature and unsupported by 1 City of South El Monte, 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Oct. 2024) (hereinafter “IS/MND”). 2 City of South El Monte, Planning Commission Agenda Report: Agenda Item No. 7.c. re: Approval of Resolution No. 24-09 (Nov. 19, 2024) (“Staff Report”) p. 5, available at 1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the record because the City has not yet complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). CEQA requires the City to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) when there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that a project has potentially significant environmental or public health impacts that are not fully mitigated by a proposed MND, and where the MND does not contain the information required by law.
In this case, the IS/MND lacks information and analysis required by CEQA, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed Project will result in potentially significant impacts on public health, air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities which are not adequately disclosed and mitigated by the measures proposed in the IS/MND. The City consultant’s responses to CREED LA’s comments included in the Staff Report (“Responses”) ignore or fail to resolve most of these issues, and do not provide substantial evidence supporting Project approval.
Consequently, the Planning Commission cannot adopt the MND or approve the Project’s entitlements at this time.
In its Responses, the City asserts that the comments received on the IS/MND do not raise substantive environmental issues that would necessitate recirculation of the MND or preparation of an EIR.3 The City further claims that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND require no modifications based on public comments.4 These assertions lack merit and include precisely the type of disputes of fact that require preparation of an EIR under CEQA.
Under CEQA, any comments presenting a “fair argument” supported by substantial evidence, including facts or expert opinion, necessitate the preparation of an EIR, regardless of whether the City agrees with those comments.5 As https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/DocumentCenter/View/5872/11-19-24-Planning-CommissionRegular-Meeting-Agenda-PDF. 3 Id. at p. 5; see also Kimley Horn, Response to Comment Letter 2: Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Attorneys at Law (on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles [“CREED LA”]), October 30, 2024 (undated) (hereinafter “Kimley Horn Memorandum”); Memorandum to Dana Privitt, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. from Roma Stromberg, Ganddini Group, Inc. re: Response to Adams Broadwell Joseph &Cardozo Comment Letter Dated October 30, 2024, Regarding IS/MND Technical Studies for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) (Nov. 13, 2024) (hereinafter “Ganddini Memorandum”).
4 Ibid. 5 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (“Laurel Heights II”) (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. 1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
demonstrated in CREED LA’s preliminary comments on the IS/MND and detailed further below, the issues by CREED LA provide facts and expert evidence demonstrating that the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts that meet the fair argument standard.6
CREED LA respectfully urges the Planning Commission to continue this hearing and direct Staff to prepare an EIR for the Project before bringing the Project back for further consideration.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150- 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v.
City of Encinitas (“Quail Botanical”) (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601- 1602. 6 Letter to Guillermo Arreola, City of South El Monte from Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (Oct. 30, 2024) (hereinafter “CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments”). 1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
II. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY
APPROVE THE PROJECT
In most cases, CEQA mandates that lead agencies prepare an EIR for projects that could have significant environmental effects.7 The purpose of an EIR is to ensure that the public and decision-makers are fully informed about potential environmental consequences before decisions are made, thus promoting informed decision-making and protecting the environment.8
The “fair argument” standard underscores a preference for EIR preparation.
Under this standard, an EIR must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in the record indicating a fair argument that the project could significantly impact the environment.9 This standard sets a “low threshold” for triggering environmental review through an EIR, rather than through a mitigated negative declaration, which is only appropriate if all potentially significant effects of the project are avoided or reduced to insignificance.10
“Substantial evidence” under the fair argument standard means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”11 In cases where it’s uncertain whether substantial 7 Pub. Res. Code § 21000; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002. 8 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 9 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 1501-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.Appl.4th 1597, 1601-02.
10 Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b). 11 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a). 2 1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
evidence exists regarding a project’s potential environmental effects, the lead agency must consider expert opinion and facts.12 If there is disagreement among experts about the significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency must treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR.13
Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may cause significant public health, air quality, GHG emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, and mitigates these impacts, while also exploring less environmentally damaging alternatives, before it can approve the Project.
A. The IS/MND Project Description Remains Inadequate
1. The City Fails to Acknowledge or Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable High Intensity Warehouse Uses
CREED LA provided substantial evidence, supported by expert opinion, demonstrating that higher intensity warehouse uses, including high-cube warehouse operations, are reasonably foreseeable uses at the Project site under the proposed CUP.14 In response, the City claims, without supporting evidence, that high-cube warehouse uses are not applicable to the proposed Project simply because it is less than 200,000 square feet in size.15 This assertion ignores CREED LA’s comments, which described the range of feasible high-intensity warehouse uses at the Project site.
The Project’s operational characteristics and the severity of its environmental and public health impacts are not determined solely by size but by allowable uses.
In the absence of binding restrictions – such as conditions of approval, a covenant on the title of the underlying property, or mitigation measures – which prohibit future high intensity retail, warehouse (and cold storage uses, as discussed below) at the Project site, there is no evidence supporting the City’s assertion that these activities would not occur.
The City has a duty under CEQA to analyze the impacts of all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project site.16 High-cube warehouses are defined by their 12 Id. § 15064(g).
13 Ibid. 14 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 4-6. There is nothing in the General Plan or Municipal Code prohibiting high intensity or cold storage warehouse uses under the proposed CUP. 15 Ganddini Memorandum at pp. 1-2. 16 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. 2 A.1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
function, such as the storage and distribution of goods, often involving high levels of truck traffic, energy consumption, and GHG emissions. These characteristics can apply to warehouses smaller than 200,000 square feet, particularly if the facility is designed or intended to support logistics operations requiring frequent truck trips or intensive energy use. By focusing solely on square footage, the IS/MND failed to analyze the Project’s impacts resulting from potential operation as a higher intensity warehouse. This oversight results in inadequate disclosure and mitigation of the Project’s potential environmental impacts.
The City’s unsupported dismissal of higher intensity uses is inconsistent with the allowable uses under the Project’s proposed CUP, which do not restrict the type of warehouse operations that can occur at the Project site. CEQA’s mandate is to analyze all reasonably foreseeable impacts of a Project. Given the feasibility of high intensity use at the Project site, and the substantial evidence in the record from CREED LA and its experts demonstrating that the impacts from high intensity use would be significant and unmitigated, the City’s decision to ignore these uses is unsupported and contrary to law. There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may operate in a manner consistent with high-cube warehouse uses. An EIR is required to fully evaluate and mitigate these potentially significant impacts.
2. The City Fails to Describe and Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable Cold Storage Warehouse Use
CREED LA provided substantial evidence, supported by expert opinion, demonstrating that cold storage warehouse uses are reasonably foreseeable for the proposed Project and would result in significant, unmitigated impacts.17 In response, the City asserts that the Project can be conditioned to prohibit cold storage.18 However, this claim is misleading, as none of the Project’s proposed conditions of approval explicitly prohibit cold storage.19 Without an enforceable condition prohibiting this use, there is no guarantee that cold storage operations – which could significantly increase energy consumption, GHG emissions, and other environmental impacts – will not occur as part of the Project. 17 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 5-8. 18 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 2. 19 See Staff Report, attach. A (Draft Resolution No. 24-09: A Resolution of the South El Monte Planning Commission Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Prepared in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; Approving Conditional Use Permit 21-13 to Allow for the Development of a New Approximately 156,877 Square Foot Warehouse Building Located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard) (hereinafter “Draft Resolution No. 24-09”).
A.1
A.2
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Under CEQA, a mitigation measure or condition of approval must be enforceable and clearly articulated to ensure that environmental impacts are adequately mitigated.20 The Attorney General also recommends that, if an agency intends to prohibit cold storage at warehouse projects, the project must either adopt mitigation measures limiting cold storage impacts or record a covenant on the title of the underlying property to ensure that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.21 No such mitigation or land use covenants are included in the IS/MND or Responses.
The absence of a specific and enforceable prohibition against cold storage renders the City’s response insufficient and undermines the credibility of the environmental review process. The potential for unmitigated impacts from cold storage operations further supports the need for a full EIR to analyze and disclose these potential impacts comprehensively.
B. The City Fails to Analyze Public Health Impacts Associated with Exposure to the Project’s Emissions
CREED LA commented that the IS/MND failed to analyze public health impacts associated with toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), particularly diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), generated during Project construction and operation on nearby sensitive receptors, including residents of a mobile home park directly south of the Project site.22 In response to comments, the City claims that it is not required to perform a quantitative health risk analysis (“HRA”), arguing that is a recommendation rather than a mandate by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), or the City itself.23 In addition, the City asserts the SCAQMD did not request a construction or operational HRA.24 However, these arguments overlook CEQA’s core requirement to fully disclose and analyze significant environmental impacts, including those related to public health.25 The California Supreme Court 20 Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2). 21 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 9, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf (“Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.”). 22 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 14-19. 23 Ganddini Memorandum at pp. 2-3. 24 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 3. 25 CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4); Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523.
A.2
B.1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
has interpreted this requirement to include a specific duty to disclose the health effects posed by exposure to a project’s air emissions.26 While preparation of an HRA may not be explicitly mandated by OEHHA or SCAQMD, CEQA requires that lead agencies evaluate whether a project has the potential for significant impacts, including health risks from exposure to TACs and DPM generated during construction and operation of the Project. To comply with CEQA, the City must assess whether exposure to the Project’s TACs/DPM emissions would result in exceedances of appliable health-based CEQA significance thresholds. Here, the SCAQMD significance thresholds for TAC exposure include:
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment).27 A quantitative HRA is a standard methodology for assessing these risks and ensuring compliance with CEQA’s requirement for a good-faith, evidence-based environmental analysis. The City failed to perform this analysis in the IS/MND.
The City’s reliance on SCQAMD’s lack of a project-specific request for an HRA is a red herring. CEQA does not allow the lead agency to delegate its responsibility for a comprehensive environmental review to other entities.28 The City must independently evaluate the Project’s health risks based on substantial evidence in the record.29 By declining to perform an HRA, the City fails to provide the quantitative analysis necessary to compare exposure to Project emissions to applicable significance thresholds, or to assess whether additional mitigation measures are required to reduce those impacts.
The City also improperly relies on SCAQMD’s localized significant thresholds (“LSTs”).30 LSTs are designed to prevent exceedances of federal or state air quality 26 Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522. 27 See South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.aqmd.gov/docs /default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D25&ved=2ahUKEwj_2MnOOaJAxWaMzQIHRAJNiwQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07n1OZu8Nvvtfq0AnstLMG (last visited Nov. 18, 2024).
28 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308. 29 Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a). 30 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 3.
B.1
B.2
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
standards, not to assess the health risks of TACs such as DPM.31 Unlike criteria pollutants with established ambient air quality standards, DPM has no known safe exposure threshold. Therefore, the use of LSTs as a proxy for DPM impacts is not only scientifically inappropriate but also legally insufficient under CEQA.
Finally, public health impacts are often cumulative in nature, particularly in areas already burdened by poor air quality or high concentrations of diesel emissions. Indeed, the CalEnviroScreen scores for the Project’s census tract are in the 78th percentile for particulate matter and the 92nd percentile for DPM.32 Without an HRA, the City cannot adequately assess the cumulative health risks posed by this Project in conjunction with other existing and planned developments in the area. This failure leaves a critical gap in the environmental review, undermining the validity of the IS/MND.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that includes a comprehensive HRA. This analysis is essential for disclosing the Project’s potential health impacts, evaluating cumulative risks, and identifying feasible mitigation measures to protect public health.
C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument the Project Would Result in Significant Noise Impacts
1. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support the Construction Noise Significance Threshold
The City’s reliance on an 80 dBA Leq threshold for construction noise, as derived from the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”), is inappropriate and constitutes a misapplication of the manual’s guidance.33 The FTA Manual emphasizes that construction noise impact assessments should consider several contextual factors, including existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels anticipated during construction activities, the duration and timing of construction, and the sensitivity of adjacent land uses.34 By adopting a blanket 80 dBA Leq threshold without 31 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (July 2008), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 32 IS/MND, appen. E, PDF pp. 163-64. 33 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 7.
34 Attachment A, Letter to Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo from Neil P.
Shaw, Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc. re: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Acoustic Review (Nov. 15, 2024) pp. 2-3 (hereinafter “Shaw Comments”).
B.2
B.3
C.1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
accounting for these critical factors, the City fails to ensure that its analysis reflects site-specific conditions and potential impacts as required under CEQA.
The FTA Manual does not prescribe the use of an 80 dBA Leq as a universal standard but instead recommends tailoring the threshold to the specific circumstances of a project.35 CEQA similarly requires agencies to evaluate noise impacts in context, considering the significance of an impact in relation to the environment’s baseline conditions and the characteristics of the affected receptors.36 The City’s rigid application of the FTA Manual’s threshold without such contextual considerations undermines the adequacy of the noise analysis and fails to comply with CEQA’s mandate for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
Furthermore, when contextual factors are appropriately considered, it is evident that the 80 dBA Leq threshold is inapplicable. As CREED LA’s acoustical expert Neil Shaw explains, residential mobile trailers do not fall within Land Use Category 3, which is defined by the FTA Manual as a land use category subject to severe noise impact thresholds.37 Residential mobile trailers are more acoustically sensitive and align more closely with Land Use Categories 1 and 2, which are afforded stricter noise thresholds under the FTA Manual.38 These categories impose absolute limits of 65 dBA for moderate impact and 70 dBA for severe impact, reflecting the need for greater noise protection for sensitive receptors.39 The City’s application of an 80 dBA Leq threshold fails to account for this critical distinction, effectively misclassifying residential mobile trailers under a land use category with inapplicable thresholds. This oversight not only disregards the heightened sensitivity of residential receptors, but also demonstrates a broader failure to align the noise analysis with the FTA Manual’s guidance. By neglecting to apply the appropriate thresholds for more acoustically sensitive land uses, the City’s analysis underestimates the potential noise impacts of construction activities, resulting in unsupported significance conclusions and further undermining compliance with CEQA’s requirements for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
35 Id. at pp. 2-3.
36 Pub. Res. Code § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15360, appen. G; King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v.
County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 884.
37 Shaw Comments at p. 3.
38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.
C.1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
2. The Project’s Construction Noise Is Significant and Unmitigated CREED LA’s preliminary comments and Mr. Shaw’s expert opinion demonstrate that the Project’s construction noise would exceed the applicable daytime noise standards in Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code, causing significant impacts that require mitigation.40 These comments highlight that the construction noise levels would exceed the 55 dBA daytime standards set forth in Section 8.20.020 for the mobile homes located south of the Project site.41 Specifically, Table 11 of Appendix E shows that construction noise impacts at the mobile homes would reach 74 dBA Leq during demolition, grading, and building construction, 68 dBA Leq during paving, and 61.2 dBA Leq during architectural coating, constituting a significant impact under CEQA.42 In addition to violating the quantitative standards, Mr. Shaw’s comments demonstrate that the Project’s construction activities would also violate Section
8.20.010’s qualitative standards for “intrusive noise” causing a “noise disturbance.”43 “Intrusive noise” is defined as “noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location.”44 “Noise disturbance” is defined as “any sound which (i) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (ii) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (iii) endangers or injures personal or real property or (iv) violates the limits set forth in Section 8.20.020.”45
The Project’s noise levels exceed ambient noise levels at the mobile homes by wide margins, qualifying as “intrusive noise” under the Municipal Code.46 These noise levels also constitute a “noise disturbance” because, as illustrated in Figure 3 of Appendix E,47 they are equivalent to a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet.48 Such levels would undoubtedly annoy or disturb reasonable people of normal sensitivity.49 40 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 30-32; Shaw Comments at pp. 4-5. 41 Ibid. 42 IS/MND, appen. E, p. 35; CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 30-32; Shaw Comments at pp. 4-5; Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (exceedance of established significance threshold is a significant impact); Endangered Habitats League v. Orange (2005) 131 CA4th 777, 783-4; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7. 43 Shaw Comments at pp. 4-6. 44 Municipal Code § 8.20.010(E). 45 Municipal Code § 8.20.010 (emphasis added).
46 Shaw Comments at p. 5.
47 IS/MND, appen. E at p. 7.
48 Shaw Comments at pp. 5-6.
49 Ibid.
C.2
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
CREED LA’s preliminary comments cite Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) data showing that noise increases of 5 to 10 dBA typically result in “widespread complaints,” and 10 dBA or more can provoke “threats of legal action.”50 The Project’s construction noise, which exceeds ambient noise by as much as 20 dBA,51 clearly supports a fair argument that the Project will result in significant noise impacts requiring analysis in an EIR.
Substantial evidence, including expert comments, demonstrates that the Project’s construction noise would exceed both quantitative and qualitative noise thresholds, causing significant impacts under CEQA. These impacts must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. Without such analysis, the IS/MND is deficient and does not provide the Commission with substantial evidence to support approval findings.
3. The IS/MND Fails to Adopt Enforceable Construction Noise Mitigation Measures
In response to comments, the City asserts that certain best management practices (“BMPs”) would be adopted as conditions of approval to reduce construction noise impacts.52 However, none of these BMPs are explicitly included in the conditions of approval or referenced in a manner that ensures their enforceability.53
Under CEQA, mitigation measures must be specific, enforceable, and committed to by the lead agency.54 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2) states that mitigation measures “must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.” BMPs that are vaguely described or omitted entirely from the conditions of approval fail to meet this requirement.
The City’s failure to incorporate the promised BMPs into the conditions of approval creates a significant gap in the environmental review process. Without enforceable conditions: (1) there is no assurance that the BMPs will be implemented during the Project’s construction, (2) the purported benefits of these BMPs in reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts cannot be credited in the 50 CREED LA Preliminary Comments, pg. 32-33; Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pg. 18, Figure 3-6 (Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment) 51 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 31-32; Shaw Comments at p. 5. 52 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 8. 53 See Draft Resolution No. 24-09.
54 Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2).
C.2
C.3
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental analysis, and (3) the omission undermines the credibility of the City’s claim that potential impacts have been adequately mitigated.
This omission is not merely procedural but has substantive implications for the adequacy of the IS/MND under CEQA. Without enforceable commitments to implement the BMPs, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in significant environmental impacts that have not bene mitigated to a less than significant level. Courts have consistently held that vague or unenforceable mitigation measures cannot support the finding of less than significant impacts.55
The City’s reliance on unenforceable BMPs to mitigate potentially significant impacts is a clear violation of CEQA. An EIR must be prepared to fully analyze the Project’s impacts and include enforceable mitigation measures to address them.
4. The IS/MND Underestimates Operational Noise Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze noise impacts generated by truck operations on the Projects site, including noise from driving, backing up, and idling.
Although the IS/MND evaluates roadway noise and loading/unloading activities, it omits critical on-site noise sources associated with operational truck movements.56 This omission is particularly significant given the Project’s proximity to sensitive receptors, such as the residences immediately south of the property line, where noise from truck operations could exceed thresholds of significance and cause substantial impacts.
Studies by the California Air Resources Board highlight the severity of these potential impacts. Diesel trucks at idle generate noise levels of approximately 96 dBA, while diesel-powered TRUs operating at high idle produce 104 dBA.57 Trucks accessing the loading docks via the southern driveway would expose nearby residences to these elevated noise levels. Without analysis or mitigation of these impacts, the IS/MND fails to disclose potentially significance noise effects as required under CEQA.
In addition, the IS/MND’s discussion of loading/unloading noise is inconsistent and underestimates impacts. While the Appendix E claims to rely on a 55 Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261. 56 Shaw Comments at p. 7.
57 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Technology Assessment: Non-Truck Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) (Oct. 2022) pp. 17-18, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 10/CARB%202022%20TRU%20Technology%20Assessment%2010-14-22.pdf.
C.3
C.4
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
70 dBA Leq reference level for these activities, the included SoundPLAN worksheet instead shows a 65 dBA reference level.58 This discrepancy undermines the validity of the IS/MND’s findings. Even if the 70 dBA reference level were used consistently, it still significantly underestimates potential impacts, given that truck idling noise levels range from 96 to 104 dBA. The failure to account for these higher, more realistic noise levels renders the IS/MND’s conclusion that operational noise impacts are less than significance unsupported.
By omitting on-site truck noise from its analysis and underestimating loading/unloading noise impacts, the IS/MND fails to meet CEQA’s requirement to disclose and evaluate all potentially significance environmental impacts. Given the proximity of sensitive receptors and the likelihood of noise levels significantly exceeding ambient thresholds, the Project could result in unmitigated significant noise impacts.
An EIR must be prepared to provide a comprehensive analysis of operational noise impacts from all on-site truck activities, including idling, driving, and backing up. Additionally, the EIR should identify and implement feasible mitigation measures, such as operational restrictions, noise barriers, or buffer zones, to ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Without this analysis and mitigation, the IS/MND does not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for transparency and impact reduction.
5. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Lacks Substantial Evidence
The IS/MND claims that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the Project site would reduce operational noise impacts to less than significant.59 However, this conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence due to significant inconsistencies in the analysis and description of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) NOI-1.
Mr. Shaw identifies numerous inconsistencies in the IS/MND and Appendix E regarding the proposed barrier wall height.60 These discrepancies create confusion and prevent meaningful analysis of whether the proposed mitigation is adequate to reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Critically, there is no evidence in the record to confirm that a 10-foot wall would provide sufficient noise reduction.61 Without clarity on the height and configuration of the proposed 58 Shaw Comments at p. 7.
59 IS/MND at pp. 91, 97.
60 Shaw Comments at pp. 7-8.
61 Id. at p. 8.
C.4
C.5
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
barrier, the City cannot demonstrate that the Project’s significant operational noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
The noise analysis in Appendix E fails to clarify which barrier height – 10 feet or 14 feet – was used in its calculations.62 This lack of transparency undermines the reliability of Table 14, which purports to show mitigated daytime noise levels, and Table 15, which purports to show nighttime noise levels.63 If the analysis relied on a 14-foot barrier, but the IS/MND ultimately proposes a 10-foot barrier, the mitigation is demonstrably insufficient.
Additionally, Figure 7 in Appendix E reflects operational noise levels mitigated by a 14-foot barrier, further casting doubt on whether a 10-foot barrier would meet stationary noise standards.64 The City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that a 10-foot barrier is adequate to mitigate the Project’s significant operational noise impacts.
Even assuming a 14-foot barrier, Mr. Shaw identifies critical design flaws in MM NOI-1 that would render the mitigation inadequate. Specifically, the proposed wall does not account for flanking, a phenomenon where sound travels around the edges of a barrier.65 To address flanking, Mr. Shaw recommends extending the barrier northward by at least 30 feet at the east and west ends of the southern property line.66 This configuration would help block sound from bypassing the wall and reduce noise impacts to sensitive receptors.67 Simply specifying the height of the wall is insufficient to ensure the noise reduction estimates in Appendix E are achieved.68
The failure to resolve inconsistencies regarding the barrier’s height and to account for critical design flaws violates CEQA’s requirement for substantial evidence and enforceable mitigation measures.69 Without a clear, accurate, and enforceable noise mitigation plan, the IS/MND cannot support its conclusion that operational noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR to (1) resolve the inconsistencies regarding the barrier height, (2) re-evaluate the Project’s 62 Id. at pp. 7-8.
63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Id. at p. 8.
66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1).
C.5
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
operational noise impacts based on realistic and enforceable mitigation measures, and (3) address flanking and other design flaws to ensure the mitigation measures are effective.
D. Substantial Evidence Demonstrates that Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures Are Insufficient to Reduce the Impact to a Less than Significant Level
CREED LA commented that MM TRANS-1 fails to mitigate the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts to less than significant levels.70 This failure is due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction and the fact that, even with the maximum assumed reduction, the Project’s VMT exceeds the threshold of significance.71 The City’s response to comments does not resolve these deficiencies.
The City asserts that the maximum assumed VMT reduction is appropriate because MM TRANS-1 includes components that are applicable to 100% of employees.72 However, broad applicability does not inherently ensure that the measure will achieve the claimed reductions. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating their feasibility and actual effectiveness.73 The City’s response fails to provide any evidence that 100% applicability translates to achieving the assumed VMT reduction. Without such data, studies, or other substantial evidence to validate the effectiveness of MM TRANS-1, the mitigation measure remains speculative and legally inadequate.
The City also argues that calculating the VMT values to two decimal points introduces an inappropriate level of precision by adding a significant digit.74 This argument is misplaced. Accurate and precise calculations are essential to properly evaluate whether the Project complies with the threshold of significance, particularly in cases where small variances could determine whether impacts are deemed significant. By dismissing the importance of precision, the City fails to substantively address CREED LA’s concern that VMT impacts remain above the threshold, even under the maximum reduction assumptions.
In sum, MM TRANS-1 fails to adequately mitigate the Project’s significant VMT impacts to less than significant levels, as required by CEQA. The lack of 70 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 26-27. 71 Id. at p. 27. 72 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 6. 73 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 866. 74 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 7.
C.5
D.1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction, combined with the Project’s exceedance of the significance threshold, demonstrates the inadequacy of the mitigation measure. Furthermore, the City’s responses to comments do not resolve these deficiencies. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that provides substantial evidence supporting the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures, identifies and evaluates additional feasible measures to reduce VMT impacts to less-than-significant levels, and ensures transparent and precise VMT calculations to accurately assess compliance with thresholds of significance.
E. The City Fails to Analyze Fire Flow Requirements and Public Utility Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze potentially significant public utility impacts related to fire flow requirements.75 Fire flow requirements, which refer to the volume and pressure needed to combat fires, are critical for public safety and ensuring that existing infrastructure can accommodate the increased demands of new development.
In response to CREED LA’s comment, the City attempts to defer the evaluation of fire flow requirements and infrastructure capacity to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (“LACFD”) Fire Prevention Division’s site review.76 However, deferring this analysis is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement that the environmental review document provide sufficient analysis to determine whether a project may result in significant impacts, including impacts on public utilities and infrastructure.77 Deferral to another agency’s technical review process fails to meet CEQA’s requirement for a transparent and comprehensive analysis of environmental consequences.
Moreover, while LACFD is responsible for ensuring compliance with fire safety codes, its review is limited to regulatory and technical standards. LACFD’s process does not encompass the broader environmental evaluation required by CEQA, such as analyzing whether the Project may overburden water supply systems or create cumulative impacts. Courts have consistently held that deferring environmental review to a later stage or another agency violates CEQA.78 75 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at p. 32. 76 Kimley Horn Memorandum at pp. 4-5. 77 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063, 15070. 78 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.
D.1
E.1
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
By failing to analyze the Project’s fire flow requirements or the infrastructure’s capacity to supply adequate fire flow, the IS/MND omits a crucial aspect of environmental review. To ensure compliance with CEQA and adequately address these concerns, the City must prepare an EIR that thoroughly evaluates, discloses and mitigates potential public utility impacts.
III. CONCLUSION
The City cannot approve the proposed Project without first addressing the numerous deficiencies in the IS/MND identified by CREED LA and members of the public. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare a legally adequate EIR that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, and mitigates all potentially significant impacts.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Graf
Attachment
AJG:acp
E.1
3
POT OFFICE BOX1610, TOPANGA, CALIFORNIA 90290 TEL: 310-455-2221 MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
Consultants in Acoustics and Communication Technologies 15 November 2024
Mr. Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Acoustic Review
Dear Mr. Marshall,
Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc., reviewed the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a (MND), Appendix E Noise Impact Analysisb, and the City of South El Monte Municipal Codec (MC) in regards to the subject project, concerning the proposed development in the City of South El Monte of an approximately 156,877-sf concrete tilt-up warehouse with 13 dock doors. Sensitive receptors near the project site include a mobile home park located directly to the south of the proposed project. This report addresses deficiencies in the MND’s analysis of impacts on the mobile home park during both the construction and operational phase.
Our review of these documents finds the following items of concern that call into question the findings contained in Appendix E and thus the findings in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of no significant impact.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
1) It is unclear whether a nighttime prohibition on truck movement is part of the unmitigated Project Description.
The IS/MND states that all on-site truck movement and loading and unloading activities at the proposed loading docks, which are located behind electronic gates, would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.d Appendix E MM NOI-1 states: “Install a 14-foothigh concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site as shown in Figure 7.” Yet MND MM NOI-1 states “…(1) require the installation of a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site; or (2) prohibit a Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. b Prepared by Ganddini Group Inc. c http://southelmonte-ca.elaws.us/code/coor_title8
d IS/MND, page 6 (“As previously noted, the gates would be closed between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.”).
AA.1
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 2 truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.” Italics and bold for “or” added. Due to this inconsistency, it is unclear whether a nighttime prohibition on truck movement is part of the unmitigated project. 2) The 80 dBA Construction Noise Threshold Is Inapplicable to the Project Appendix E, Noise Impact Analysis, states that the project’s construction noise has been analyzed using a maximum noise threshold contained in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”).e Appendix E, on page 30, says “Based on the FTA criteria, project construction noise would be considered significant if it exceeds 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period at residential and noise-sensitive outdoor areas.” Appendix E concludes that since the calculated impacts would be below 80 dBA, and so the calculated impacts would be less than significant.
However, this threshold is inapplicable to the subject project.
The FTA Manual prefaces its discussion of construction noise thresholds by cautioning that “criteria must be developed on a project-specific basis,” and that “it is not the purpose of this manual to specify standardized criteria for construction noise impact.”f The FTA Manual also cautions, “Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use.”g The MND misapplies the FTA Manual’s guidance because it has not set a construction noise significance threshold with consideration of any of these factors. Careful application of recommendations in the FTA Manual demonstrates that a lower maximum noise threshold is appropriate for this Project and the nearby receptors.
The FTA manual section 4.1 Determine Noise Impact Criteria, starting on page 20, states “This section describes the procedure for determining the appropriate criteria for assessing project noise impact based on the type of project and project noise source.” Step I: Identify Project Type, on page 21, provides three types of projects:
Option A: Transit Project Only, Option B: Multimodal Project (Transit and Highway Noise), and Option C: Other Multimodal Projects.
The subject project does not include new transit rail and similar sources (Option A), does not include transit and highway sources (Option B), and does not include, on page 23, “components from other modes.”
e Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. f FTA Manual, pg. 179.
g Id.
AA.1
AA.2
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 3 The manual then discusses Land Use Categories, on page 23, in Table 4-3, Table 4-3 Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria. The table presets the land use category, land use type, the noise metric (dBA), and a description of land use category.
Land Use Category 2 in Table 4-3 is “Residential”, the noise metric is “Outdoor Ldn,” and the description is “This category is applicable all residential land use and buildings where people normally sleep, such as hotels and hospitals.”
FTA manual Appendix C: Background for Transit Noise Impact Criteria, in section C.3: Equations for Noise Impact Criteria Curves, on page 220, states “For land use category 1 and 2, the absolute limit is 65 dBA for moderate impact and 70 dBA for severe impact. For land use category 3, the absolute limit is 75 dBA for moderate impact and 80 dBA for severe impact.”
The residential mobile trailers are not in Land Use Category 3 with a severe impact.
The 80 dBA criteria used in the MND is inapplicable to the project as:
1) The project is not a transit project.
2) The project is not in Land Use Category Type 3, Institutional, per Table 4-3. 3) The project is in Land Use Category 2, Residential, per Table 4-3. 4) The calculated levels in the MND exceed the criteria in the South El Monte MC.
Now, Leq(t) is described in the FTA manual in section B.I.4.4, on page 210, the Equivalent Sound Level, and is described in the manual as follows:
“The metric for cumulative noise exposure over a specific time interval is the equivalent sound level. It is a single decibel value that accounts for total sound energy from all sound levels over a specified time interval (or time period). The time period associated with the equivalent sound level metric can vary for different types of analyses. This metric is abbreviated as Leq(t), where “t” is the duration of the time period. Leq(t) represents a hypothetical constant sound level and contains the same overall sound energy as the actual varying sound energy during the time period “t”. For most transit noise analyses, an A-weighted, hourly equivalent sound level is used, abbreviated here as Leq(1hr). Leq(1hr) is expressed in the unit, dBA.”
Figure B-9, Typical Hourly Leq(1 Hr)’s, in the FTA manual, notes for non-transit sources, 80 dBA is the Hourly Noise Level (HNL) for an 8-Lane Highway – see figure below.
AA.2
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 4 Figure B-9 - Typical Hourly Leq(1 Hr)’s
3) Noise Impacts Below 80 dBA Would Exceed South El Monte Municipal Code Standards, Resulting in Significant Impacts on Residents MC Section 8.20.020 A, Exterior Noise Limits, Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use, Table 1, Exterior Noise Limits by Zone, specifies noise limits for various land use or zones, shown below.
Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits by Zone
AA.3
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 5 Further, 8.20.020 A states:
1. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased or occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
b. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
c. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus ten dBA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
d. The exterior noise limit plus fifteen dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus twenty dBA for any period of time.
The proposed 80 dBA FTA limits exceed all the criteria in 8.20.020 1. The calculated noise level in Appendix E, Table 11, Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) for the residences south of the proposed project also exceed all the criteria in 8.20.020 1. This is a significant impact requiring mitigation.
The Project’s construction noise levels would also be significant pursuant to MC
8.20.010 (defining “Intrusive noise” and “Noise disturbance”). Section 8.20.010 E provides that “‘Intrusive noise’ means noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency and time of occurrence, and tonal or information content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.” And 8.20.010 provides that “‘Noise disturbance’ means any sound which (i) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (ii) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (iii) endangers or injures personal or real property or (iv) violates the limits set forth in Section 8.20.020.” Italics added.
The Project’s anticipated construction noise levels, as presented in Table 11 of Appendix E, would constitute intrusive noise and would cause a noise disturbance. For example, construction noise impacts at the mobile homes would reach 74 dBA Leq during demolition, grading, and building construction, 68 dBA Leq during paving, and 61.2 dBA during architectural coating. As shown in Appendix E Figure 3 (A-weighted Comparative Sound Levels), below, these noise levels are equivalent to noise sources shown below. These noise levels would annoy or disturb reasonable persons of normal sensitivities.
AA.3
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 6 Figure 3 - A-weighted Comparative Sound Levels
OPERATIONAL NOISE LIMITS
1) Appendix E does not account for mobile noise sources on the proposed project site.
Appendix E page 32, under Project Operational Mobile Noise Source, states:
“Roadway noise levels were calculated for the following scenarios:
● Existing (without Project): This scenario refers to existing year traffic noise conditions.
●Existing Plus Project: This scenario refers to existing year plus project traffic noise conditions.”
AA.4
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 7 But this analysis of roadway noise levels does not reflect noise generated by mobile sources on the Project site. A review of the Appendix E appendices does not find any worksheet or calculations for the truck traffic on the proposed project site nor the impact of same on the mobile home residences to the south of the project. Appendix E does not discuss the impact of trucks entering and leaving the proposed project site on the residential property to the south (see MND Figure 3) to access the loading docks in the daytime or nighttime. Appendix E does not address the noise from trucks backing up to the docks, pulling away from the docks, nor the noise from the trucks idling while at the docks.
Appendix E’s analysis of loading/unloading noise is internally inconsistent. Although Appendix E under Truck/Drive, on page 23, says “The proposed loading area was modeled using a SoundPLAN sound reference level for loading/unloading adjusted to be a sound level equivalent of 70 dBA Leq at any point within the loading area,” no worksheet was found in Appendix E’s Appendix E, SoundPLAN Worksheets (pages aPx-62 to aPX- 66) that reflect a 70 dBA sound reference level. Rather, on page aPx-63, a SoundPLAN Worksheet shows that the reference level used for “Area Source - Loading/Unloading” is 65 dBA.
Appendix E’s Appendix E, page aPx-63, Noise emissions of industry sources, mentions Area Source – Loading/Unloading, with entries that are HVAC equipment, but this noise level is very quiet compared to the HVAC units. There is no description of this loading/unloading activity.
2) Appendix E is not consistent in regards to the height of the proposed barrier at the south property line of the proposed project.
The MND concludes that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site would bring the Project into compliance with stationary noise standards. This conclusion is not supported by the analysis in Appendix E, which inconsistently references both a 10-foot and 14-foot barrier.
MM NOI-1 is described inconsistently. In the executive summary of Appendix E, MM NOI-1 calls for a 14-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site (Appendix E, page iv). On page 31 of Appendix E, MM NOI-1 calls for a 10-foot-high wall. In the MND, MM NOI-1 calls for a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site. Appendix E fails to provide worksheets, calculations, or spreadsheets resolving this inconsistency.
Tables and figures in Appendix E are internally inconsistent. Appendix E Table 14 is titled on page 38 as “Project Compliance with Stationary Noise Standards – Daytime With 10-foot Barrier,” but is titled in Appendix E’s List of Tables as “Table 14. Project Compliance With Stationary Noise Standards – Daytime, With 14-Foot Barrier” (page ii).
AA.4
AA.5
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 8 There is no evidence in the record that Table 14 contains data reflecting a 10-foot wall.
Table 14 itself shows, in the column titled “Operational Noise levels1” the number “45” for Receptor 4. The superscript 1 in the column title refers to note 1 of the table, “(1) See Figure 6.” The citation to Figure 6 is erroneous, as Figure 6 shows the unmitigated noise levels – there is no entry for a 10-foot fence under Signs and Symbols on Figure 6. Table 14 may have intended to refer to mitigated noise levels shown in Appendix E Figure 7. But Figure 7 also does not clearly reflect noise levels with a 10-foot wall – although Figure 7 has an entry for a 10-foot fence under Signs and Symbols, Figure 7 is titled: “Operational Noise Levels (dBA, CNEL) with 14-Foot Barrier.”
Appendix E states: “With construction of a ten-foot concrete barrier along the southern property line where the project site abuts single family land uses operational noise levels would be 45 dBA Leq and no nighttime standards would be exceeded (see Tables 14 and 15, and Figure 7).” There is no evidence in Appendix E supporting the adequacy of a 10-foot wall due to the inconsistent references to 10-foot and 14-foot walls. There is no information in Appendix E showing that Appendix E calculated noise reductions for a 10- foot wall, as are no worksheets, calculations, or spreadsheets for the noise levels noted in Table 14, Figure 6, or Figure 7.
3) The noise barrier must be conditioned to reduce noise flanking.
The noise barrier proposed by MM NOI-1 needs to continue to the north for at least 30 feet at the east and west ends of the barrier to reduce flanking. Flanking refers to when a sound passes around a partition separating two spaces. Simply specifying the height of a wall between adjacent spaces fails to guarantee the noise reductions estimated in Appendix E. 4) Appendix E improperly compares noise metrics.
The noise metric in Figure 6 is “Leq” but, according to the Figure 7 title, the noise metric in Figure 7 is “CNEL”. MC 08.20.010 does not list CNEL and Appendix E, page 31, under “Mobile Source Noise” states “California courts have rejected use of what is effectively a single “absolute noise level” threshold of significance (e.g., exceed 65 dBA CNEL) on the grounds that the use of such a threshold fails to consider the magnitude or severity of increases in noise levels attributable to the project in different environments.
OTHER ISSUES
1) Appendix E pages 37 and 39 appears to be from another project “8388 Beech Avenue Truck-Trailer Storage Facility Noise Impact Analysis 19581.” Table 13 on page 37 and Table 15 on page 39 refer to a “Receptor R-4.” Receptor R-4 is not found anywhere else in Appendix E.
AA.5
AA.6
AA.7
AA.8
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 9
CONCLUSION
Due to the errors in the analysis as described above, the conclusion that the project impact is less than significant is unsupported.
Sincerely,
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
Neil A. Shaw, FASA, FAES
NAS:sk
RESUME - NEIL A. SHAW
Education: University of California, Los Angeles
B. S. Engineering, 1977, cum laude
M. S. Engineering, 1977
Cooper Union, New York, 1968 - 1970
Honors: Kenward S. Oliphant Memorial Fellowship in Acoustical Engineering (awarded by Consulting Engineers Association of California)
Tau Beta Pi
Experience: Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc., Topanga
Designer and manager for acoustic design projects including audio-visual systems, sound reinforcement systems, television and radio production systems, architectural room acoustics, electromagnetic compatibility system design and criteria development, electroacoustic and electronic signal processing equipment product performance criteria development, product design and development, environmental noise surveys and analysis, noise and vibrations control, sound isolation, and machine noise control.
1992 to present.
Principal.
University of Southern California, Thornton School of Music 2008 - 2010.
Southern California Institute of Architecture, Los Angeles 2003.
WEAL, Santa Monica
Design and construction services for sound reinforcement systems, television systems, A/V systems, paging systems, and masking noise systems for various production facilities, convention centers, airport terminals, auditoriums, places of worship, concert halls, athletic facilities, courtrooms, multipurpose rooms, gymnasiums, museums, banquet halls, lecture rooms and other facilities.
Transportation ambient noise surveys and analysis, construction site noise measurements, and field STC and NIC measurements per ASTM E 336-84.
Lead member of team to install, run and maintain database manager computer software for company projects and clients. Part of design, implementation and enhancement team for computer controlled laboratory data acquisition and processing for laboratory tests performed per ASTM E 90-85 and ASTM C 423-84a.
1975 to 1992.
Aero-acoustics Laboratory, UCLA
Responsibilities include computer programming, aero-acoustic measurements, acoustic measurements, database search and statistical processing, A/D antialiasing filter design and prototyping, multi-channel data acquisition and processing, post processing and display.
1978 to 1984.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume 2
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
Affiliations: Fellow, Acoustical Society of America
Chairman, Los Angeles Chapter, 1991 to 2001.
Organizer and Co-Chair, Joint ASA/ASJ meeting 1996, Auralization Special Session.
Organizer and Chair, ASA meeting, 1997, Engineering Acoustics Special Session.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 1999, Engineering Acoustics Special Session.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 2000, Student Loudspeaker Design Competition.
Chairman, ASA meeting, 2001, Architectural Acoustics Modeling and Imaging Special Session.
Organizer and Chair, ASA meeting, 2001, Architectural Acoustics Cruise Ship Acoustics Special Session.
Tutorial on Architectural Acoustics, Joint ASA/ICA/MCA Cancun meeting, December 2002.
Invited Paper, November 2003 ASA meeting, “Sound Quality and Loudspeakers,” Special Session on Sound Quality - When Sound is the Essential Quality.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 2004, Special Session on the Bell Laboratories and Acoustics.
Invited Paper, June 2004 ASA meeting, “Textbooks on Acoustics,” On the Occasion of His 90 Birthday, To Honor the Contributions of Leo th
L. Beranek to Acoustics and Teaching Special Session sponsored by all the Technical Committees and ASA Committees.
Chairman, June 2004 ASA meeting, General Topics in Architectural Acoustics
Invited Paper, June 2005 ASA meeting, “Barnum Hall - The Continuing Renovation of a Streamline Moderne Theater,” Special Session on Preserving Acoustical Integrity in the Course of Renovation.
Invited Paper, Winter 2007 ASA meeting, “Sound Systems for Large Scale Venues,” with John Monitto, Special session on Sound Systems in Large Rooms and Stadia
Member, Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics, 1996 - 2010 Member, Technical Committee on Engineering Acoustics, 1998 - 2010 Member, Technical Committee on Physical Acoustics, 2000 - 2010 Member, Books+ Committee, 1996 - present
Fellow, Audio Engineering Society
Member, Technical Committee on Acoustics and Sound Reinforcement, 1988 to 2005.
Chairman, Large Array Systems Session and Special JAES issue, 1987 Chairman, Workshop on Auralization, 1993
Co-Chairman, Workshop on Weather-Related Issues in Outdoor Sound Reinforcement, 1998
Tutorial on Loudness, Los Angeles Chapter, March 2003
Senior Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Member, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers Member, Standards Community TC-20F Film, TC-20F-30 WG Film Audio, TC-20F-40 Theatrical Projection, ST-SG Theater B-chain 1990 to present.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume 3
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Licenses: Electrical Contractor's License, CA #342710
EIT, CA #37673
Publications: Preface to the Reprint Edition, “Principles and Applications of Room Acoustics”, Lothar Cremer and Helmut A. Muller (translated by Theodore J.
Shultz), Peninsula Publishers, Los Altos Hills, CA, reprint edition, to be republished.
Patent reviews, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2004 -present.
Shaw, Neil A, “Up in Knudsen’s Attic: Some Private papers of Vern O.
Knudsen,” Acoustics Today, 7(1), 29ff, January 2011
Shaw, Neil A., “Seeing, Hearing & Listening - Part II”, Live Sound International, 17(4), 58ff, April 2008
Shaw, Neil A., “Seeing, Hearing & Listening - Part I”, Live Sound International, 17(3), 12ff, March 2008
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 4 of 4, Live Sound International, 16(8), 66ff, August 2007
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 3 of 4, Live Sound International, 16(7), 54ff, July 2007
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 2 of 4, Live Sound International, 15(12), 12ff, December 2006 Shaw, Neil A., “An Early History of Modern Power Amplifiers,” Live Sound International, 15(2), 10ff, February 2006
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 1 of 4, Live Sound International, 14(4), 38ff, November 2005 “Audio” monthly column, Club System International magazine, 2000 - 2003.
Shaw, Neil A.., "The Pre-History and Early History of Loudspeakers", Sound and Communications, 41(4), 118ff, April 1995.
Shaw, Neil A.., "Acoustical Design and Auralization", Sound and Communications, 40(8), 44ff, August 1994.
Shaw, Neil A., Klapholz, Jesse and Gander, Mark R., "Books and Acoustics, Especially Wallace Clement Sabine's Collected Papers on Acoustics," Proceedings of the Sabine Centennial Symposium, Acoustical Society of America, Cambridge, MA, June 1994.
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part Three - Real World Applications for Real World Delay Units," Sound and Communications, 39(10), 16ff, October 1993.
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part Two - Testing Specific Products for Specific Uses," Sound and Communications, 39(5), 62ff, May 1993.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 4
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part One - Reviewing the Basics," Sound and Communications, 393(4), 96ff, March 1993.
Meecham, W. C. and Shaw, Neil, "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise", Proceedings of the International Symposium on Noise and Disease, Berlin, 1991
Meecham, W. C. and Shaw, Neil, "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise," Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Stockholm, 351-356, 1988
Shaw, Neil A., "A Historical Profile: Stereophonic Sound Systems, Part Two," Sound and Communications, 33(7), 24ff, July 1987.
Shaw, Neil A., "A Historical Profile: Stereophonic Sound Systems, P a r t One," Sound and Communications, 33(6), 22ff, June 1987.
Shaw, Neil A., "Exhibit Hall and Theater Sound Reinforcement Systems at the Metro Toronto Convention Center," Proceedings 12th International Congress of Acoustics, E9-5.1 - E9-5.2, 1986.
Meecham, W. C. and N. A. Shaw, "Jet Plane Noise Effects on Mortality Rates," Proceedings Internoise 86 Progress in Noise Control, Volume II, 1451-1455, 1986.
Shaw, N. A., "Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality Rates," Los Angeles County Department of Health, The Effects of Aircraft Noise on Health, June, 1981 Meecham, W. C. and N. A. Shaw, "Effects of Jet Noise On Mortality Rates," British Journal of Audiology, 13, 77-80, 1979.
Book Reviews: "Acoustical Engineering," Harry F. Olson - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, No. 5, May 1992, Sound and Communications, Vol. 38, No. 4, April 27, 1992.
"Concert Sound - Tours, Technologies and Techniques," David Trubitt - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
"Hearing - An Introduction to Psychological and Physiological Acoustics," Stanley A. Gelfand - Sound and Communications, Vol. 37, No. 3, March 22, 1991.
"Room Acoustics," Henrich Kuttruff - Sound and Communications, Vol. 38, No. 2, February 28, 1992.
"The Science of Sound," Thomas D. Rossing - Sound and Communications, Vol. 37, No. 10, October 22, 1991.
"AIP Handbook of Condenser Microphones," George S. K. Wong and Tony F. W. Embleton, Editors - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 43, No. 6, June 1995.
"The ASA Edition of Speech and Hearing in Communication", Harvey Fletcher - Sound and Communication, Vol. 41, No. 9, September 25, 1995.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 5
"The Nature and Technology of Acoustic Space", Mikio Tohyama, Hideo Suzuki and Yoichi Ando - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 44, No. 3, March 1996.
"Concert and Opera Halls - How They Sound", Leo Beranek - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 44, No. 9, September 1996. "Acoustics and Noise Control Handbook for Architects and Builders", Leland K. Irvine and Roy L. Richards - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 46, No. 5, May 1998.
"Encyclopedia of Acoustics", Edited by Malcolm J. Crocker - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 46, No. 9, September 1998. "The New Stereo Soundbook, Ron Streicher and Alton Everest - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 105, No. 6, June 1999. "Introduction to Electroacoustics and Audio Amplifier Design," W. Marshall Leach, Jr. - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 47, No. 7/8, July/August 1999, Sound and Communications, Vol. 45, No. 9, September 20, 1999.
"Architectural Acoustics - Principles and Design," Madan Mehta, Jim Johnson, and Jorge Rocafort - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 47, No. 10, October 1999.
"Architectural Acoustics: Blending Sound Sources, Sound Fields, and Listening," Yoichi Ando - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. ½, January/February 2000.
"Fundamental of Physical Acoustics," David T. Blackstock - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 9, September 2000. "The Science and Applications of Acoustics," Daniel R. Raichel - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 10, October 2000. "Sounds of Our Times," Robert T. Beyer - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 11, November 2000.
"Acoustics: Basic Physics, Theory and Methods," Paul Filippi, Dominique Habalt, Jean-Pierre Lefebvre and Aime Bergassoli - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 1+2, January/February 2001. "Active Noise Control Primer," Scott D. Snyder - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 5, May 2001.
“The Microphone Book,” John Eargle - Sound & Communications, November 2001.
“Computer Speech Recognition, Compression, Synthesis,” Manfred R.
Schroeder - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 12, December 2001.
“Audio Engineering For Sound Reinforcement,” John Eargle and Chris Foreman - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. Vol. 50, No. 12,
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 6
December 2002.
“Pro Audio Reference,” Dennis Bohn - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 51, No. 7/8, July/August 2003.
“Concert Halls and Opera Houses - Music, Acoustics, and Architecture,” Leo L. Beranek - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 52, No. 5, May 2004
“Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers- Theory, Design and Application,” Trevor J. Cox and Peter D’Antonio - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 53, No. 10, October 2005
“Formulas of Acoustics,” F. P. Mechel - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 53, No. 12, December 2005
“Communication Acoustics,” Jens Blauert (editor) - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No.½, January/February 2006 “Acoustics and Psychoacoustics,” David M. Howard and Jamie Angus- Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No. 11, November 2006 “Pro Audio Reference,” Second Edition, Dennis Bohn, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No. 4, April 2007
“Worship, Acoustics, and Architecture,” Ettore Cirillo and Francesco Martellotta - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 55, No. 11, November 2007
“Sound FX Unlocking the Creative Potential of Recording Studio Effects,” Alexander U. Case - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 55, No. 12, December 2007
“Surround Sound Up and Running,” Tomlinson Holman - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 56, No. 9, September 2008
“Sound Reproduction Loudspeakers and Rooms,” Floyd E. Toole - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 57, No.½, January/February 2009 “Handbook for Sound Engineers,” 4 Edition, Glenn Ballou - Journal of the th Audio Engineering Society, Volume 57, No. 7/8, July/August 2009 “Acoustics and the Performance of Music Manual for Acousticians, Audio Engineers, Musicians, Architects and Musical Instrument Makers,” 5 Edition th Jürgen Meyer (translated by Uwe Hanson) - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 58, No. 3, March 2010
“Sound for Film and Television” 3 Edition, Tomlinson Holman - Journal of rd the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 58, No. 11, November 2010 “The Acoustics of Performance Halls Spaces for Music from Carnegie Hall to the Hollywood Bowl,” J. Christopher Jaffe - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 59, No. 4, April 2011
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 7
“Acoustics and Audio Technology,” Mendel Kleiner - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, to be published
“Grounds for Grounding,” Elya B. Joffee and Kai-Sang Lock - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, to be published
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 8
Selected Product Development Projects - Neil A. Shaw
Aura Systems 1992 - 2005 Technical support for audio projects using inherently shielded neodymium speakers.
Peavey 1995 - 1997 Loudspeaker engineering for professional woofers and compression drivers, out-sourcing of electronics and speaker manufacturing, joint venture liaison.
Armstrong World Industries 1999 - 2002 Conception and product definition for active acoustic initiative. Product definition and development of ceiling tile speaker, and other projects.
Microsoft 1999 - 2000 Headset and headset element design for voice recognition product.
Cisco 1999 - 2000 Telephone and speaker-phone design for Internet telephone.
Intel 2000 Internet appliance sound system product
RPG 2001 - 2020 Technical and marketing support for this vendor of acoustical devices for architectural spaces.
Bohlender-Graebener 2001 - 2004 Technical support and loudspeaker engineering for planar diaphragm loudspeaker products.
Johns Manville 2002 Strategic product and market research and analysis.
Tri-path 2002 - 2006 Technical support and system engineering for digital audio power amplifiers.
Extron 2002 - 2003 Technical and material support for loudspeaker development and research.
Microsoft 2003 - 2006 Anechoic chamber design. Electroacoustic product testing protocol development.
University of Illinois 2008 - 2009 Transducer and power amplifier design and selection for food industry processing equipment.
Microsoft 2008 - 2009 Anechoic chamber design. Electroacoustic product testing protocol development.
KLA-Tencor 2010 Vibration isolation engineering for scanning electron microscope semiconductor wafer inspection equipment.
Microsoft 2011 Acoustic measurement and analysis for Kinect manufacturing end-of-line 100% test chamber.
ETC 2011 Noise analysis and noise control for electrically operated variable speed theater hoist equipment.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
9 Selected Projects - Neil A. Shaw:
Arcadia City Council Chambers Arcadia, California
Grossmont Civic Auditorium El Cajon, California
Center for Faith and Life, Luther College Decorah, Iowa Concert Hall, University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky Swimming Pool, University of Riyad Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Oakland-Piedmont Municipal Courts Oakland, California
2500 seat Auditorium, 700 seat Auditorium,
250 seat Library Hall, Mosque and Minaret,
Gymnasium, Fine Arts Recital Hall, 100 seat
Museum Hall, 500 seat Lecture Rooms, 250
seat Lecture Rooms, 1000 seat Banquet Hall,
200 seat Meeting Rooms, 100 seat Meeting
Rooms, University of Riyad Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Des Moines Civic Auditorium Des Moines, Iowa
California School For the Blind Hayward, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Hearing Room El Monte, California
First United Methodist Church Santa Monica, California
George R. Moscone Convention Center San Francisco, California H. J. Kaiser Convention Center Oakland, California
Carson Community Center Carson, California
LAX Terminal One Los Angeles, California
Crocker Bank Auditorium Los Angeles, California
Wilshire Auditorium, Fullerton College Fullerton, California Salt Palace Convention Center Expansion Salt Lake City, Utah Metro Toronto Convention Center and TheaterToronto, Ontario Orpheum Theater Restoration Davenport, Iowa
Athanaeum, Claremont College Claremont, California
San Jose Federal Office Building San Jose, California
Fairmont Hotel San Jose, California
LAX Terminal Five Los Angeles, California
First Presbyterian Church Upland, California
Royal Saudi Air Force Hush Houses Saudi Arabia
NCO Training Facility, March AFB Riverside, California
Veterans Administration Out Patient Clinic Los Angeles, California Lied Center for the Performing Arts,
University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska
MaMaison Hotel Los Angeles, California
Escondido City Council Chambers Escondido, California
Mercy Hospital San Diego, California
Mercy Hospital Sacramento, California
Jain Bhavan Worship Center Santa Ana, California
Ojai Valley Inn Ojai, California
Simon Wiesenthal Center and Holocaust Museum Los Angeles, California New Otani Hotel Los Angeles, California
Oceanside City Council Chambers Oceanside, California
Santa Monica Beach Hotel Santa Monica, California
Greenwood RacetrackToronto, Ontario
Woodbine RacetrackToronto, Ontario
Mohawk Racetrack Campbellville, Ontario
Toyota Training CenterTorrance, California
Fresno Art Center Fresno, California
McLaren Children's Center Los Angeles, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 10
Lindbergh Field West Terminal Expansion San Diego, California Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library Yorba Linda, California Carnation Headquarters Glendale, California
Los Angeles County Bar Association Los Angeles, California Los Angeles Federal Office Building Los Angeles, California Intercontinental Hotel Los Angeles, California
Lake Avenue Congregational Church Pasadena, California
Hewlett Packard Presentation Center North Hollywood, California Dance Recital Hall and Auditorium,
California State University Long Beach, California
Inyo County Superior Court Independence, California
Adele Platt Conference Center,
City of Hope Medical Center Duarte, California
Los Angeles County Emergency Operation Center Los Angeles, California Antonio B Won Pat International Airport Tamuning, Guam
Temple Adat Sholam Westwood, California
Sound Stage 29/30, Paramount Pictures Hollywood, California Executive Screening Room, Theater,
Dubbing Theater, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Santa Monica, California Lakeview Terrace Rehabilitation
Facility, Phoenix House of Los Angeles Lakeview Terrace, California Physiological Acoustics Research
Facility, UCLA Medical Center Westwood, California
Performing Arts Center Lancaster, California
Crystal Harmony, Crystal Cruise Lines Los Angeles, California Integrated Service Facility,
NASA/Dryden Research Facility Edwards, California
Theater, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer New York, New York
Santa Ana Theater Santa Ana, California
Sammy Davis Jr. Festival Plaza Las Vegas, Nevada
City Hall, Council Chamber Santa Monica, California
Video Conference Facility, Sony Music New York, New York Legend of the Seas, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Miami, Florida Orange County Branch Library Aliso Viejo, California
Screening Room, Warner Brothers Animation Glendale, California Screening Room, Turner Feature Animation Glendale, California Las Vegas Motor Speedway North Las Vegas, Nevada
Large Screening Room, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Santa Monica, California Japanese American National Museum Los Angeles, California Carson City Courthouse Carson City, Nevada
St. Mel Parish Center Woodland Hills, California
Congregation Ner Tamid Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Old Town Temecula Streetscape Temecula, California
Grandeur of the Seas, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Miami, Florida Disney Magic, Disney Cruise Lines Orlando, Florida
Coral Sky Amphitheater West Palm Beach, Florida
First Chinese Baptist Church Los Angeles, California
St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church Los Angeles, California C-17 Assembly Facility, Douglas Aircraft
Division, The Boeing Corporation Long Beach, California Crisci's Restaurant Brooklyn, New York
JamSync Studios Nashville, Tennessee
New Standard Post Hollywood, California
Media Artists, Pty Madras, India
The Lobster Santa Monica, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 11
International Rectifier Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico Antelope Valley Courthouse Lancaster, California
Fe Bland Forum, Santa Barbara City College Santa Barbara, California Arizona Humane Society Phoenix, Arizona
Cartoon Network Glendale, California
Santa Monica High School Santa Monica, California
Malibu High School Malibu, California
Barnum Hall Auditorium Santa Monica, California
Sobrato High School Morgan Hill, California
Temple Beth El Aliso Viejo, California
Sacramento East End Project Sacramento, California
Gold Circle Films Beverly Hills, California
Denver City Hall Extension Denver, Colorado
Fullerton City Hall Fullerton, California
Union Station Improvement Los Angeles, California
Intimate Theater, California State University Los Angeles, California San Diego Convention Center, Sails Pavilion San Diego, California Temple Shir Ha-Ma'A Lot Irvine, California
United States Courthouse Fresno, California
Department of Education Office Complex,
State of California Sacramento, California
MGM Constellation Headquarters Century City, California Ketchum Advertising Venice, California
Orange County Register Santa Ana, California
28 Church of Christ, Scientist Westwood, California
th
Temple Solel Escondido, California
NT Audio Mixing and QC Rooms Santa Monica, California
River Cats Restaurant Sacramento, California
Caltrans District 7 Headquarters Los Angeles, California 1221 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, California
Memorial Assembly Hall Manhattan Beach, California
City of Manhattan Beach Annex Manhattan Beach, California Twohy Building San Jose, California
Widget Post Production Culver City, California
1 Church of Christ, Scientist Beverly Hills, California st
Sunrise Assisted Living Pacific Palisades, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Santa Monica, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Woodland Hills, California
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences Boardroom Beverly Hills, California
Getty Villa Outdoor Amphitheater Los Angeles, California Ressler Residence Beverly Hills, California
American Honda Torrance, California
Community Baptist Church Manhattan Beach, California
Bernard Hodes Agency Marina Del Ray, California
Houston’s Restaurant Santa Monica, California
Café R&D Newport Beach, California
Getty Center Auditorium Los Angeles, California
Mid-City Police Station Los Angeles, California
College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Instruction and Research Facility,
University of California Riverside, California
Genomics Research Facility,
University of California Riverside, California
Panasonic Hollywood Laboratory Universal City, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 12
Sports Spectrum Club Pacific Palisades, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Simi Valley, California
Rose Bowl Pasadena, California
First Presbyterian Church Santa Monica, California
Los Angeles Fire Department Headquarters Los Angeles, California New York City Transit No. 7 Line Extension New York, New York Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Goldline Los Angeles, California
South Lawn Project, University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia Shangri-La Hotel Santa Monica, California
Pacific Star, Princess Cruise Lines Santa Clarita, California Allied Post Santa Monica, California
Jet Propulsion Laboratory von Karman Auditorium Pasadena, California Self Realization Fellowship Los Angeles, California
Temple Beth Am Los Angeles, California
Broome Library, California State University,
Channel Islands Camarillo, California
California High-Speed Train Project State of California Morongo Band of Mission Indians Administrative
Complex Banning, California
The Buddy Group Irvine, California
Café R&D Santa Monica, California
Club 7969 West Hollywood, California
Brent’s Deli Westlake Village, California
Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Complex Nogales, Arizona Porto’s Bakery Burbank, California
Microsoft Hardware Group Audio Test Laboratories Redmond, Washington University of California, Irvine, Arts Building Irvine, California Los Angeles Unified School District High
School No. 9 South Gate, California
Notre Dame High School Sherman Oaks, California
St. Mark Presbyterian Church Newport Beach, California
Fame Academy Poly High School Sun Valley, California
FAA Sonic Boom Simulator (with the
Pennsylvania State University) State College, Pennsylvania Metropolitan Transit District Hearing Room Los Angeles, California St. Peter and St. Paul Coptic Church Santa Monica, California Lifehouse Properties Pacific Palisades, California
Wilson Well No.2 San Gabriel, California
Habitat for Humanity Lynwood Housing Lynwood, California Whole Foods Plaza Malibu, California
Habitat for Humanity Burbank Housing Burbank, California The Cork Los Angeles, California
Cove Way Residence Beverly Hills, California
Habitat for Humanity Lawndale Housing Lawndale, California Forest Lawn Chapel Cypress, California
Rodney Bay and Gros Islet Villages St. Lucia
Panasonic Avionics Lake Forest, California
Capitol Records Hollywood, California
Art of Living Foundation Los Angeles, California
Conexant Corporation Newport Beach, California
University of California, Santa Barbara
Faculty Center Santa Barbara, California
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, Washington
J Restaurant and Lounge Los Angeles, California
Newcom Santa Monica, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 13
American School in Vietnam Hanoi, Vietnam
Apple Yellowstone Anechoic Chamber Facility Cupertino, California Barnum Hall Continuing Renovation Santa Monica, California Malibu High School Auditorium Renovation Malibu, California John Adams Middle School Auditorium Renovation Santa Monica, California Westminster Presbyterian Church Newbury Park, California American School in Bombay Mumbai, India
Temple Judea Tarzana, California
Holy Angel Church San Marino, California
Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice
University of San Diego San Diego, California
7 June 2012
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER
Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Attorneys at Law (on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles [“CREED LA”]), November 18, 2024.
February 19, 2025
kimley-horn.com 1100 Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 1 This comment is introductory and generally alleges the IS/MND lacks information and analysis required by CEQA and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed Project will result in potentially significant impacts on public health, air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities, which are not adequately disclosed and mitigated by the measures proposed in the IS/MND. This comment urges the Planning Commission to continue the hearing and direct City Staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project before bringing the Project back for further consideration and provides CREED LA’s statement of interest.
Individual responses to the comments raised in the comment letter are provided in the responses below. As discussed below, none of the issues identified in the comment letter change the conclusions of the IS/MND, and therefore, an EIR is not required. Impacts remain less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. 2 This comment provides background information concerning the “fair argument” standard and “substantial evidence” under the fair argument standard and alleges that substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may cause significant public health, air quality, GHG emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities. Therefore, the commentor asserts that the City must prepare an EIR that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, and mitigates these impacts, while also exploring less environmentally damaging alternatives, before it can approve the Project.
Individual responses to the comments raised in the comment letter are provided in the responses below. As discussed below, none of the issues identified in the comment letter change the conclusions of the IS/MND, and therefore, an EIR is not required. Impacts remain less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
A. The IS/MND Project Description Remains Inadequate
A.1 The comment reasserts that the IS/MND failed to analyze the Project’s impacts resulting from potential operation as a higher intensity warehouse. Specifically, the Appellant asserts that an EIR is required to fully evaluate and mitigate significant impacts associated with the argument that the Project could operate in a manner consistent with high-cube warehouse uses because in the absence of binding restrictions – such as conditions of approval, a covenant on the title of the underlying property, or mitigation measures – which prohibit future high intensity retail, warehouse (and cold storage uses) at the project site, there is no evidence supporting the City’s assertion that these activities would not occur.
CEQA does not require analysis of a worst-case scenario, particularly when such analysis requires speculation, but rather requires a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information that enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences of a project. As described in the IS/MND, the Project proposes a 156,877-square-foot (sf) building with 13 dock doors. However, of the 156,877 total square feet, only 113,703 sf is devoted to “warehouse” space. That alone supports the conclusion that the