kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 Project is not a high-cube warehouse, which typically has at least 200,00 sf (per ITE and SCAQMD definitions). The 113,703 sf of warehouse spaces is approximately 55 percent of the square footage that reflects the smallest high-cube warehouse facilities. Also, the substantial retail component of the Project (7,879 sf) supports the characterization as a warehouse (ITE Code 150) rather than a high-cube warehouse because high-cube warehouses are used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. The existence of a retail component of the Project shows that the building would not be used solely for storage/consolidation and distribution of goods, but rather as a warehouse where goods can be stored and sold to customers, as reflected by the 176 vehicle parking stalls. Finally, the 20,305 sf of accessory warehouse office (approximately 13% of the building) also shows that the use would not be a high-cube warehouse because high-cube warehouses are typically highly mechanized and have limited employees. High-cube warehouse uses are not reasonably foreseeable.
As an attachment to the October 30, 2024 CREED LA comment letter, Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility, stated that the ITE land use code used in the IS/MND is “just one of many land use codes potentially applicable the Project, and does not reflect all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project.” Neither the Appellant nor Mr. Marshall provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project does not meet the description of ITE Land Use Code 150. Rather, the Appellant only alleges that although the IS/MND states, “the Project does not propose refrigeration as part of the warehouse operations,” cold storage is a reasonably foreseeable use of the project site. Please refer to Attachment A, Response to Comment No. 2-4, which states that the City may condition the project to prohibit cold storage. At Planning Commission on November 19, 2024, the following condition was added, “Any future cold storage business shall be subject to a conditional use permit application.”1 Thereby providing evidence to support the City’s assertion that these activities would not occur.
A.2 This comment states that without an enforceable condition prohibiting the use of cold storage, 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. As stated in Response A.1 above, at the November 19, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the following condition was added, “Any future cold storage business shall be subject to a conditional use permit application.”2 The condition is legally enforceable. Therefore, there is no potential for unmitigated impacts from cold storage operations as a result of the Project and an EIR is not warranted.
B. The City Fails to Analyze Public Health Impacts Associated with Exposure to the Project’s Emissions B.1 The comment states that the IS/MND should have conducted a construction and operational HRA to disclose potential toxic air contaminants (TACs) and diesel particulate matter (DPM). The City 1 City of South El Monte Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09. 2 City of South El Monte Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09.
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 relies on methodology established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for preparation of CEQA air quality analyses. SCAQMD shares responsibility with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for ensuring that all State and federal ambient air quality standards are achieved and maintained throughout all of Los Angeles County and the urban portions of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties (Air Basin). SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles. Although SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with new development projects within the Air Basin, such as the Project. Instead, SCAQMD published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook in November 1993 to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects proposed in the Air Basin. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in environmental documents and was used extensively in the preparation of the air quality analysis for the Project.
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook does not recommend analysis of TACs from short-term construction activities. The rationale for not requiring a health risk assessment for construction activities is the limited duration of exposure. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. Specifically, “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer based on the use of standard risk assessment methodology.
Given that the greatest potential for diesel particulate emissions would only occur during building construction (approximately 9 months) and other construction activities during the overall construction schedule of approximately 12 months would result in reduced use of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment in comparison to building construction activities, the Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70-year) source of TAC emissions. No residual construction TAC emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk are anticipated after the completion of construction. Because there is such a short-term exposure period (12 out of 840 months of a 70- year lifetime), further evaluation of construction TAC emissions in the IS/MND was not warranted.
As such, the IS/MND correctly concluded that project-related TAC impacts during construction were less than significant.
From an operational standpoint, the IS/MND correctly identified that the primary sources of potential air toxics associated with Project operations include DPM from truck trips. However, the project-generated 89 truck trips would not generate substantial TAC emissions based on review of the air toxic sources listed in SCAQMD and CARB’s guidelines. SCAQMD guidance, shown below, provides clarification as to when an HRA may be warranted:
SCAQMD published and adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, which provides recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities).3
SCAQMD recommends that HRAs be conducted for substantial sources of DPM (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities that generate more than 100 trucks per day or more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units).4 The Project is estimated to generate approximately 89 trucks per day (conservatively assumed to all be diesel trucks). Based on SCAQMD guidance, there was no quantitative analysis required for future cancer risk within the vicinity of the project site as the Project is consistent with the recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of TAC emissions provided in the SCAQMD Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. Specifically, the Project is not considered to be a substantial source of DPM warranting a refined HRA since daily truck trips to the project site would not exceed 100 trucks per day or more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units.
Furthermore, CARB’s recommendation is based on health studies and air quality modeling and monitoring studies (see pages 12-15 of the CARB 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective). A project with less than 100 trucks would not exceed the 10 in a million threshold.
The commenter incorrectly characterizes an HRA as a mandatory component of a CEQA analysis.
CEQA does not demand that an agency conduct all tests and analysis requested of commenters.
Here, the commenter presents no evidence that the project would result in a potential health impact/exceed applicable SCAQMD standards (which were developed to implement the Toxic Hot Spots Program for evaluation of emissions from hazardous facilities). The project is not subject to the Hot Spots Program.
Also, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook5
states that emissions of TACs are considered
significant if an HRA shows that project emissions would result in an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 in 1 million. The California OEHHA’s Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines has determined that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particulates poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC it has evaluated. As such, the TAC of concern would be DPM associated with the use of diesel engines during project construction. For health risk assessment procedures, the OEHHA specifies that the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust is DPM. HRA analyses typically use PM10 emissions to represent DPM emissions, consistent with OEHHA guidance. As shown in IS/MND Table 4.3-2, project construction would generate significantly less PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that the SCAQMD regional thresholds. Also, project construction would generate emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LST thresholds for PM, which reflect the 3 SCAQMD, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, May 6, 2005. 4 SCARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, Table 1-1, April 2005. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodologydocument.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed October 2, 2024).
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 most conservative localized standards. Likewise, reflective of the minimal level of daily trips associated with the project, the IS/MND concluded that operational PM emissions associated with the project would be well below applicable standards (see Table 4.3-3.) Substantial evidence shows that there would be no significant health impact.
Based on the above information, the IS/MND correctly concluded that an operational HRA was not warranted.
B.2 The comment states that the City improperly relies on SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs) to assess the health risk of TACs such as DPM. The comment further states that DPM has no known safe exposure threshold, although the commenter cites no evidence to support that assertion. SCAQMD has identified Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk significance thresholds for TAC exposure, including DPM (i.e., 10 in one million). As discussed in Response to Comment B.1, SCAQMD has determined a project with less than 100 trucks would not exceed the 10 in one million threshold. As the Project would generate 89 truck trips, the Project would not exceed the 10 in one million threshold.
Further, the IS/MND correctly applied LSTs to the Project’s construction and operational emissions. Specifically, IS/MND Appendix A states, “In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions in the project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), June 2003, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The Localized Significance Threshold Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.”6
B.3 The commenter notes the CalEnviroScreen scores for the area and requests an analysis of cumulative health risks. It is noted that the CalEnviroScreen scores are relative to other census tracts and are not an expression of health risk and do not provide quantitative information on increases in cumulative impacts for specific sites or projects. Further, as a comparative screening tool, the results do not provide a basis for determining when differences between scores are significant in relation to public health or the environment. OEHHA’s Responses to Major Comments on the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Public Review Draft explain that “CalEnviroScreen is not a health risk assessment” and, as “an indictor-based screening too, rather than an assessment of absolute impacts or risks,” is not a proxy for a CEQA cumulative analysis. The SCAQMD considers projects that do not exceed the project-specific individual incremental threshold (i.e. 10 in a million threshold) to not be cumulatively significant.7 Therefore, because the Project would result
in less than 100 trucks, and therefore would not exceed the 10 in a million threshold, the Project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact.
6 IS/MND Appendix A Page 25
7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, August 2003.
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument the Project Would Result in Significant Noise Impacts C.1 The comment states the City lacks substantial evidence to support the construction noise significance threshold. Refer to Response AA.2, below.
C.2 The commenter claims the Project’s construction noise is significant and unmitigated based on the City’s Municipal Code standards. Refer to Response AA.3, below.
C.3 The comment states the IS/MND fails to adopt enforceable construction noise mitigation measures. Specifically, the commenter notes that the City determined best management practices (BMPs) would be adopted as conditions of approval to reduce construction noise impacts. The referenced BMPs are included in the IS/MND as Standard Condition N-2.
C.4 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) – Response to Comment 1. The noise analysis did include an analysis of potential operational impacts associated with trucks, including driving and loading/unloading and trucks accessing the loading and unloading docks along project site driveways. The commenter is referred to the referenced response regarding back-up noises.
C.5 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) – Response to Comment 1.
D. Substantial Evidence Demonstrates that Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures Are Insufficient to Reduce the Impact to a Less than Significant Level
D.1 The Appellant reasserts that MM TRANS-1 fails to mitigate the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts to less than significant levels due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction and alleges that even with the maximum assumed reduction, the Project’s VMT exceeds the threshold of significance. This issue was raised in the October 30, 2024, comment letter and is addressed as Response to Comment No. 2-23. The Appellant does not raise any new issues, nor do they provide any new substantial evidence to support their claim.
Evidence supporting the VMT reduction associated with MM TRANS-1 is contained in the Project’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) provided in Appendix F of the IS/MND. As noted on page 56 of the TIA, the VMT assessment was performed using the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool. This tool incorporates VMT reduction measures developed by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool report as well asrelevant excerpts from the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (August 2021) [“Handbook”] are included in Appendix H of the project TIA. The CAPCOA Handbook is an industry standard resource “prepared in collaboration with academia, agencies, community organizations and leaders, local governments, nongovernmental
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 organizations, and technical experts.” The CAPCOA Handbook further notes that the quantification methods, tools, and recommendations were developed based on the latest science and literature available at the time of publication.
For the voluntary commute trip reduction program required by MM TRANS-1, the CAPCOA Handbook specifically cites research by “Boarnet, M., H Hsu, and S. Handy. 2014. Impacts of Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs and Vanpools on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” (see TIA page Apx-109). Based on this research, the Handbook establishes the following formula for calculating VMT reduction:
A = B x C, where
A = percent reduction in GHG emissions / VMT
B = percent of employees eligible for the program
C = percent reduction in commute VMT from eligible employees (value = -4% per Boarnet et al.)
Accordingly, the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool incorporates the VMT reduction methodology from the CAPCOA Handbook. Although the CAPCOA Handbook formula would result in a VMT reduction of 4% (A = 100% x -4%), the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool reports a slightly more conservative reduction of 3.7% due to rounding convention (1 - (15.8 / 16.4) = 3.7% reduction).
As noted in the original response, MM-TRANS-1 enables the City to ensure the voluntary commute trip reduction program includes components that are applicable to 100% of employees. Therefore, the effectiveness of MM TRANS-1 is adequately supported by industry standard resources and the latest science and literature available at the time of publication of the CAPCOA Handbook.
The Appellant also asserts that calculating the VMT values to two decimal points is essential to properly evaluate whether the Project complies with the threshold of significance, particularly in cases where small variances could determine whether impacts are deemed significant.
The original response does not dismiss the importance of precision but rather clarifies the importance of significant digits (or significant figures). Significant digits are a fundamental concept in science and necessary for deciding the accuracy and precision of calculations. The original comment added a significant figure to the VMT reduction calculations, implying a false level of precision. Notwithstanding the above, the original response further noted that the correct unmitigated project VMT value is 16.4 VMT per worker, not 16.5 as claimed in the original comment. Regardless of significant digits, the project VMT impact is fully mitigated when starting from the correct unmitigated project VMT value.
E. The City Fails to Analyze Fire Flow Requirements and Public Utility Impacts E.1 The Appellant reasserts that the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze potentially significant public utility impacts related to fire flow improvements. The Appellant alleges that the City attempts to defer the evaluation of fire flow requirements and infrastructure capacity to the Los Angeles
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 County Fire Department (LACFD) Fire Prevention Division’s site review. However, as provided in Response to Comment No. 2-27, the LACFD has reviewed the proposed Project’s site plan and has determined that the Project would meet City fire flow requirements. The Appellant states that LACFD’s process does not encompass the broader environmental evaluation required by CEQA, such as analyzing whether the Project may overburden water supply systems or create cumulative impacts. However, as required by CEQA, the IS/MND evaluated if the Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years and concluded that impact would be less than significant with no mitigation required. The Appellant provides no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project’s water supply analysis provided in the IS/MND is inadequate or provides any reason to believe that there would be inadequate infrastructure capacity to supply adequate fire flow. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately analyzes public utility impacts related to fire flow requirements and an EIR is not warranted.
Conclusion
3 This comment consists of conclusory text. No response is required.
ATTACHMENT A
AA.1 The comment identifies an inconsistency with nighttime truck movement. MM NOI-1 has been updated and incorporated into the IS/MND as follows:
MM NOI-1 Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading the first building permit, the City of South El Monte Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that either: (1) require the installation of a 10- foot-high concrete masonry noise attenuation wall along the southern property line of the project site; and (2) prohibit truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The effectiveness of the 10-foot noise attenuation wall (temporary or permanent) shall be verified to confirm it reduces noise by a minimum of 10 dBA prior to tenant occupancy of the building. If the verification confirms the attenuation wall does not achieve the required 10 dBA reduction, the wall shall be modified to ensure it achieves such reduction.
AA.2 The commenter states that the 80 dBA construction noise threshold is not applicable to the Project. The commenter identifies portions of the FTA Manual’s construction noise guidelines (bolded below) without providing the full summary:
No standardized criteria have been developed for assessing construction noise impact.
Consequently, criteria must be developed on a project-specific basis unless local ordinances apply. As stated earlier in this section, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project.
Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. While it is not the purpose of this manual to specify standardized criteria for construction noise impact, the following guidelines can be considered reasonable criteria for assessment. If these criteria are exceeded, there may be adverse community reaction.8
As shown above, the FTA Manual states the “guidelines can be considered reasonable criteria for assessment”. The IS/MND construction noise analysis considered the existing noise environment, absolute noise levels during construction activities, duration of construction, and adjacent land uses as required by the FTA Manual. The existing noise environment is summarized on IS/MND Appendix E pages 86 and 87; specifically refer to IS/MND Table 4.13-1: Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA). The IS/MND also models the absolute construction noise levels in Appendix E, Noise Impact Analysis, Table 11, Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq). Table 11 also accounts for the existing measured noise levels. The duration of construction is identified in IS/MND Section 2.6, Project Construction. Adjacent land uses are described in the Noise-Sensitive Receptors discussion on IS/MND page 87.
The commenter claims that the Project should have applied a lower threshold found in FTA Manual Section 4 and Appendix C. However, Section 4 and Appendix C apply to operational noise as the FTA Manual Section 4 specifically states, “assess construction noise and vibration according to Section 7”. The Project’s construction noise has been analyzed in accordance with FTA Manual Section 7.
The commenter also identifies typical hourly Leq (1-hr) noise levels associated with 80 dBA Leq (1-hr). However, the FTA Manual’s construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8-hr) is analyzed over a duration of 8 hours. Therefore, the referenced typical hourly Leq (1-hr) noise levels cannot be compared to the FTA Manual’s construction noise threshold as the units are not comparable.
AA.3 The commenter claims construction noise impacts below 80 dBA would exceed the City’s Municipal Code standards. The commenter cites Municipal Code Section 8.20.020 exterior noise standards specifically, which outline the City’s exterior noise standards generally applicable to stationary sources. The standards cited by commenter are not applicable to construction activities, which are separately regulated by the Municipal Code. It is well-settled that construction noise is a common component of the urban environment, especially in Southern California. Therefore, to assess potential noise impacts from construction, jurisdictions often use the FTA Manual to evaluate construction noise impacts, including the 80 dBA threshold. That 8 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, page 179, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessmentmanual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed February 2025.
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 threshold reflects the noise level above which construction noise could cause an impact, and is more appropriate to assess construction noise than operational exterior noise limits of municipal codes, which govern operational nuisances. The FTA Manual notes that exceedances of the 80 dBA threshold may show an adverse community reaction. Here, the Project would not exceed the FTA threshold. The FTA Manual even notes, “local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project.”9
For that reason, the FTA thresholds are widely used to
evaluate potential construction noise impacts.
Reflecting the fact that construction noise is a common component of the urban environment, the City has set allowable hours of construction in Municipal Code Section 8.20.030(D). Temporary construction noise is considered acceptable if it falls within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as identified in Municipal Code Section 8.20.030(D). Temporary elevated noise levels due to construction are typical of an urban environment and therefore are allowed under the Municipal Code. The Project is typical of urban construction and includes no unusual noise producing equipment. Regarding human health, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration identified 90 dBA as the permissible exposure limit over a duration of 8 hours.10 The Project’s construction noise would be periodic and temporary and would not be impactful to human health.
To evaluate potential construction noise impacts, the IS/MND used the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold, as discussed above.
The commenter further notes that construction would result in a maximum of 74 dBA at the nearest receptors. However, modeled construction noise levels conservatively do not account for noise reduction associated with Standard Condition (SC) N-2. SC N-2 would further minimize impacts from construction noise as it requires construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices.
Specifically, SC N-2 would reduce construction noise levels by a minimum of 10 dBA.11 Therefore, the maximum construction noise level would be approximately 64 dBA which is equivalent to normal speech at 3 feet as shown in Comment Letter Figure 3, A-Weighted Comparative Sound Levels.
9 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, page 172, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessmentmanual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed February 2025. 10 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1910.95 – Occupational Noise Exposure, https://www.osha.gov/lawsregs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.95#:~:text=Audiometric%20testing%20program.&text=The%20employer%20shall%20establi sh%20and,weighted%20average%20of%2085%20decibels.&text=The%20program%20shall%20be%20provided%20at%20no%20cost%20to %20employees.&text=Audiometric%20tests%20shall%20be%20performed,an%20audiologist%2C%20otolaryngologist%20or%20physician. &text=All%20audiograms%20obtained%20pursuant%20to,appendix%20C:%20Audiometric%20Measuring%20Instruments, accessed January 2025. 11 Federal Highway Administration, Special Report - Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, Chapter 4 Mitigation, 2017.
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 AA.4 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (Ganddini letter February 19, 2025) – Response to Comment 1.
AA.5 Please refer to the response to Comment AA.1 and see Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (Ganddini letter February 19, 2025) – Response to Comment 2.
AA.6 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) – Response to Comment 2.
AA.7 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (Ganddini letter February 19, 2025) – Response to Comment 1, Response to Comment 2, and Attachment B.
AA.8 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (Ganddini letter February 19, 2025) Response to Comment 3.
transportation ■ noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dana Privitt | KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
FROM: Roma Stromberg | GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Response to Noise Comments from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development
(GGI Project No. 19618)
On behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (CREED LA), the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo submitted a comment letter dated November 18, 2024 regarding environmental documentation for the proposed 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development project.
This memorandum contains responses to comments relating to the Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Ganddini Group. The following comments begin on page 13 of the comment letter.
COMMENT 1
4. The IS/MND Underestimates Operational Noise Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze noise impacts generated by truck operations on the Projects site, including noise from driving, backing up, and idling. Although the IS/MND evaluates roadway noise and loading/unloading activities, it omits critical on-site noise sources associated with operational truck movements.
RESPONSE
Operational noise was modeled using the SoundPLAN noise modeling software. Modeled noise sources included truck and vehicle on-site movements and parking, heating and ventilation, and loading/unloading activities as discussed in Section 5 of the technical noise study prepared for the project (Ganddini Group 2023). Truck and automobile movements were modeled by assigning peak hour trip generation to the internal circulation road with an assumed speed of 15 miles per hour. The original analysis utilized a very generous loading/unloading area source to include trucks backing up. The analysis assumed a noise reference level of 80 dBA per square meter (sound power[Lw]), not 65 dBA Lw per meter. The 70 dB reference in the report was a typo.
In response to the commenter’s concern that the SoundPLAN analysis did not include truck idling, an idling truck was added to the SoundPLAN analysis event, although no TRUs will be allowed and it is unlikely that any trucks will be idling with only two truck trips per hour. The idling truck was assumed to idle for a five minute period because it is illegal for them to idle any longer than that. Any law enforcement department, including air districts and CARB, can fine a 10,000 pound or greater truck owner and driver up to $1,000 per day for illegal idling (13 CCR 2480 & 2485) which would be in excess of five minutes within 100 feet of sensitive receptors.
Dana Privitt
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 19, 2025
2 GGI Project No. 19618
Ganddini Group followed the document reference trail and discovered that the noise reference levels provided by the commenter are sound power levels. The commenter references a CARB informational document which references a noise study prepared by LSA Associates, which references a noise study prepared by Epsilon Associates in 2007, which indicates that the levels are sound power levels. The truck was modeled using a sound power level of 96 dBA Leq for five minutes of a one-hour period.
In response to the comment regarding the lack of truck movements in the model, the model was updated to not only model the truck movement around the facility but also backing up into the loading docks. This movement was previously modeled assuming a generous loading/unloading area instead of just focusing on the actual loading docks. It should be noted here that modeling loading/unloading at new loading docks at all is conservative because they are generally sealed and there is not much noise occurring outside of the warehouse. The SoundPLAN noise model was updated to include a loading/unloading area with a SoundPLAN noise reference level of 92 Lw (sound power) and reduced to a 20 foot depth to be concentrated where the loading and unloading will actually occur, and two truck movements per hour were added to be representative of trucks backing into a loading dock, again, this was to address the commenter’s concern that truck movements were not adequately modeled. As shown in the attached figures, both truck back-up movements were modeled at the center of the loading area as the closest sensitive receptors (mobile home park to the south) are located south of the project site.
In addition, a backup alerter with a sound power level of 105 Lw was added to the peak hour analysis. The backup alerter was conservatively assumed to last for one minute during each truck’s backup movement and backup movements were modeled with a speed of 5 miles per hour. Since the project does not propose coldstorage uses, refrigerated trucks will not be allowed onsite and idling of trucks is not anticipated. Drivers will back their trucks into the loading docks and turn off the engine while loading/unloading occurs.
The HVAC placement and orientation was updated per the current Roof Plan provided in Attachment D.
Regarding comments concerning applicable standards, the City’s Municipal Code includes two tables with noise standards that apply to operational noise (see Attachment A, Table 1, Exterior Noise Levels by Zone, and Table 2, Exterior Noise Levels by Use, Municipal Code 8.20.020). Table 1 includes noise standards for both day and nighttime noise and Table 2 contains noise standards for nighttime noise only. Table 1 includes footnotes that provide additional criteria depending on the measured noise period, including what would be considered to be a maximum noise event (the criteria in Table 1 plus 20 dB). In both tables, daytime hours are defined as 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and nighttime hours are defined as 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
As shown on Figure 6 in the revised Noise Study dated June 15, 2023 (Rev 2), the modeling results show that peak operational noise levels will range between 39 and 58 dBA Leq without any barriers.
As discussed previously, the City’s Ordinance contains two tables in Section 8.20.020, that regulate operational noise. Table 1 applies to the project in regards to how it affects other properties based on what zoning they have and Table 2 applies to the project in regards how it affects other properties during nighttime hours based on what the existing land use is. The property located just south of the project site that has an existing mobile home park zoned Commercial - Manufacturing and the existing use would be considered multiple family. Project operational noise will not exceed the City’s operational daytime noise standard of 60 dBA Leq which applies to the commercially zoned property that the mobile home park is located on. It could however, exceed the nighttime noise standard of 55 dBA Leq for multi-family residential, if truck movements are allowed between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
The City’s operational noise standards that apply to the existing land use of mobile home park is presented in Table 6 (nighttime only). Per Table 2 of Ordinance 8.20.020, the nighttime noise standard of 50 dBA Leq
Dana Privitt
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 19, 2025
3 GGI Project No. 19618
applies to the mobile home park located south of the project site. If truck movements are allowed during nighttime hours, project operation has the potential to exceed this standard.
A barrier ten feet in height constructed along the southern property line would reduce nighttime operational noise levels to 45 dBA Leq at the southern property line shared with the mobile home park, allowing nighttime truck movements without violation of either the commercial zoning nighttime noise ordinance of 55 dBA Leq (see Table 15) or the multi-family residential nighttime noise ordinance standard of 50 dBA Leq (see Table 15).
In an abundance of caution, due to the fact that there is an existing mobile home park located on the property south of the project site which is zoned commercial, we also applied the 55 dBA Leq noise standard to project operation and found that project operational noise would exceed that standard by 3 dBA Leq. The proposed mitigation below will reduce these noise levels to below the 55 dBA Leq noise standard.
Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the City of South El Monte Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that: (1) require the installation of a 10-foot-high noise attenuation wall along the southern property line of the project site; and (2) prohibit truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The effectiveness of the 10-foot noise attenuation wall (temporary or permanent) shall be verified to confirm it reduces noise by a minimum of 10 dBA prior to tenant occupancy of the building.
If the verification confirms the attenuation wall does not achieve the required 10 dBA reduction, the wall shall be modified to ensure it achieves such reduction.
In order to respond to concerns about maximum noise events, the maximum noise level associated with truck backout alerters was calculated assuming a sound power level of 105 Lw. The sound may be audible at nearby properties at first but will quickly attenuate as trucks back up to the loading docks as the truck itself will block some of the noise from traveling south towards the existing mobile home park. The closest point where a truck back out alerter is expected to be operated is located at approximately 32 feet north of the southern project property line. The noise level at the southern property line would be 77 dBA Lmax and therefore, would not violate the City’s maximum daytime noise standard presented in Section 8.20.020 of 80 dBA Lmax but may exceed the nighttime noise standard of 70 dBA Lmax at the property line. Construction of the above recommended barrier will reduce maximum noise levels by at least ten dB (i.e., 67 dBA Lmax or lower) and, therefore, project maximum noise events will not exceed the applicable day and nighttime maximum noise event standard of 70 dBA Lmax.
COMMENT 2
5. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Lacks Substantial Evidence
The IS/MND claims that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the Project site would reduce operational noise impacts to less than significant.59 However, this conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence due to significant inconsistencies in the analysis and description of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) NOI-1.
RESPONSE
Please see response to Comment 4. The SoundPLAN operational noise analysis was revised in response to submittal of a roof plan and public comments, and the effectiveness of a ten-foot barrier was still shown to be sufficient to mitigate operational noise. As shown in Figure 7, with the ten-foot wall, peak hour operational noise levels will range between 39 and 55 dBA Leq. Noise levels at the property boundary with the mobile home park to the south would be 45 dBA Leq. Therefore, the proposed ten-foot noise barrier will sufficiently lower peak hour operational noise levels to avoid exceeding applicable noise ordinance standards. Maximum
Dana Privitt
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 19, 2025
4 GGI Project No. 19618
noise events will also be mitigated to 67 dBA Lmax or less at the southern property line with construction of the proposed wall.
Regarding flanking, Figure 7 shows that peak operational noise levels immediately east of the proposed barrier would reach 52 dBA Leq and peak operational noise levels immediately west of the proposed barrier would reach 55 dBA Leq and would not exceed the applicable day or nighttime noise standards. Municipal Code
8.20.020 Table 1 (see Attachment A) sets forth a daytime 60 dBA Leq and nighttime 55 dBA Leq thresholds for commercial land uses. The proposed wall is sufficient as proposed.
COMMENT 3
OTHER ISSUES
1) Appendix E pages 37 and 39 appears to be from another project “8388 Beech Avenue Truck-Trailer Storage Facility Noise Impact Analysis 19581.” Table 13 on page 37 and Table 15 o page 39 refer to a “Receptor R-4.” Receptor R-4 is not found anywhere else in Appendix E.
RESPONSE
The references to 8388 Beech Truck-Trailer Storage Facility are labeling errors found only in the footer of pages 37 and 39. The footer should have been updated to match the rest of the report. Similarly, “Receptor R-4 Single Family Residential South of the Project Site” is a labeling error that should have been updated to read “Multiple Family Residential (Mobile home park)”. Both Tables 12 and 13 have been reviewed and corrected. These editorial errors did not change any findings.
CONCLUSION
The Noise Impact Analysis has been updated (Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Noise Impact Analysis, June 15, 2023 – Rev 2) to incorporate the changes noted above.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 714-795-3100.
Respectfully submitted,
GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
Roma Stromberg, INCE/MS
Senior Noise Analyst
Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19618
ATTACHMENT A
City of South El Monte Ordinance 8.20
A. Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use.
1. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased or occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or b. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus five dbA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or c. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus ten dbA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or d. The exterior noise limit plus fifteen dbA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus twenty dbA for any period of time.
2. In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or it is a repetitive noise such as a hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the exterior noise limits set forth in Tables 1 and 2 shall be reduced by five dbA.
3. If the measured ambient noise level exceeds that permissible within any of the first four noise limit categories above, the allowable noise limits set forth in Table 1 or 2 shall be adjusted in five dbA increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect the ambient nose level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the exterior noise limit under the fifth category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
4. Noise Measurement Procedure. The noise level shall be measured as a position or positions at any point on the receivers property utilizing the A-weighting scale of the sound level meter and the "slow" meter response for non-impulsive type noises and "fast" response for impulsive type sounds. When feasible, the microphone shall be located approximately four to five feet above the ground and ten feet or more from the nearest reflective surface. In those cases where the standard elevation is not feasible, the most closely approximate elevation possible shall be utilized. Calibration of the measurement equipment, utilizing an acoustical calibrator, shall be performed immediately prior to recording any noise data.
City of South El Monte, CA
§ 8.20.020 Exterior noise limits. § 8.20.020
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SO5015 on 2025-02-10
(Prior code §5-13-2; Ord. 742 §1, 1985)
§ 8.20.030. Prohibited acts.
Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits by Zone
Receiving Land Zoning Category Time Period
Noise Level
Standard (dbA)
One-or two-family residential zone 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 55
Multiple dwelling residential zone, public zone 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60
Commercial zone or commercial-manufacturing
zone
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60
Manufacturing zone any time 70
Table 2 Exterior Noise Limits by Use
Receiving Land Zoning Category Time Period
Noise Level
Standard (dbA)
Property partially or entirely developed for one- or
two-family residential uses
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45
Property partially or entirely developed for
multifamily residential uses
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50
B. Vibration. No person shall operate or permit the operation of any device or machine that creates a vibration above the vibration perception threshold when measured at or beyond the property boundary of the source.
A. No person shall offer for sale, sell, or advertise by shouting or outcry within any residential or commercially developed portion of the city. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of merchandise, food and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses or other similar licensed public entertainment.
B. No person shall permit any animal owned or possessed by that person frequently or for extended periods of time to make any sound or sounds which create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line.
C. No person shall load, unload, open, close or handle boxes, crates, containers, building materials, metal, equipment or other objects or personal property between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. in such manner as to cause a noise disturbance across the real property line of an adjacent or nearby property developed entirely or partially for residential use.
D. No person shall operate or cause or authorize the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m., or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across the real property line of an adjacent or nearby property developed City of South El Monte, CA
§ 8.20.020 § 8.20.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SO5015 on 2025-02-10
ATTACHMENT B
Figures A & B – Updated Operational Noise Levels
Figure A
Operational Noise Levels Without a Barrier
Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19618
Figure B
Operational Noise Levels With A 10-FT Barrier
Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19618
ATTACHMENT C
Updated SoundPLAN Inputs
Traffic values ControlConstr. Affect. Gradient
Station ADT Vehicles type Vehicle name day evening night Speed deviceSpeedveh. Road surface Min / Max km Veh/24h Veh/h Veh/h Veh/h km/h km/h % %
Internal Drive Traffic direction: In entry direction
0+000 24 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 -
-
2 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 -
24 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
0+397 288 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 22
-
2 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 -
24 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
0+000 288 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 22
-
2 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 -
24 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
Truck Movement to Load-Unload Traffic direction: In entry direction 0+000 24 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 -
-
2 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
Frequency spectrum [dB(A)] Corrections
Source name Reference Level 31 63 125 250 500 1 2 4 8 16 Cwall CI CT dB(A) Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz kHz kHz kHz kHz kHz dB dB dB
1 Lw/unit Day 92.0 - 59.0 69.0 76.1 82.1 85.0 86.0 86.1 84.0 - - - - Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 2 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 3 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 4 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 5 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 6 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 7 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 8 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 9 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 10 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 11 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 12 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 13 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - Back up Alterter Lw/unit Day 88.2 - 55.3 65.3 72.3 78.3 81.3 82.3 82.3 80.3 - - - - Noise emissions of industry sources
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA Page 486 of 866 Movements Separated Lw,ref
Name Parking lot type Size per hour Road surface method Day Evening Night dB(A)
1 Visitors and staff 10 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 73.0 2 Visitors and staff 41 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 82.9 3 Visitors and staff 41 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 82.9 4 Visitors and staff 34 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 81.8 5 Visitors and staff 22 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 79.2 6 Visitors and staff 22 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 79.2 7 Visitors and staff 2 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 66.0 8 Visitors and staff 8 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 72.0 Noise emissions of parking lot traffic
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA Page 487 of 866
ATTACHMENT D
Roof Plan
COOK
aceb245
A4.0
1 A4.0
2 1
1 2
2 3
3 4
4 5
5 6
6 7
7 8
8 9
9 10
10 A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
A4.0
4 A4.0
3 A4.0
3A
44' - 8" 43' - 0"
45' - 9"
44' - 6"
43' - 8"
42' - 6"
41' - 2"
42' - 5"
RIDGE RIDGE
47'-4" 50'-2" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 74'-4" 60'-0" 61'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 51'-0" 47'-0" 60'-0"
319'-0"
511'-10"
13'-6" 21'-6" 23'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 21'-0" 3'-2 3/4" 14'-1" 14'-1"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
TYP.
2605
R.1
A.1
TYP.
2216
807
TYP.
2216
TYP.
2210
TYP.
860
810
TYP.
2214
4'-0"
D.9 D.9
6.1 6.1
9.1 9.1
44' - 8"
43' - 0"
44' - 8"
44' - 8"
43' - 0"
T.O.P.
48' - 0" T.O.P.
51' - 0"
T.O.P.
48' - 10"
45' - 10"
T.O.P.
46' - 0"
T.O.P.
48' - 0"
45' - 3"
43' - 6"
44' - 6"
T.O.P.
47' - 0"
43' - 9"
T.O.P.
47' - 0"
3'-6" PARAPET
3'-4" PARAPET
2'-3" PARAPET
T.O.P. 45' - 0"
47' - 0" 2'-0" PARAPET
3'-0" PARAPET
T.O.P.
48' - 0"
46' - 9"
2'-9" PARAPET
2'-9" PARAPET
22'-6"
29'-0"
30'-0"
21'-6"
1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1.5 1.5
49' - 6"
44' - 6"
2'-6" PARAPET
T.O.P.
47' - 0"
2'-6" PARAPET
43' - 5"
47' - 0"
T.O.P.
48' - 0"
3'-4" PARAPET
42' - 11"
T.O.C.
47' - 0"
4'-1" PARAPET
T.O.P.
47' - 0"
43' - 6"
3'-6" PARAPET 810
Plan Check Number:
Project Number:
2020 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by Architects Orange. c
SEAL
CONSULTANT
Sheet Plotted:Drawing File Name:
S H E E T
Autodesk Docs://2022-392 Xebec - Rosemead Blvd - South El Monte/2022-392 Xebec- Rosemead Blvd El Monte.rvt 8/6/2024 8:40:38 AM
ROOF PLAN
2022-392 2222 ROSEMEAD BLVD
701 PARKCENTER DRIVE
SANTA ANA, CA, 92705
(714) 562-8688
TAIT & ASSOCIATES ROSEMEAD HOLDINGS SOUTH EL MONTE, CA 91733 Permit Number
A3.0
2023-05-12 50% PROGRESS
2023-06-12 1st CITY SUBMITTAL
2024-05-07
2nd CITY SUBMITTAL
LA CO. FIRE SUBMITTAL
Scale:
1" = 20'-0"
ROOF PLAN 1
North
ROOF PLAN LEGEND
4'x8' FIXED SKYLIGHT TO BE FIBERGLASS SINGLE DOME, IMPACT AND HIGH WIND. TO INCLUDE BURGLAR BARS
RESISTANT AS BISTOLITE DAYLIGHTING SYSTEM (KINGSPAN)/ SUNOPTICS SEE DETAIL 8/A6.2
24" X 30" CURB MOUNTED ROOF HATCH WITH LADDER EXTENSION POST - BILCO, MODEL: S-20 OR APPROVED EQUAL.
INDICATES "SOLAR READY" ZONE ON ROOF AS CALCULATED
FABRICATED, 22 GA., G.I. SCUPPER, RAIN CONDUCTOR, AND DOWNSPOUT
CURB MOUNTED MECHANICAL UNIT - REFER TO MECHANICAL, PLUMBING,
AND ELECTRICAL PLANS
INDICATES TOP OF SHEATHING ELEVATION AS TAKEN FROM FINISH FLOOR
DIRECTLY
BELOW REFERENCE POINT, SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
T.S. = 37'-1"
INDICATES TOP OF PARAPET ELEVATION, SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
T.PARAPET = 41'-6"
4'x8' FIXED SKYLIGHT WITH SMOKE AND HEAT VENTS WITH UL 793 LISTING BY BRISOLITE DAYLIGHTING SYSTEMS (KINGSPAN)/ SUNOPTICS). TO BE FIBERGLASS SINGLE DOME, IMPACT AND HIGH WIND. TO INCLUDE BURGLAR BARS. SEE DETAIL 8/A6.2.
ROOF GENERAL NOTES
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SIZES AND LOCATIONS OF ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLATFORMS AND
BASES, POWER, WATER AND DRAIN LOCATIONS AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS WITH EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK. CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE FIELD CONDITIONS OR MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CHARGE TO OWNER.
2. MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT PLATFORM DIMENSIONS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8 INCHES ABOVE ADJACENT ROOF ELEVATION.
3. VENTS THROUGH THE ROOF SHALL BE INSTALLED 10'-0" FROM AND TERMINATED 3'-0" ABOVE ANY FRESH AIR INTAKES.
4. LEAD FLASHING TO BE USED AT ALL ROOF DRAIN AND OVERFLOW PENETRATIONS.
5. SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR ALL ROOF DRAIN SIZES.
6. ALL ROOF SURFACES SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 1/4 INCH PER FOOT IN ALL DIRECTIONS.CRICKETS SHALL BE USED ON THE HIGH SIDE OF ALL SKYLIGHTS, ROOF HATCH AND EQUIPMENT PLATFORMS.
7. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ROOF FRAMING.
8. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT, SHAFT, AND PENETRATION LOCATIONS.
9. ORIENT SKYLIGHT / SMOKE HATCH HINGES TOWARD THE PREVAILING WIND.
10. ALL INDIRECT WASTE PIPING ON ROOF SHALL BE TYPE "L" COPPER ATTACHED BY PIPE STRAPS NAILED TO 2 x 4 REDWOOD BLOCKING. BLOCKING SHALL BE SET IN MASTIC AT 6'-0" O.C. PIPING SHALL BE SLOPED AND TERMINATE IN AN APPROVED RECEPTOR. PIPING TO BE INSTALLED PARALLEL AND PERPENDICULAR TO BUILDING ELEVATIONS. SEE DETAIL 13/A6.2.
11. ALL ROOFING SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL CITY AGENCY WIND DESIGN ACCORDANCES.
12. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO CONFIRM ROOF ELEVATIONS.
13. ALL ROOF ELEVATIONS INDICATE BOTTOM OF SHEATHING FROM FINISHED FLOOR, DATUM ELEVATION 0'-0". (FLOOR SLOPES) SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.
14. ROOFING: UL CLASS A- FIRE RETARDANT RATING AS MANUFACTURE BY GAF, MANVILLE OR EQUAL.
15. OVERFLOW SCUPPERS SHALL BE 3 TIMES THE AREA OF THE ROOF DRAIN INLET, LOCATED 3" ABOVE THE LOW POINT OF THE ADJACENT. FINISHED ROOF PER CBC SEC.1506.3.
16. LEAD FLASHING TO BE USED AT ALL ROOF VENT PENETRATIONS. SEE DETAIL 11,12 & 21/A6.1.
17. FOR ROOF PENETRATIONS, - SEE DETAILS 2, 5, 11, 12, AND 21/A6.1. ### KEYNOTES
807 PREFABRICATED METAL AWNING, REFER TO ELEVATIONS FOR COLOR AND PLACEMENT. 19/A6.3
810 ROOF ACCESS HATCH PER DOOR SCHEDULE
860 SKYLIGHTS SEE LEGEND AND DETAIL 8/A6.2
2210 INTERNAL ROOF DRAIN AND ROOF OVERFLOW DRAIN WITH SEPARATE PIPING SYSTEM. INSTALL PER ROOFING MANUFACTURER WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS AND INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS. SEE DETAIL 17/A6.1 AND 18 WHERE OCCURS ON SITE.
2214 ROOF OVERFLOW DRAIN TO DISCHARGE AT THE FACE OF BUILDING. 2216 EXTERIOR DOWNSPOUT AND OVERFLOW SCUPPER. SEE DETAIL 19,20, 25 /A6.1
2605 SOLAR ZONE: AREA DEDICATED FOR FUTURE SOLAR PANEL
INSTILLATION. INVERTERS, METERING EQUIPMENT, AND CONDUIT
ROUTING TO BE COMPLETED AS PART OF FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.
SMOKE VENT CALCULATION
WAREHOUSE S.F. X CLEAR HEIGHT = x/9000 = S.F. OF VENTING / 32 S.F. VENT HATCH SIZE 112,377 S.F. X 40 FT. CLEAR = 4,495,080/9000 = 499.45 OR 500 S.F./32 S.F. = 15.625 OR 16 VENTS 2023-10-13 1 PCC1
XX ASSEMBLIES
* SEE SHEETS A7.6 FOR COMPLETE ASSEMBLY INFORMATION AND DETAILS. ** SEE RCP FOR WALL TYPES THAT OCCUR ABOVE THE CEILINGS.
A.1 N.R. EXTERIOR CONC. WALL: 9 1/4" STEEL REINFORCED TILT UP CONCRETE WALL. PER STRUCTURAL .
R.1 N.R. 20 YEAR TPO ROOF: JOHN MANVILLE ( OR APPROVED EQUAL) UL 790 LISTED MIN. 60 MIL. FULLY ADHERED TPO MEMBRANE ROOFING OVER MIN. 1/4" DENSDECK OVER PLYWOOD ROOF DECK. PROVIDE MIN.
ROOFING SYSTEM TO BE UL CLASS A AND MEET FM-190 WIND UPLIFT RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTS PER OWNER SPECS. TOP CAP OF ROOF SYSTEM TO HAVE LEED SOLAR REFLECTIVE INDEX OF 82 OR GREATER.
8.31.25
kimley-horn.com 1100 Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 Response to the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (CREED LA) Letter dated January 27, 2025, for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project
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”]), January 27, 2025.
II.A The commenter claims that the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate potential public health impacts to on-site construction workers. Specifically, the commenter states that the IS/MND mitigation measures do not guarantee that post-remediation contamination will be sufficiently reduced to safe levels for on-site construction workers. However, IS/MND mitigation measure HAZ-1 states the following, “The SMP shall Identify and implement accident prevention and control measures for soil disturbance and remediation activities, and for ongoing operations that are protective of the health and safety of the public (i.e., vapor intrusion mitigation system [VIMS]), and construction workers including a routine inspection program to ensure that such measures are being implemented during construction. At a minimum, such measures shall include compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations.” Regarding federal and State regulations, the responsible agencies for the project site’s remediation activities are the Los Angeles RWQCB and the U.S. EPA. These agencies prohibit redevelopment activities until remediation activities have been completed and approved, ensuing the project site is protective of human health.1 Therefore, the IS/MND adequately analyzed and mitigated potential public health impacts to on-site construction workers.
II.B Please refer to the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development - Supplemental Soil Remediation Analysis for Transportation, Noise, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas and Energy.
II.C Please refer to the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development - Supplemental Soil Remediation Analysis for Transportation, Noise, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas and Energy 1 Haley & Aldrich, Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum (April 2024), Appendix A (Haley & Aldrich, Response to LARWQCB Comments (March 2024) p. 1.
ATTACHMENT F
EXHIBIT E
TO RESOLUTION NO. 25-035
transportation ■ noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dana Privitt | KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
FROM: Giancarlo Ganddini, Roma Stromberg, Katie Wilson | GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
DATE: March 31, 2025
SUBJECT: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development - Supplemental Soil Remediation Analysis for Transportation, Noise, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas and Energy (GGI Project No. 19618)
Ganddini Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this supplemental technical analysis to evaluate the potential for impacts associated with soil remediation for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development project.
This analysis supplements the technical studies appended to the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Appendix A - Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis [AQR], Appendix E - Noise Impact Analysis [NIA], and Appendix F - Transportation Impact Analysis [TIA]).
PURPOSE/BACKGROUND
While the technical analysis of the project’s construction phase accounted for 1,400 cubic yards of soil import known at the time of preparation of the technical studies, a Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum (LSRWP) later identified the need for approximately 4,999 cubic yards of contaminated soil to be excavated and exported from the project site.
This technical memorandum analysis was conducted in order to respond to the January 27, 2025 comment letter from Adams, Broadwell, Joseph and Cardozo, on behalf of CREED LA. Specifically, Comment B notes that according to a Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum, approximately 4,999 cubic yards (“cy”) of contaminated soil will be excavated from the eastern portion of the Project site.1 This includes 4,670 cy of soil contaminated with PCB, 164 cy with lead, 122 cy with arsenic, and 7 yards with total petroleum hydrocarbons diesel.2 The soil will then be segregated, stockpiled, sampled, profiled, and transported to an appropriate waste disposal facility.3 These remediation activities are anticipated to last approximately 45 days.4 As the data pertaining to soil remediation was available after the original AQR was completed, this analysis was performed to ensure all project-related emissions have been accounted for in the analyses.
SOIL REMEDIATION DATA
The data and assumptions used for this supplemental analysis are shown in Table 1 below. 1 LSRWPA, Table 8 (Soil Remedial Excavation Volumes).
2 LSRWPA, Table 9 (Soil Remedial Excavation Volumes by [Contaminant of Concern]). 3 LSRWPA at pp. 17-20.
4 LSRWPA at p. 20.
March 31, 2025
2 GGI Ref. 19618
Table 1. Assumptions for Soil Remediation Phase
Facility
Distance
Comments
Estimated
Soil Volume % of Soil
Disposal
Estimated
Truck
Loads1
Estimated
Truck Trips
(2-Way)2
(miles) (cubic yards)
Azusa Land
Reclamation 14 Non-hazardous waste 200 4% 13 26
Waste
Management Simi
Valley Landfill and
Recycling Center
55 Non-hazardous
waste 4200 84% 263 526
Clean Harbors
Buttonwillow
Landfill Facility
146
Non-RCRA
Hazardous
Waste 500 10% 32 64
(< 50 mg/kg
PCBs)
US Ecology
Beatty Facility 279
TSCA
Hazardous
Waste 100 2% 7 14
(> 50 mg/kg
PCBs)
TOTAL 315 630
Soil Remediation Phase Length (days)3 45
Average Truck Loads Per Day 7 loads (14 two-way trips)
Weighted Average Trip Length (miles) 66.94
Notes:
1. Based on 16 cubic yards per truck load.
2. One unloaded inbound trip and one loaded outbound trip per truck load.
3. LSRWP at p.20
Construction equipment used on-site for the soil remediation include: 2 excavators, a backhoe, a wheel loader and a water truck. All on-site hazardous material excavation and handling activities would be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, 1166, and 1466. Hazardous soils would be stockpiled, profiled, treated and if required, transported and disposed of off the site in accordance with federal regulations under TSCA, RCRA, and HWCL regulations. Per SCAQMD requirements for hazardous soils, material handling excavation activities and fugitive dust control methods will include at a minimum: watering the site 3 times a day, watering unpaved construction roads, limiting the vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, and sweeping paved roads at least once a day to limit track out of material. These dust control methods required by SCAQMD are shown as mitigation in the CalEEMod output.
The soil remediation activities are expected to begin on April 7, 2025 and last approximately 45 days. The soil remediation activities will occur in-between the demolition phase and the grading phase that were analyzed previously in the original AQR. Therefore, the emissions from the soil remediation phase will not overlap with any of the other construction phases analyzed in the original AQR. 2
March 31, 2025
3 GGI Ref. 19618
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2008). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain on-site for 24 hours. Furthermore, as stated in the SCAQMD’s Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans (2005), the following land uses are considered to be areas where sensitive receptors are typically located: schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, hospitals, retirement homes, and residences.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include: the existing residential/trailer park use located adjacent to the south; the multi-family residential uses located as close as approximately 547 feet (~166 meters) to the southwest (along the northern side of Rush Street); and the single-family residential uses located as close as approximately 297 feet (~91 meters) to the west (along the eastern side of Troy Avenue), 372 feet (~114 meters) to the northwest (along the eastern side of Troy Avenue) and 743 feet (~226 meters) to the southwest (along the southern side of Rush Street) of the project site. Other air quality sensitive land uses are located further from the project site and would experience lower impacts.
Table 2 shows the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. 3
Construction (lbs/day) Operation (lbs/day)
100 55
75 55
150 150
55 55
150 150
550 550
3 3
Odor
GHG
Notes:
Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook (1) Source: South Coast AQMD CEQA Handbook (South Coast AQMD, 1993) (2) Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on South Coast AQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. (3) Ambient air quality threshold based on South Coast AQMD Rule 403.
VOC
PM10
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Table 2
Mass Daily Thresholds1
Pollutant
NOx
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)
PM2.5
SOx
CO
Lead
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), Odor and GHG Thresholds
TACs (including carginogens and noncarcinogens)
Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 402 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial facilities
annual average
24-hour average
24-hour average
1.0 µg/m^3
PM2.5
0.25 ppm (state) & 0.075 ppm (federal – 99th percentile) Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants2
10.4 µg/m^3 (construction)3 & 2.5 µg/m^3 (operation)
NO2
1-hour average
South Coast AQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
Rolling 3-month average
10.4 µg/m^3 (construction)3 & 2.5 µg/m^3 (operation)
0.04 ppm (state)
9 ppm (state/federal)
0.15 µg/m^3 (federal)
South Coast AQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
1-hour average 20 ppm (state) & 35 ppm (federal)
8-hour average
CO
Sulfate
24-hour average 25 µg/m^3 (state)
1.5 µg/m^3 (state)
0.18 ppm (state)
annual arithmetic mean 0.03 ppm (state) & 0.0534 ppm (federal) Lead
30-day average
SO2
1-hour average
PM10
24-hour average
4 GGI Ref. 19618
March 31, 2025
5 GGI Ref. 19618
Short-Term Air Quality Impacts
An analysis of the potential short-term air quality impacts due to regional air quality and local air quality impacts from the soil remediation activities during construction is provided. The emissions were calculated using CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29. CalEEMod output is shown in Appendix A.
Soil Remediation Construction-Related Regional Air Quality Impacts The maximum criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project’s soil remediation-related criteria pollutant emissions are shown below in Table 3. Compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1466 is included.
Table 3 shows that none of the project's emissions will exceed regional thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from soil remediation phase of the project. Impacts remain less than significant and do not change the significance findings as reported in the original AQR.
Soil Remediation Construction-Related Local Air Quality Impacts Emissions from the soil remediation phase of construction may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local air quality impacts created from: soil remediation-related fugitive dust and diesel emissions.
Based on the SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds (the same methoddology used in the original AQR), the soil remediation phase of the project would disturb one acre per day5 and the emission thresholds were calculated based on the South San Gabriel Valley source receptor area (SRA) 11 and a disturbance value of one acre per day. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter thresholds. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing residential/trailer park use located adjacent to the south, the multi-family residential land uses located approximately 547 feet (~166 meters) to the southwest, and the single-family residential land uses located approximately 297 feet (~91 meters) to the west, 372 feet (~114 meters) to the northwest and 743 feet (~226 meters) to the southwest of the project site; therefore, the SCAQMD Look-up Tables for 25 meters was used. Table 4 shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model for the soil remediation phase and the LST emissions thresholds.
The data provided in Table 4 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from soil remediation phase of the proposed project. Impacts remain less than significant and do not change the significance findings as reported in the original AQR. 5 Source: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemodguidance.pdf?sfvrsn=98641d61_2; 0.5 acres for a crawler tractor plus 0.5 acres for a rubber tired dozer. 5
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
0.59 7.89 8.98 0.03 5.00 0.85
75 100 550 150 150 55
No No No No No No
Notes:
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29
(1) Includes both on-site and off-site emissions. On-site site preparation PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions show compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust and Rule 1466 Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Air Contaminants.
Table 3
Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity
Maximum Daily Emissions1
SCAQMD Thresholds
Exceeds Thresholds?
6 GGI Ref. 19618
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 4.33 7.08 3.96 0.54
SCAQMD Thresholds2 83 673 5 4
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1. 2.
Table 4
Activity1
The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing residential/trailer park use located adjacent to the south, the multi-family residential land uses located approximately 547 feet (~166 meters) to the southwest, and the single-family residential land uses located approximately 297 feet (~91 meters) to the west, 372 feet (~114 meters) to the northwest and 743 feet (~226 meters) to the southwest of the project site; therefore, the 25 meter threshold was used.
Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 1 acre at a distance of 25 meters in SRA 11 South San Gabriel Valley.
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
The soil remediation will disturb a maximum of 1.0 acre a day.
Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors
7 GGI Ref. 19618
March 31, 2025
8 GGI Ref. 19618
GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction-related GHG emissions from the soil remediation phase were included in the analysis and were based on a 30-year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. The proposed project’s construction related GHG emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model based on the parameters detailed above. A summary of the results is shown below in Table 5 and CalEEMod model run for the proposed project is provided in Appendix A.
The data provided in Table 5 shows that soil remediation phase would generate a total of 3.13 MTCO2e per year. When added into the total emissions from the original AQR, total project GHG emissions would be 2,720 MTCO2e/year.
The project's total emissions, including the soil remediation phase, do not exceed the SCAQMD draft GHG emissions threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses; therefore, the impacts from GHGs are considered to be less than significant. Impacts remain less than significant and do not change the significance findings as reported in the original AQR.
Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
As shown the original AQR, the project is consistent with CARB Scoping Plans and the SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
As the addition of the soil remediation phase during construction of the project does not change the conclusions in the original AQR, and does not add a significant amount of GHG emissions to the total project, it is concluded that the project’s incremental contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on climate change would not be cumulatively considerable. The addition of the soil remediation phase does not create any additional impacts beyond those already disclosed in the original AQR.
8
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
0.00 3.01 3.01 0.00 0.00 3.13
0.00 3.01 3.01 0.00 0.00 3.13
3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29
(1) Construction GHG emissions CO2e based on a 30-year amortization rate.
SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold
Total Emissions
Construction1
Table 5
Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
9 GGI Ref. 19618
March 31, 2025
10 GGI Ref. 19618
PROJECT ENERGY DEMANDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Construction Energy Demands
The soil remediation phase of construction is anticipated to occur between demolition and grading and start April 7, 2025. The approximately 45-day schedule is short, and the estimated area of disturbance during the soil remediation phase of construction is approximately one (1) acre.
Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates
Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of soil remediation phase. Fuel consumed by construction equipment was evaluated with the following assumptions:
▪ Soil remediation phase of 45 days
▪ All construction equipment was assumed to run on diesel fuel. ▪ Typical daily use of 8 hours.
▪ Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp-hr/gallon (from CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the Moyer Guidelines:
(https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf). ▪ Diesel fuel would be the responsibility of the equipment operators/contractors and would be sources within the region.
▪ Project construction/soil remediation represents a “single-event” for diesel fuel demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources during long term operation.
Using the CalEEMod data input for the air quality and greenhouse gas memorandum analyses, the project’s soil remediation phase would consume fossil fuels as a single energy demand, that is, once the soil remediation phase of construction is completed, their use would cease. CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables show that on average aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be approximately 18.5 hp-hr-gal.
Table 6 shows the results of the analysis of construction equipment.
As presented in Table 6, project construction activities during soil remediation would consume an estimated 2,188 gallons of diesel fuel. As stated previously, project construction/soil remediation would represent a “single‐event” diesel fuel demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose.
10
Number
of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
HP
hrs/day
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal diesel fuel)2
45 Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8 150 0.36 432 1,051
45 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 249 605
45 Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 219 532
2,188
Notes:
(1)
(2) Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp. (Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf) Table 6
Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase1
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel)
Soil remediation phase is anticpated to occur after demolition and before grading.
Site Preparation
11 GGI Ref. 19618
March 31, 2025
12 GGI Ref. 19618
Construction Worker Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that construction worker trips are from light duty autos (LDA), light duty truck 1 (LDT1), and light duty truck 2 (LDT2) at a mix of 25 percent/50 percent/25 percent, respectively, along area roadways.6 With respect to estimated VMT, the soil remediation-based construction worker trips would generate an estimated 8,325 VMT. Data regarding project related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 model defaults.
Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses using information generated using CARB’s 2021 EMFAC model. An aggregate fuel efficiency of
26.585 miles per gallon (mpg) was used to calculate vehicle miles traveled for construction worker trips. Table 7 shows that an estimated 313 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips. When added to the construction worker fuel estimates from the original AQR, the total for the entire project would be 9,915 gallons.
Onsite Truck and Hauling Fuel Estimates
Table 8 and Table 9 show the estimated fuel consumption for the use of an onsite water truck and hauling during the soil remediation phase of construction. With respect to estimated VMT, the onsite truck and hauling trips would generate an estimated 42,631 VMT. Data regarding project-related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 model defaults.
The onsite water truck would be a medium to heavy duty vehicle with an average fuel consumption of 7.87 mpg for medium heavy-duty trucks and 6.15 mpg for heavy heavy-duty trucks (see Appendix A for details). 7 Table 8 and Table 9 show that an estimated 6,923 gallons of fuel would be consumed for the onsite water truck and hauling trips. When added to the hauling and vendor fuel estimates from the original AQR, the total for the entire project would be 15,494 gallons.
Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Construction equipment used over the approximately 45-day soil remediation phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in the construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.
The project would utilize construction contractors which practice compliance with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment. Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air Contaminants. Compliance with these measures would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and would minimize or eliminate wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption. 6 CalEEMod User's Guide Appendix C (April 2022) states that construction work trips are made by a fleet consisting of 25 percent light-duty auto (or passenger car), 50 percent light-duty truck type 1 (LDT1), and 25 percent light duty truck type 2 (LDT2). 7 CalEEMod User's Guide Appendix C (April 2022) states that vendor trips are made by a fleet consisting of 50 percent medium trucks (MHDT) and 50 percent heavy trucks (HHDT) and that hauling and onsite truck trips are made by a fleet consisting of 100 percent HHDT.
12
Number
of Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
45 10 18.5 8,325 26.6 313
313
Notes:
(1)
(2) Per CalEEMod User's Guide Appendix C (April 2022), CalEEMod assumes that construction work trips are made by a fleet consisting of 25 percent light-duty auto (or passenger car), 50 percent light-duty truck type 1 (LDT1), and 25 percent light duty truck type 2 (LDT2).
Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults.
Table 7
Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption
Site Preparation
13 GGI Ref. 19618
Number
of Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
45 1 10.2 459 7.01 65
65 Notes:
(1)
(2) Per CalEEMod User's Guide Appendix C (April 2022), CalEEMod assumes vendor trips are made by a fleet consisting of 50 percent medium trucks (MHDT) and 50 percent heavy trucks (HHDT).
Site Preparation
Table 8
Onsite Truck Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD & HHD Trucks) Phase
Total Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption
Assumptions for the onsite truck trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults. 14 GGI Ref. 19618
Number
of Days
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
45 14 66.94 42,172 6.15 6,857
6,857
Notes:
(1)
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption
Assumptions for the hauling trip length are based on the information presented in Table 1.
Site Preparation
Table 9
Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks) Phase
15 GGI Ref. 19618
March 31, 2025
16 GGI Ref. 19618
Additionally, as required by California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing or eliminating unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment.
Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints.
When added to the total fuel consumption for construction equipment from the original AQR, the total fuel consumption for the project’s construction equipment would be 33,289 gallons, including the soil remediation phase. Therefore, as the soil remediation phase is required to comply with CARB regulations and does not include the need of construction processes that would require the use of equipment that is more energy efficient, the proposed project soil remediation phase-related fuel consumption would not be considered significant when added to the total fuel consumption for the project.
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in an already developed area. Access to/from the project site is from existing roads. These roads are already in place so the project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be proposed pursuant to the ISTEA.
Regarding Pavley (AB 1493) regulations, an individual project does not have the ability to comply or conflict with these regulations because they are intended for agencies and their adoption of procedures and protocols for reporting and certifying GHG emission reductions from mobile sources. The on-road vehicles associated with the soil remediation phase of construction would be required to comply with federal and state fuel efficiency standards. Therefore, the soil remediation phase of the project’s construction will not conflict with the goals of AB 1493.
As stated above, and shown in the original AQR, the overall project would be consistent with the measures identified in the CARB Scoping Plan and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As it is part of the project’s overall construction, the addition of the soil remediation phase would not conflict with the goals of the CARB Scoping Plan or the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
Energy Conclusions
As supported by the preceding analyses, the soil remediation phase of construction would not result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. The soil remediation phase does not include any unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities. The energy demands of the soil remediation phase are anticipated to be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The soil remediation phase of the project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The soil remediation phase would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California.
Notwithstanding, the soil remediation phase will not have any long-term effects on an energy provider’s future energy development or future energy conservation strategies. This conclusion is the same as that presented in the original AQR. Impacts remain less than significant. 16
March 31, 2025
17 GGI Ref. 19618
NOISE IMPACTS
Construction Noise
Construction noise is regulated within City of South El Monte Municipal Code Section 8.20.030(D) (see Regulatory Setting section of the NIA). Accordingly, the project would result in a significant impact if:
▪ Project construction occurs outside the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM or at any time on weekends or holidays.
Project construction, including soil remediation, will not occur outside of the hours outlined in Section
8.20.030(D) of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the soil remediation phase of project construction would not exceed City-established standards relating to construction noise. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.
Notwithstanding the above, to fully disclose potential noise impacts, construction noise was analyzed in light of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria. 8 The FTA construction noise methodology
incorporates key construction parameters, including: distance to each sensitive receiver, equipment usage, percent usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site. The equipment used during the soil remediation phase for construction noise modeling is consistent with the assumptions used for the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) modeling provided in the Air Quality analysis, as incorporated into this memorandum. For analysis purposes, the distance measured from the project site to sensitive receptors was assumed to be the acoustical center of the project site to the property line of residential properties with existing residential buildings. 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.
Anticipated noise levels during the soil remediation phase of construction are presented in Table 10. As shown in Table 10, the maximum noise level at a sensitive receptor during the soil remediation phase of project construction is estimated at 71.4 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the FTA residential threshold of 80 dBA Leq. Construction noise worksheets are provided in Attachment B.
In conclusion, the project shall comply with construction hours outlined in Section 83.20.030(D) of the City’s Municipal Code and modeled noise levels during the soil remediation phase are below the FTA residential threshold of 80 dBA Leq; therefore, the project’s construction noise impact during the soil remediation phase is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. This conclusion is the same as that presented in the original Noise Impact Analysis; impacts remain less than significant. 8 Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018). 17
March 31, 2025
18 GGI Ref. 19618
Table 10. Construction Noise Levels during Soil Remediation Phase Phase Receptor Location
Existing
Measured
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Construction
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Soil
Remediation
Residential to South (9427 Rush Street) 54.1 71.4
Residential to Southwest (9367 Rush Street) 66.2 60.3
Residential to West (2222 Troy Avenue) 72.3 62.7
Residential to Northwest (2326 Troy Avenue) 72.3 60.9
Source: Construction noise worksheets; see Attachment B.
Construction Generated Vehicle Trips
Construction truck trips would occur throughout the construction period. Haul trucks will have access to/from State Route 60 and Interstate 10 via State Route 164 (Rosemead Boulevard), which is classified as an Arterial Highway in the City’s circulation element and provides direct project site access. No local residential streets will be used for hauling routes between the project site and SR-60 / I-10 freeways.
Rosemead Boulevard currently handles between approximately 31,650 to 33,400 average daily vehicle trips in the vicinity of the project site.9 As noted herein, soil remediation is expected to generate an average of 14 truck trips per day. Vehicle traffic generated during project construction is nominal relative to existing roadway volumes and would not result in the doubling of traffic volume necessary to increase noise levels by 3 dBA.
Noise impacts associated with truck hauling traffic during the soil remediation phase would result in less than significant; no mitigation is required.
9 Existing average daily traffic volumes were calculated from the PM peak hour intersection traffic counts provided in the Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Transportation Impact Analysis, Ganddini Group Inc. (April 28, 2023). 18
March 31, 2025
19 GGI Ref. 19618
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
Level of Service
CEQA Guidelines expressly state that a project's effect on automobile delay, as measured by Level of Service (LOS) and other similar metrics, shall not constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA.10 Notwithstanding this consideration, the Transportation Impact Analysis for the project evaluated the potential for impacts to Level of Service on the surrounding roadway system based on a daily trip generation estimate of 392 daily passenger car equivalent (PCE)11 trips associated with post-construction, long-term operations of the project and found that the project would cause no substantial deficiencies based on the City-established standards. After application of a PCE factor of 3.0 for soil export trucks, the soil remediation phase is estimated to generate an average of 42 daily PCE trips.
Since the soil remediation phase is expected to generate substantially fewer daily trips compared to the postconstruction operations, it can be concluded that the soil remediation phase would not result in any new Level of Service impacts compared to those evaluated in the project’s Transportation Impact Analysis.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
VMT associated with the soil remediation phase would be temporary in nature and thus would not conflict with the intent of CEQA to reduce long-term transportation emissions. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (a), states, “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Guidance provided in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA12 (“OPR Technical Advisory) clarifies that the term “automobile” refers to onroad passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. While the OPR Technical Advisory notes that it could be included in calculations for modeling convenience, heavy-duty truck VMT is not considered significant with respect to transportation impacts under CEQA. The effect of heavy trucks is considered in other technical areas, such as air quality/greenhouse gas emissions and noise, with respect to impacts under CEQA.
Notwithstanding the above, soil exports are estimated to generate an average of 14 trips per day (two-way), which is far below the OPR screening recommendation of 110 trips per day. Therefore, the project’s soil remediation phase would not result in any additional VMT impacts compared to those evaluated and disclosed in the project’s Transportation Impact Analysis based on available State guidance with respect to transportation impacts under CEQA.
CONCLUSIONS
The inclusion of the soil remediation phase during project construction does not create any additional impacts beyond those already disclosed in the original technical studies appended to the IS/MND addressing air quality, greenhouse gas, energy, noise, and transportation; no additional mitigation measures are required and impacts remain less than significant.
10 Public Resources Code, § 21099, subdivision (b)(3).
11 PCE trips are considered in Level of Service analysis to account for the effect of heavy vehicles on roadway capacity. 12 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (State of California, Office of Planning and Research, December 2018).
19
March 31, 2025
20 GGI Ref. 19618
Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (714) 795-3100.
Respectfully submitted,
GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
Giancarlo Ganddini
Principal Traffic Engineer
Roma Stromberg, MS
Senior Noise Analyst
Katie Wilson, MS
Senior Air Quality Analyst
20
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CALEEMOD DETAILED REPORT AND EMFAC DATA Apx-1
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 1 / 25
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Apx-2
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 2 / 25
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Apx-3
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 3 / 25
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
Apx-4
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 4 / 25
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Apx-5
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 5 / 25
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation
Construction Start Date 4/7/2025
Lead Agency City of South El Monte
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 0.50
Precipitation (days) 18.2
Location 2222 Rosemead Blvd, South El Monte, CA 91733, USA County Los Angeles-South Coast
City South El Monte
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4179
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
5.14 Acre 5.14 0.00 0.00 — — —
Apx-6
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 6 / 25
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Construction C-12 Sweep Paved Roads
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.59 7.89 8.98 0.03 0.22 16.0 16.2 0.20 1.77 1.97 — 4,435 4,435 0.20 0.52 8.13 4,603 Mit. 0.59 7.89 8.98 0.03 0.22 4.78 5.00 0.20 0.65 0.85 — 4,435 4,435 0.20 0.52 8.13 4,603 %
Reduced
— — — — — 70% 69% — 63% 57% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.07 1.00 1.10 < 0.005 0.03 1.88 1.91 0.02 0.21 0.23 — 546 546 0.03 0.06 0.43 566 Mit. 0.07 1.00 1.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.57 0.59 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 546 546 0.03 0.06 0.43 566 %
Reduced
— — — — — 70% 69% — 63% 56% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.18 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 0.35 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 90.4 90.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 93.8 Mit. 0.01 0.18 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 90.4 90.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 93.8 Apx-7
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 7 / 25
% — — — — — 70% 69% — 63% 56% — — — — — — —
Reduced
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.59 7.89 8.98 0.03 0.22 16.0 16.2 0.20 1.77 1.97 — 4,435 4,435 0.20 0.52 8.13 4,603 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.07 1.00 1.10 < 0.005 0.03 1.88 1.91 0.02 0.21 0.23 — 546 546 0.03 0.06 0.43 566 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.01 0.18 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 0.35 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 90.4 90.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 93.8
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.59 7.89 8.98 0.03 0.22 4.78 5.00 0.20 0.65 0.85 — 4,435 4,435 0.20 0.52 8.13 4,603 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.07 1.00 1.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.57 0.59 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 546 546 0.03 0.06 0.43 566 Apx-8
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 8 / 25
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.01 0.18 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 90.4 90.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 93.8
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.52 4.29 7.07 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,075 1,075 0.04 0.01 — 1,079 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.0 15.0 < 0.005 1.50 1.50 — 31.7 31.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 33.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.53 0.87 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 133 133 0.01 < 0.005 — 133 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.76 1.76 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 3.91 3.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.08 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apx-9
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 9 / 25
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.10 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 0.65 0.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.68 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 138 138 0.01 < 0.005 0.51 140 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 3.52 1.20 0.02 0.04 0.87 0.91 0.04 0.24 0.28 — 3,190 3,190 0.15 0.50 7.53 3,351 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.46 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 — 393 393 0.02 0.06 0.40 413 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.71 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 65.1 65.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 68.3
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apx-10
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 10 / 25
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.52 4.29 7.07 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,075 1,075 0.04 0.01 — 1,079 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.78 3.79 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 — 31.7 31.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 33.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.53 0.87 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 133 133 0.01 < 0.005 — 133 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 3.91 3.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.08 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.10 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.65 0.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.68 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apx-11
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 11 / 25
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 138 138 0.01 < 0.005 0.51 140 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 3.52 1.20 0.02 0.04 0.87 0.91 0.04 0.24 0.28 — 3,190 3,190 0.15 0.50 7.53 3,351 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.46 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 — 393 393 0.02 0.06 0.40 413 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.71 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 65.1 65.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 68.3
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apx-12
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 12 / 25
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apx-13
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 13 / 25
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Apx-14
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 14 / 25
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apx-15
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 15 / 25
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Annual—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Apx-16
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 16 / 25
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/7/2025 6/6/2025 5.00 45.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Apx-17
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 17 / 25
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 14.0 66.9 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 1.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 14.0 66.9 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 1.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — 4,999 0.00 0.00 —
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Apx-18
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 18 / 25
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 5.14 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Apx-19
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 19 / 25
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 16.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.55 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Apx-20
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 20 / 25
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
Apx-21
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 21 / 25
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
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.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 71.7
AQ-PM 78.4
AQ-DPM 91.6
Drinking Water 95.3
Lead Risk Housing 97.5
Pesticides 12.2
Toxic Releases 81.1
Traffic 51.9
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 81.4
Groundwater 99.1
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 63.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 75.2
Apx-22
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 22 / 25
Cardio-vascular 74.8
Low Birth Weights 66.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 97.4
Housing 94.2
Linguistic 96.1
Poverty 92.4
Unemployment 93.1
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 4.170409342
Employed 15.11612986
Median HI 3.349159502
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 0.551777236
High school enrollment 11.8311305
Preschool enrollment 63.42871808
Transportation —
Auto Access 12.8576928
Active commuting 81.66303093
Social —
2-parent households 14.19222379
Voting 9.277556782
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 44.38598742
Apx-23
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 23 / 25
Park access 52.73963814
Retail density 60.45168741
Supermarket access 73.64301296
Tree canopy 22.4560503
Housing —
Homeownership 7.878865649
Housing habitability 22.08392147
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 99.12742205 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 60.32336712
Uncrowded housing 4.337225715
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 0.71859361
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 37.3
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 66.9
Cognitively Disabled 50.3
Physically Disabled 43.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 38.2
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 97.6
Apx-24
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 24 / 25
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 20.9
Elderly 70.8
English Speaking 2.6
Foreign-born 95.2
Outdoor Workers 9.0
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 2.8
Traffic Density 62.5
Traffic Access 71.6
Other Indices —
Hardship 94.4
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 15.4
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 100
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 5.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Apx-25
19618 Rosemead and Rush Soil Remediation Detailed Report, 3/31/2025 25 / 25
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: 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. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Area of site for soil remediation. Start for soil remediation is 4/7/2025. Activities are expected to last 45 working days.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment list provided by remediation contractor Construction: Trips and VMT Hauling of contaminated soil will have 14 one-way haul trucks trips per day at a weighted average distance of 66.94 miles to the disposal sites. One on-site truck added to account for emissions from 4K International water truck.
Apx-26
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Air Basin
Region: South Coast
Calendar Year: 2025
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population Trips Energy Consumption Fuel Consumption Fuel Consumption Total Fuel ConsumptionTotal VMT Total VMT Miles Per Gallon Vehicle Class South Coast 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 54.83401411 1097.118954 0 0.915660885 915.6608849 2033428.223 3783.739566 12499201.56 6.15 HHDT South Coast 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 95337.36817 1459640.636 0 1919.938673 1919938.673 11745346.31 South Coast 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 647.565363 8586.113967 125035.0292 0 0 69780.1703 South Coast 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 10701.05249 68656.35135 0 112.5738892 112573.8892 680291.3416 South Coast 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 5244723.652 24385315.28 0 7108.358927 7108358.927 7245907.135 210339700.5 233546247.7 32.23 LDA South Coast 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13504.15254 56096.65324 0 9.832104986 9832.104986 408222.3366 South Coast 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 314906.6469 1568075.372 5911352.826 0 0 15311111.74 South Coast 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 159860.278 661022.2496 1174382.35 127.7161032 127716.1032 7487213.196 South Coast 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 483367.514 2127610.282 0 708.9359688 708935.9688 709884.4736 17503198.77 17626287.18 24.83 LDT1 South Coast 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 161.5260868 453.3891137 0 0.127085477 127.0854768 2967.035899 South Coast 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1505.26458 7236.189381 25889.93818 0 0 67058.04036 South Coast 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 1033.948372 4275.376518 9086.363765 0.821419376 821.4193759 53063.32883 South Coast 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2528171.942 11891190.15 0 4341.426391 4341426.391 4373117.135 104543301.5 106927231 24.45 LDT2 South Coast 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8518.978579 40955.39339 0 11.53683826 11536.83826 366939.3838 South Coast 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 21565.05505 109850.7805 300027.449 0 0 777107.023 South Coast 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 25221.81395 104292.2007 204751.9727 20.15390552 20153.90552 1239883.058 South Coast 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 199655.4178 2974568.238 0 565.7929114 565792.9114 785253.6339 7899242.311 12579982.86 16.02 LHDT1 South Coast 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 107539.0383 1352705.817 0 219.4607225 219460.7225 4531936.528 South Coast 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2131.529069 29802.51665 83294.25907 0 0 148804.02 South Coast 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 30849.1838 459606.8733 0 93.96299335 93962.99335 208962.5987 1145449.689 3183322.084 15.23 LHDT2 South Coast 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 48016.98656 603993.2855 0 114.9996053 114999.6053 2001431.485 South Coast 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 549.452873 7286.296511 20413.74678 0 0 36440.90994 South Coast 2025 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 246317.3152 492634.6304 0 37.82728892 37827.28892 37827.28892 1575969.655 1575969.655 41.66 MCY South Coast 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1582911.671 7327873.919 0 3124.528435 3124528.435 3169334.086 61244218.19 63579746.09 20.06 MDV South Coast 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 19966.30161 93386.67778 0 32.96063764 32960.63764 783550.3632 South Coast 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 23405.95686 119202.2123 325389.6809 0 0 842798.2408 South Coast 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 15515.87163 64158.1292 115605.1765 11.8450132 11845.0132 709179.3041 South Coast 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 28222.75742 2823.404652 0 55.89330175 55893.30175 67478.95091 271714.048 388622.5468 5.76 MH South Coast 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11853.97154 1185.397154 0 11.58564916 11585.64916 116908.4988 South Coast 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24266.37368 485521.6046 0 246.6220886 246622.0886 803911.5702 1285729.87 6330495.207 7.87 MHDT South Coast 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 117076.634 1440705.231 0 548.3413637 548341.3637 4914316.485 South Coast 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1030.710845 13697.48889 58527.95377 0 0 55891.50984 South Coast 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 1586.964447 14102.34275 0 8.94811801 8948.11801 74557.34189 South Coast 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 5130.782804 102656.7023 0 38.98709136 38987.09136 75404.10956 199581.2481 465625.8692 6.18 OBUS South Coast 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3078.572652 39272.27543 0 33.03961652 33039.61652 233905.0145 South Coast 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 29.09533983 582.1395594 2258.641236 0 0 2147.933443 South Coast 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 505.1478218 4495.815614 0 3.377401677 3377.401677 29991.67319 South Coast 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2812.998756 11251.99503 0 13.81627409 13816.27409 41147.02398 123623.802 268314.9981 6.52 SBUS South Coast 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3181.542446 46068.73461 0 8.734797087 8734.797087 64276.54474 South Coast 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 47.38132065 537.5923668 1681.228052 0 0 1453.97051 South Coast 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 3209.535885 46474.07961 0 18.59595281 18595.95281 78960.68088 South Coast 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 892.063682 3568.254728 0 13.80114714 13801.14714 198998.2045 96751.77026 697627.2588 3.51 UBUS South Coast 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11.19759793 44.79039173 0 0.207460052 207.4600516 1417.05095 South Coast 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 163.9010308 655.6041234 34521.6162 0 0 16501.94536 South Coast 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4881.393278 19525.57311 0 184.9895973 184989.5973 582956.4922 Apx-27
ATTACHMENT B
CONSTRUCTION NOISE WORKSHEETS FOR SOIL REMEDIATION PHASE Apx-28
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 219 40 0.4 -12.8 -4.0 71.2 67.2 Excavators 2 81 219 40 0.8 -12.8 -1.0 68.2 67.2
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 219 40 0.40 -12.8 -4.0 69.2 65.2 Log Sum 71.4
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).
Receptor - Residential to South (9427 Rush Street, South El Monte) Demolition
Apx-29
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 786 40 0.4 -23.9 -4.0 60.1 56.1 Excavators 2 81 786 40 0.8 -23.9 -1.0 57.1 56.1
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 786 40 0.40 -23.9 -4.0 58.1 54.1 Log Sum 60.3
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).
Receptor - Residential to Southwest (9367 Rush Street, South El Monte) Demolition
Apx-30
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 596 40 0.4 -21.5 -4.0 62.5 58.5 Excavators 2 81 596 40 0.8 -21.5 -1.0 59.5 58.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 596 40 0.40 -21.5 -4.0 60.5 56.5 Log Sum 62.7
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).
Receptor - Residential to West (2222 Troy Avenue, South El Monte) Demolition
Apx-31
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 734 40 0.4 -23.3 -4.0 60.7 56.7 Excavators 2 81 734 40 0.8 -23.3 -1.0 57.7 56.7
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 734 40 0.40 -23.3 -4.0 58.7 54.7 Log Sum 60.9
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).
Receptor - Residential to Northwest (2326 Troy Avenue, South El Monte) Demolition
Apx-32
kimley-horn.com 1100 Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 To: Gerardo Marquez, Interim Director of Community Development, City of South El Monte From: Dana C. Privitt, AICP, Project Manager, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: April 10, 2025
Subject: Clarifications regarding the Response to Comments prepared for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project
NOTE TO STAFF
1. A typographical error was identified in the Response to Noise Comments from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Memorandum prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc. dated February 19, 2025 (“February 2025 Ganddini Memo”), which is included as an attachment to the 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. Comment 2 of the February 2025 Ganddini Memo incorrectly refers the reader to Comment 4. This is only a typographical error; the reader should instead refer to Comment 1 in the memo.
2. Comment 9 in the Response to Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment letter Dated October 30, 2024 Regarding IS/MND Technical Studies for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Memorandum prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc. dated November 13, 2024 (“November 2024 Ganddini Memo”) states, “SCAQMD LST thresholds were created to ensure that local sources of emissions don’t create localized adverse air quality impacts. The project-specific LST analysis analyzes both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions emitted on-site. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust is a component of PM10 and PM2.5. As the project’s emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD LST thresholds, which are screening thresholds and are, per SCAQMD, conservative by design, that is, the predicted impacts tend to overestimate the actual impacts, the DPM component of PM10 and PM2.5 would also not cause any impacts and SCAQMD MICR thresholds would also not be exceeded during construction or operation.” Because the November 2024 Ganddini Memo did not provide information about where this analysis is located in the IS/MND, this Note to Staff clarifies the location of this information.
Construction- and operational-related emissions are discussed starting on IS/MND page 37. Table
4.3-2: Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions on IS/MND page 37 shows that the proposed Project’s construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Table 4.3-3: Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions on IS/MND page 38 shows the maximum daily pollutant emissions generated by the Project’ long-term operations and demonstrates the Project’s long-term operational emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. In addition, Table 11 in IS/MND Appendix A shows the on-site emissions from the
ATTACHMENT G
EXHIBIT F
TO RESOLUTION NO. 25-035
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 CalEEMod model that includes natural gas usage, landscape maintenance equipment, and vehicles operating on-site and the calculated emissions thresholds. The data provided in Table 11 shows that the ongoing operations of the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD local operational thresholds of significance.
ATTACHMENT H
7554-001acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
S OUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
October 18, 2024
Via U.S. Mail and Email
Guillermo Arreola, Director
Community Development Department
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Email: [email protected]
Sabrina A. Muhne, Interim City Clerk
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
Email: [email protected]
Re: Request for Mailed Notice of Actions and Hearings – 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046)
Dear Mr. Arreola, Ms. Muhne, and Ms. Marquez:
We are writing on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) to request mailed notice of the availability of any environmental review document, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, related to the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (“Project”), proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”), as well as a copy of the environmental review document when it is made available for public review.
The Project would construct an approximately 156,877 square foot (SF) concrete tilt-up warehouse and 13 dock doors. Of the 156,877 SF, the Project would have 113,703 SF of warehouse space, 7,879 SF of retail use, 20,305 SF of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 SF of warehouse storage. The Project site is located at 2200, 2212, 2218, and 2226 Rosemead Boulevard in the northwestern portion of the City of South El Monte, Los Angeles County, California. The approximately 5.14-acre project site includes four parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 8102-039-029, 8102-039-030, 8102-039-031, and 8102-039-035).
We also request mailed notice of any and all hearings and/or actions related to the Project. These requests are made pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections
ATTACHMENT I
October 18, 2024
7554-001acp
printed on recycled paper
21092.2, 21080.4, 21083.9, 21092, 21108, 21152 and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092, which require local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
Please send the above requested items by email and U.S. Mail to our San Francisco office as follows:
U.S. Mail
Sheila M. Sannadan
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037
Email
[email protected]
Please call me at (650) 589-1660 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Sheila M. Sannadan
Legal Assistant
SMS:acp
7554-006acp
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
ATTACHMENT J
ADAMS BROADWELLJOSEPH & CARDOZO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
S O UTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
agraf @adamsbroadwell.com
printed on recycled paper
November 18, 2024
VIA E-Mail and Overnight Mail
Planning Commission
c/o Renee Reyes
Community Development Department
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
[email protected]
VIA E-Mail Only
Guillermo Arreola, Director
[email protected]
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 7.c.: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project
Dear Commissioners, Ms. Reyes, Mr. Arreola, and Mr. Marquez:
We write on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) regarding Agenda Item No. 7.c., which concerns the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) (SCH No. 2024100046),1 a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 21-13) for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (“Project”) proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”).
The City of South El Monte (“City”) Community Development Department Staff (“Staff”) recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 24- 09, adopt the MND and MMRP, and approve the CUP for a new 156,877 square foot warehousing building.2 Staff’s recommendation is premature and unsupported by 1 City of South El Monte, 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Oct. 2024) (hereinafter “IS/MND”). 2 City of South El Monte, Planning Commission Agenda Report: Agenda Item No. 7.c. re: Approval of Resolution No. 24-09 (Nov. 19, 2024) (“Staff Report”) p. 5, available at
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the record because the City has not yet complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). CEQA requires the City to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) when there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that a project has potentially significant environmental or public health impacts that are not fully mitigated by a proposed MND, and where the MND does not contain the information required by law.
In this case, the IS/MND lacks information and analysis required by CEQA, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed Project will result in potentially significant impacts on public health, air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities which are not adequately disclosed and mitigated by the measures proposed in the IS/MND. The City consultant’s responses to CREED LA’s comments included in the Staff Report (“Responses”) ignore or fail to resolve most of these issues, and do not provide substantial evidence supporting Project approval.
Consequently, the Planning Commission cannot adopt the MND or approve the Project’s entitlements at this time.
In its Responses, the City asserts that the comments received on the IS/MND do not raise substantive environmental issues that would necessitate recirculation of the MND or preparation of an EIR.3 The City further claims that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND require no modifications based on public comments.4 These assertions lack merit and include precisely the type of disputes of fact that require preparation of an EIR under CEQA.
Under CEQA, any comments presenting a “fair argument” supported by substantial evidence, including facts or expert opinion, necessitate the preparation of an EIR, regardless of whether the City agrees with those comments.5 As https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/DocumentCenter/View/5872/11-19-24-Planning-CommissionRegular-Meeting-Agenda-PDF. 3 Id. at p. 5; see also Kimley Horn, Response to Comment Letter 2: Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Attorneys at Law (on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles [“CREED LA”]), October 30, 2024 (undated) (hereinafter “Kimley Horn Memorandum”); Memorandum to Dana Privitt, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. from Roma Stromberg, Ganddini Group, Inc. re: Response to Adams Broadwell Joseph &Cardozo Comment Letter Dated October 30, 2024, Regarding IS/MND Technical Studies for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) (Nov. 13, 2024) (hereinafter “Ganddini Memorandum”).
4 Ibid. 5 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (“Laurel Heights II”) (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
demonstrated in CREED LA’s preliminary comments on the IS/MND and detailed further below, the issues by CREED LA provide facts and expert evidence demonstrating that the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts that meet the fair argument standard.6
CREED LA respectfully urges the Planning Commission to continue this hearing and direct Staff to prepare an EIR for the Project before bringing the Project back for further consideration.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150- 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v.
City of Encinitas (“Quail Botanical”) (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601- 1602. 6 Letter to Guillermo Arreola, City of South El Monte from Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (Oct. 30, 2024) (hereinafter “CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments”).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
II. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY
APPROVE THE PROJECT
In most cases, CEQA mandates that lead agencies prepare an EIR for projects that could have significant environmental effects.7 The purpose of an EIR is to ensure that the public and decision-makers are fully informed about potential environmental consequences before decisions are made, thus promoting informed decision-making and protecting the environment.8
The “fair argument” standard underscores a preference for EIR preparation.
Under this standard, an EIR must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in the record indicating a fair argument that the project could significantly impact the environment.9 This standard sets a “low threshold” for triggering environmental review through an EIR, rather than through a mitigated negative declaration, which is only appropriate if all potentially significant effects of the project are avoided or reduced to insignificance.10
“Substantial evidence” under the fair argument standard means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”11 In cases where it’s uncertain whether substantial 7 Pub. Res. Code § 21000; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002. 8 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 9 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 1501-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.Appl.4th 1597, 1601-02.
10 Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b). 11 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
evidence exists regarding a project’s potential environmental effects, the lead agency must consider expert opinion and facts.12 If there is disagreement among experts about the significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency must treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR.13
Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may cause significant public health, air quality, GHG emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, and mitigates these impacts, while also exploring less environmentally damaging alternatives, before it can approve the Project.
A. The IS/MND Project Description Remains Inadequate
1. The City Fails to Acknowledge or Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable High Intensity Warehouse Uses
CREED LA provided substantial evidence, supported by expert opinion, demonstrating that higher intensity warehouse uses, including high-cube warehouse operations, are reasonably foreseeable uses at the Project site under the proposed CUP.14 In response, the City claims, without supporting evidence, that high-cube warehouse uses are not applicable to the proposed Project simply because it is less than 200,000 square feet in size.15 This assertion ignores CREED LA’s comments, which described the range of feasible high-intensity warehouse uses at the Project site.
The Project’s operational characteristics and the severity of its environmental and public health impacts are not determined solely by size but by allowable uses.
In the absence of binding restrictions – such as conditions of approval, a covenant on the title of the underlying property, or mitigation measures – which prohibit future high intensity retail, warehouse (and cold storage uses, as discussed below) at the Project site, there is no evidence supporting the City’s assertion that these activities would not occur.
The City has a duty under CEQA to analyze the impacts of all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project site.16 High-cube warehouses are defined by their 12 Id. § 15064(g).
13 Ibid. 14 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 4-6. There is nothing in the General Plan or Municipal Code prohibiting high intensity or cold storage warehouse uses under the proposed CUP. 15 Ganddini Memorandum at pp. 1-2. 16 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
function, such as the storage and distribution of goods, often involving high levels of truck traffic, energy consumption, and GHG emissions. These characteristics can apply to warehouses smaller than 200,000 square feet, particularly if the facility is designed or intended to support logistics operations requiring frequent truck trips or intensive energy use. By focusing solely on square footage, the IS/MND failed to analyze the Project’s impacts resulting from potential operation as a higher intensity warehouse. This oversight results in inadequate disclosure and mitigation of the Project’s potential environmental impacts.
The City’s unsupported dismissal of higher intensity uses is inconsistent with the allowable uses under the Project’s proposed CUP, which do not restrict the type of warehouse operations that can occur at the Project site. CEQA’s mandate is to analyze all reasonably foreseeable impacts of a Project. Given the feasibility of high intensity use at the Project site, and the substantial evidence in the record from CREED LA and its experts demonstrating that the impacts from high intensity use would be significant and unmitigated, the City’s decision to ignore these uses is unsupported and contrary to law. There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may operate in a manner consistent with high-cube warehouse uses. An EIR is required to fully evaluate and mitigate these potentially significant impacts.
2. The City Fails to Describe and Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable Cold Storage Warehouse Use
CREED LA provided substantial evidence, supported by expert opinion, demonstrating that cold storage warehouse uses are reasonably foreseeable for the proposed Project and would result in significant, unmitigated impacts.17 In response, the City asserts that the Project can be conditioned to prohibit cold storage.18 However, this claim is misleading, as none of the Project’s proposed conditions of approval explicitly prohibit cold storage.19 Without an enforceable condition prohibiting this use, there is no guarantee that cold storage operations – which could significantly increase energy consumption, GHG emissions, and other environmental impacts – will not occur as part of the Project. 17 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 5-8. 18 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 2. 19 See Staff Report, attach. A (Draft Resolution No. 24-09: A Resolution of the South El Monte Planning Commission Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Prepared in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; Approving Conditional Use Permit 21-13 to Allow for the Development of a New Approximately 156,877 Square Foot Warehouse Building Located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard) (hereinafter “Draft Resolution No. 24-09”).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Under CEQA, a mitigation measure or condition of approval must be enforceable and clearly articulated to ensure that environmental impacts are adequately mitigated.20 The Attorney General also recommends that, if an agency intends to prohibit cold storage at warehouse projects, the project must either adopt mitigation measures limiting cold storage impacts or record a covenant on the title of the underlying property to ensure that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.21 No such mitigation or land use covenants are included in the IS/MND or Responses.
The absence of a specific and enforceable prohibition against cold storage renders the City’s response insufficient and undermines the credibility of the environmental review process. The potential for unmitigated impacts from cold storage operations further supports the need for a full EIR to analyze and disclose these potential impacts comprehensively.
B. The City Fails to Analyze Public Health Impacts Associated with Exposure to the Project’s Emissions
CREED LA commented that the IS/MND failed to analyze public health impacts associated with toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), particularly diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), generated during Project construction and operation on nearby sensitive receptors, including residents of a mobile home park directly south of the Project site.22 In response to comments, the City claims that it is not required to perform a quantitative health risk analysis (“HRA”), arguing that is a recommendation rather than a mandate by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), or the City itself.23 In addition, the City asserts the SCAQMD did not request a construction or operational HRA.24 However, these arguments overlook CEQA’s core requirement to fully disclose and analyze significant environmental impacts, including those related to public health.25 The California Supreme Court 20 Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2). 21 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 9, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf (“Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.”). 22 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 14-19. 23 Ganddini Memorandum at pp. 2-3. 24 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 3. 25 CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4); Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
has interpreted this requirement to include a specific duty to disclose the health effects posed by exposure to a project’s air emissions.26 While preparation of an HRA may not be explicitly mandated by OEHHA or SCAQMD, CEQA requires that lead agencies evaluate whether a project has the potential for significant impacts, including health risks from exposure to TACs and DPM generated during construction and operation of the Project. To comply with CEQA, the City must assess whether exposure to the Project’s TACs/DPM emissions would result in exceedances of appliable health-based CEQA significance thresholds. Here, the SCAQMD significance thresholds for TAC exposure include:
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment).27 A quantitative HRA is a standard methodology for assessing these risks and ensuring compliance with CEQA’s requirement for a good-faith, evidence-based environmental analysis. The City failed to perform this analysis in the IS/MND.
The City’s reliance on SCQAMD’s lack of a project-specific request for an HRA is a red herring. CEQA does not allow the lead agency to delegate its responsibility for a comprehensive environmental review to other entities.28 The City must independently evaluate the Project’s health risks based on substantial evidence in the record.29 By declining to perform an HRA, the City fails to provide the quantitative analysis necessary to compare exposure to Project emissions to applicable significance thresholds, or to assess whether additional mitigation measures are required to reduce those impacts.
The City also improperly relies on SCAQMD’s localized significant thresholds (“LSTs”).30 LSTs are designed to prevent exceedances of federal or state air quality 26 Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522. 27 See South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.aqmd.gov/docs /default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D25&ved=2ahUKEwj_2MnOOaJAxWaMzQIHRAJNiwQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07n1OZu8Nvvtfq0AnstLMG (last visited Nov. 18, 2024).
28 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308. 29 Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a). 30 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 3.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
standards, not to assess the health risks of TACs such as DPM.31 Unlike criteria pollutants with established ambient air quality standards, DPM has no known safe exposure threshold. Therefore, the use of LSTs as a proxy for DPM impacts is not only scientifically inappropriate but also legally insufficient under CEQA.
Finally, public health impacts are often cumulative in nature, particularly in areas already burdened by poor air quality or high concentrations of diesel emissions. Indeed, the CalEnviroScreen scores for the Project’s census tract are in the 78th percentile for particulate matter and the 92nd percentile for DPM.32 Without an HRA, the City cannot adequately assess the cumulative health risks posed by this Project in conjunction with other existing and planned developments in the area. This failure leaves a critical gap in the environmental review, undermining the validity of the IS/MND.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that includes a comprehensive HRA. This analysis is essential for disclosing the Project’s potential health impacts, evaluating cumulative risks, and identifying feasible mitigation measures to protect public health.
C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument the Project Would Result in Significant Noise Impacts
1. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support the Construction Noise Significance Threshold
The City’s reliance on an 80 dBA Leq threshold for construction noise, as derived from the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”), is inappropriate and constitutes a misapplication of the manual’s guidance.33 The FTA Manual emphasizes that construction noise impact assessments should consider several contextual factors, including existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels anticipated during construction activities, the duration and timing of construction, and the sensitivity of adjacent land uses.34 By adopting a blanket 80 dBA Leq threshold without 31 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (July 2008), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 32 IS/MND, appen. E, PDF pp. 163-64. 33 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 7.
34 Attachment A, Letter to Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo from Neil P.
Shaw, Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc. re: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Acoustic Review (Nov. 15, 2024) pp. 2-3 (hereinafter “Shaw Comments”).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
accounting for these critical factors, the City fails to ensure that its analysis reflects site-specific conditions and potential impacts as required under CEQA.
The FTA Manual does not prescribe the use of an 80 dBA Leq as a universal standard but instead recommends tailoring the threshold to the specific circumstances of a project.35 CEQA similarly requires agencies to evaluate noise impacts in context, considering the significance of an impact in relation to the environment’s baseline conditions and the characteristics of the affected receptors.36 The City’s rigid application of the FTA Manual’s threshold without such contextual considerations undermines the adequacy of the noise analysis and fails to comply with CEQA’s mandate for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
Furthermore, when contextual factors are appropriately considered, it is evident that the 80 dBA Leq threshold is inapplicable. As CREED LA’s acoustical expert Neil Shaw explains, residential mobile trailers do not fall within Land Use Category 3, which is defined by the FTA Manual as a land use category subject to severe noise impact thresholds.37 Residential mobile trailers are more acoustically sensitive and align more closely with Land Use Categories 1 and 2, which are afforded stricter noise thresholds under the FTA Manual.38 These categories impose absolute limits of 65 dBA for moderate impact and 70 dBA for severe impact, reflecting the need for greater noise protection for sensitive receptors.39 The City’s application of an 80 dBA Leq threshold fails to account for this critical distinction, effectively misclassifying residential mobile trailers under a land use category with inapplicable thresholds. This oversight not only disregards the heightened sensitivity of residential receptors, but also demonstrates a broader failure to align the noise analysis with the FTA Manual’s guidance. By neglecting to apply the appropriate thresholds for more acoustically sensitive land uses, the City’s analysis underestimates the potential noise impacts of construction activities, resulting in unsupported significance conclusions and further undermining compliance with CEQA’s requirements for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
35 Id. at pp. 2-3.
36 Pub. Res. Code § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15360, appen. G; King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v.
County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 884.
37 Shaw Comments at p. 3. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
2. The Project’s Construction Noise Is Significant and Unmitigated CREED LA’s preliminary comments and Mr. Shaw’s expert opinion demonstrate that the Project’s construction noise would exceed the applicable daytime noise standards in Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code, causing significant impacts that require mitigation.40 These comments highlight that the construction noise levels would exceed the 55 dBA daytime standards set forth in Section 8.20.020 for the mobile homes located south of the Project site.41 Specifically, Table 11 of Appendix E shows that construction noise impacts at the mobile homes would reach 74 dBA Leq during demolition, grading, and building construction, 68 dBA Leq during paving, and 61.2 dBA Leq during architectural coating, constituting a significant impact under CEQA.42 In addition to violating the quantitative standards, Mr. Shaw’s comments demonstrate that the Project’s construction activities would also violate Section
8.20.010’s qualitative standards for “intrusive noise” causing a “noise disturbance.”43 “Intrusive noise” is defined as “noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location.”44 “Noise disturbance” is defined as “any sound which (i) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (ii) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (iii) endangers or injures personal or real property or (iv) violates the limits set forth in Section 8.20.020.”45
The Project’s noise levels exceed ambient noise levels at the mobile homes by wide margins, qualifying as “intrusive noise” under the Municipal Code.46 These noise levels also constitute a “noise disturbance” because, as illustrated in Figure 3 of Appendix E,47 they are equivalent to a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet.48 Such levels would undoubtedly annoy or disturb reasonable people of normal sensitivity.49 40 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 30-32; Shaw Comments at pp. 4-5. 41 Ibid. 42 IS/MND, appen. E, p. 35; CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 30-32; Shaw Comments at pp. 4-5; Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (exceedance of established significance threshold is a significant impact); Endangered Habitats League v. Orange (2005) 131 CA4th 777, 783-4; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7. 43 Shaw Comments at pp. 4-6. 44 Municipal Code § 8.20.010(E). 45 Municipal Code § 8.20.010 (emphasis added).
46 Shaw Comments at p. 5. 47 IS/MND, appen. E at p. 7. 48 Shaw Comments at pp. 5-6. 49 Ibid.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
CREED LA’s preliminary comments cite Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) data showing that noise increases of 5 to 10 dBA typically result in “widespread complaints,” and 10 dBA or more can provoke “threats of legal action.”50 The Project’s construction noise, which exceeds ambient noise by as much as 20 dBA,51 clearly supports a fair argument that the Project will result in significant noise impacts requiring analysis in an EIR.
Substantial evidence, including expert comments, demonstrates that the Project’s construction noise would exceed both quantitative and qualitative noise thresholds, causing significant impacts under CEQA. These impacts must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. Without such analysis, the IS/MND is deficient and does not provide the Commission with substantial evidence to support approval findings.
3. The IS/MND Fails to Adopt Enforceable Construction Noise Mitigation Measures
In response to comments, the City asserts that certain best management practices (“BMPs”) would be adopted as conditions of approval to reduce construction noise impacts.52 However, none of these BMPs are explicitly included in the conditions of approval or referenced in a manner that ensures their enforceability.53
Under CEQA, mitigation measures must be specific, enforceable, and committed to by the lead agency.54 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2) states that mitigation measures “must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.” BMPs that are vaguely described or omitted entirely from the conditions of approval fail to meet this requirement.
The City’s failure to incorporate the promised BMPs into the conditions of approval creates a significant gap in the environmental review process. Without enforceable conditions: (1) there is no assurance that the BMPs will be implemented during the Project’s construction, (2) the purported benefits of these BMPs in reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts cannot be credited in the 50 CREED LA Preliminary Comments, pg. 32-33; Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pg. 18, Figure 3-6 (Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment) 51 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 31-32; Shaw Comments at p. 5. 52 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 8. 53 See Draft Resolution No. 24-09.
54 Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental analysis, and (3) the omission undermines the credibility of the City’s claim that potential impacts have been adequately mitigated.
This omission is not merely procedural but has substantive implications for the adequacy of the IS/MND under CEQA. Without enforceable commitments to implement the BMPs, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in significant environmental impacts that have not bene mitigated to a less than significant level. Courts have consistently held that vague or unenforceable mitigation measures cannot support the finding of less than significant impacts.55
The City’s reliance on unenforceable BMPs to mitigate potentially significant impacts is a clear violation of CEQA. An EIR must be prepared to fully analyze the Project’s impacts and include enforceable mitigation measures to address them.
4. The IS/MND Underestimates Operational Noise Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze noise impacts generated by truck operations on the Projects site, including noise from driving, backing up, and idling.
Although the IS/MND evaluates roadway noise and loading/unloading activities, it omits critical on-site noise sources associated with operational truck movements.56 This omission is particularly significant given the Project’s proximity to sensitive receptors, such as the residences immediately south of the property line, where noise from truck operations could exceed thresholds of significance and cause substantial impacts.
Studies by the California Air Resources Board highlight the severity of these potential impacts. Diesel trucks at idle generate noise levels of approximately 96 dBA, while diesel-powered TRUs operating at high idle produce 104 dBA.57 Trucks accessing the loading docks via the southern driveway would expose nearby residences to these elevated noise levels. Without analysis or mitigation of these impacts, the IS/MND fails to disclose potentially significance noise effects as required under CEQA.
In addition, the IS/MND’s discussion of loading/unloading noise is inconsistent and underestimates impacts. While the Appendix E claims to rely on a 55 Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261. 56 Shaw Comments at p. 7.
57 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Technology Assessment: Non-Truck Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) (Oct. 2022) pp. 17-18, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 10/CARB%202022%20TRU%20Technology%20Assessment%2010-14-22.pdf.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
70 dBA Leq reference level for these activities, the included SoundPLAN worksheet instead shows a 65 dBA reference level.58 This discrepancy undermines the validity of the IS/MND’s findings. Even if the 70 dBA reference level were used consistently, it still significantly underestimates potential impacts, given that truck idling noise levels range from 96 to 104 dBA. The failure to account for these higher, more realistic noise levels renders the IS/MND’s conclusion that operational noise impacts are less than significance unsupported.
By omitting on-site truck noise from its analysis and underestimating loading/unloading noise impacts, the IS/MND fails to meet CEQA’s requirement to disclose and evaluate all potentially significance environmental impacts. Given the proximity of sensitive receptors and the likelihood of noise levels significantly exceeding ambient thresholds, the Project could result in unmitigated significant noise impacts.
An EIR must be prepared to provide a comprehensive analysis of operational noise impacts from all on-site truck activities, including idling, driving, and backing up. Additionally, the EIR should identify and implement feasible mitigation measures, such as operational restrictions, noise barriers, or buffer zones, to ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Without this analysis and mitigation, the IS/MND does not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for transparency and impact reduction.
5. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Lacks Substantial Evidence
The IS/MND claims that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the Project site would reduce operational noise impacts to less than significant.59 However, this conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence due to significant inconsistencies in the analysis and description of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) NOI-1.
Mr. Shaw identifies numerous inconsistencies in the IS/MND and Appendix E regarding the proposed barrier wall height.60 These discrepancies create confusion and prevent meaningful analysis of whether the proposed mitigation is adequate to reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Critically, there is no evidence in the record to confirm that a 10-foot wall would provide sufficient noise reduction.61 Without clarity on the height and configuration of the proposed 58 Shaw Comments at p. 7.
59 IS/MND at pp. 91, 97.
60 Shaw Comments at pp. 7-8.
61 Id. at p. 8.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
barrier, the City cannot demonstrate that the Project’s significant operational noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
The noise analysis in Appendix E fails to clarify which barrier height – 10 feet or 14 feet – was used in its calculations.62 This lack of transparency undermines the reliability of Table 14, which purports to show mitigated daytime noise levels, and Table 15, which purports to show nighttime noise levels.63 If the analysis relied on a 14-foot barrier, but the IS/MND ultimately proposes a 10-foot barrier, the mitigation is demonstrably insufficient.
Additionally, Figure 7 in Appendix E reflects operational noise levels mitigated by a 14-foot barrier, further casting doubt on whether a 10-foot barrier would meet stationary noise standards.64 The City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that a 10-foot barrier is adequate to mitigate the Project’s significant operational noise impacts.
Even assuming a 14-foot barrier, Mr. Shaw identifies critical design flaws in MM NOI-1 that would render the mitigation inadequate. Specifically, the proposed wall does not account for flanking, a phenomenon where sound travels around the edges of a barrier.65 To address flanking, Mr. Shaw recommends extending the barrier northward by at least 30 feet at the east and west ends of the southern property line.66 This configuration would help block sound from bypassing the wall and reduce noise impacts to sensitive receptors.67 Simply specifying the height of the wall is insufficient to ensure the noise reduction estimates in Appendix E are achieved.68
The failure to resolve inconsistencies regarding the barrier’s height and to account for critical design flaws violates CEQA’s requirement for substantial evidence and enforceable mitigation measures.69 Without a clear, accurate, and enforceable noise mitigation plan, the IS/MND cannot support its conclusion that operational noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR to (1) resolve the inconsistencies regarding the barrier height, (2) re-evaluate the Project’s 62 Id. at pp. 7-8.
63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Id. at p. 8.
66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
operational noise impacts based on realistic and enforceable mitigation measures, and (3) address flanking and other design flaws to ensure the mitigation measures are effective.
D. Substantial Evidence Demonstrates that Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures Are Insufficient to Reduce the Impact to a Less than Significant Level
CREED LA commented that MM TRANS-1 fails to mitigate the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts to less than significant levels.70 This failure is due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction and the fact that, even with the maximum assumed reduction, the Project’s VMT exceeds the threshold of significance.71 The City’s response to comments does not resolve these deficiencies.
The City asserts that the maximum assumed VMT reduction is appropriate because MM TRANS-1 includes components that are applicable to 100% of employees.72 However, broad applicability does not inherently ensure that the measure will achieve the claimed reductions. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating their feasibility and actual effectiveness.73 The City’s response fails to provide any evidence that 100% applicability translates to achieving the assumed VMT reduction. Without such data, studies, or other substantial evidence to validate the effectiveness of MM TRANS-1, the mitigation measure remains speculative and legally inadequate.
The City also argues that calculating the VMT values to two decimal points introduces an inappropriate level of precision by adding a significant digit.74 This argument is misplaced. Accurate and precise calculations are essential to properly evaluate whether the Project complies with the threshold of significance, particularly in cases where small variances could determine whether impacts are deemed significant. By dismissing the importance of precision, the City fails to substantively address CREED LA’s concern that VMT impacts remain above the threshold, even under the maximum reduction assumptions.
In sum, MM TRANS-1 fails to adequately mitigate the Project’s significant VMT impacts to less than significant levels, as required by CEQA. The lack of 70 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 26-27. 71 Id. at p. 27. 72 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 6. 73 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 866. 74 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 7.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction, combined with the Project’s exceedance of the significance threshold, demonstrates the inadequacy of the mitigation measure. Furthermore, the City’s responses to comments do not resolve these deficiencies. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that provides substantial evidence supporting the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures, identifies and evaluates additional feasible measures to reduce VMT impacts to less-than-significant levels, and ensures transparent and precise VMT calculations to accurately assess compliance with thresholds of significance.
E. The City Fails to Analyze Fire Flow Requirements and Public Utility Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze potentially significant public utility impacts related to fire flow requirements.75 Fire flow requirements, which refer to the volume and pressure needed to combat fires, are critical for public safety and ensuring that existing infrastructure can accommodate the increased demands of new development.
In response to CREED LA’s comment, the City attempts to defer the evaluation of fire flow requirements and infrastructure capacity to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (“LACFD”) Fire Prevention Division’s site review.76 However, deferring this analysis is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement that the environmental review document provide sufficient analysis to determine whether a project may result in significant impacts, including impacts on public utilities and infrastructure.77 Deferral to another agency’s technical review process fails to meet CEQA’s requirement for a transparent and comprehensive analysis of environmental consequences.
Moreover, while LACFD is responsible for ensuring compliance with fire safety codes, its review is limited to regulatory and technical standards. LACFD’s process does not encompass the broader environmental evaluation required by CEQA, such as analyzing whether the Project may overburden water supply systems or create cumulative impacts. Courts have consistently held that deferring environmental review to a later stage or another agency violates CEQA.78 75 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at p. 32. 76 Kimley Horn Memorandum at pp. 4-5. 77 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063, 15070. 78 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
By failing to analyze the Project’s fire flow requirements or the infrastructure’s capacity to supply adequate fire flow, the IS/MND omits a crucial aspect of environmental review. To ensure compliance with CEQA and adequately address these concerns, the City must prepare an EIR that thoroughly evaluates, discloses and mitigates potential public utility impacts.
III. CONCLUSION
The City cannot approve the proposed Project without first addressing the numerous deficiencies in the IS/MND identified by CREED LA and members of the public. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare a legally adequate EIR that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, and mitigates all potentially significant impacts.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Graf
Attachment
AJG:acp
ATTACHMENT A
POT OFFICE BOX1610, TOPANGA, CALIFORNIA 90290 TEL: 310-455-2221 MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
Consultants in Acoustics and Communication Technologies 15 November 2024
Mr. Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Acoustic Review
Dear Mr. Marshall,
Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc., reviewed the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a (MND), Appendix E Noise Impact Analysisb, and the City of South El Monte Municipal Codec (MC) in regards to the subject project, concerning the proposed development in the City of South El Monte of an approximately 156,877-sf concrete tilt-up warehouse with 13 dock doors. Sensitive receptors near the project site include a mobile home park located directly to the south of the proposed project. This report addresses deficiencies in the MND’s analysis of impacts on the mobile home park during both the construction and operational phase.
Our review of these documents finds the following items of concern that call into question the findings contained in Appendix E and thus the findings in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of no significant impact.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
1) It is unclear whether a nighttime prohibition on truck movement is part of the unmitigated Project Description.
The IS/MND states that all on-site truck movement and loading and unloading activities at the proposed loading docks, which are located behind electronic gates, would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.d Appendix E MM NOI-1 states: “Install a 14-foothigh concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site as shown in Figure 7.” Yet MND MM NOI-1 states “…(1) require the installation of a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site; or (2) prohibit a Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. b Prepared by Ganddini Group Inc. c http://southelmonte-ca.elaws.us/code/coor_title8
d IS/MND, page 6 (“As previously noted, the gates would be closed between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.”).
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 2 truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.” Italics and bold for “or” added. Due to this inconsistency, it is unclear whether a nighttime prohibition on truck movement is part of the unmitigated project. 2) The 80 dBA Construction Noise Threshold Is Inapplicable to the Project Appendix E, Noise Impact Analysis, states that the project’s construction noise has been analyzed using a maximum noise threshold contained in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”).e Appendix E, on page 30, says “Based on the FTA criteria, project construction noise would be considered significant if it exceeds 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period at residential and noise-sensitive outdoor areas.” Appendix E concludes that since the calculated impacts would be below 80 dBA, and so the calculated impacts would be less than significant.
However, this threshold is inapplicable to the subject project.
The FTA Manual prefaces its discussion of construction noise thresholds by cautioning that “criteria must be developed on a project-specific basis,” and that “it is not the purpose of this manual to specify standardized criteria for construction noise impact.”f The FTA Manual also cautions, “Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use.”g The MND misapplies the FTA Manual’s guidance because it has not set a construction noise significance threshold with consideration of any of these factors. Careful application of recommendations in the FTA Manual demonstrates that a lower maximum noise threshold is appropriate for this Project and the nearby receptors.
The FTA manual section 4.1 Determine Noise Impact Criteria, starting on page 20, states “This section describes the procedure for determining the appropriate criteria for assessing project noise impact based on the type of project and project noise source.” Step I: Identify Project Type, on page 21, provides three types of projects:
Option A: Transit Project Only, Option B: Multimodal Project (Transit and Highway Noise), and Option C: Other Multimodal Projects.
The subject project does not include new transit rail and similar sources (Option A), does not include transit and highway sources (Option B), and does not include, on page 23, “components from other modes.”
e Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. f FTA Manual, pg. 179.
g Id.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 3 The manual then discusses Land Use Categories, on page 23, in Table 4-3, Table 4-3 Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria. The table presets the land use category, land use type, the noise metric (dBA), and a description of land use category.
Land Use Category 2 in Table 4-3 is “Residential”, the noise metric is “Outdoor Ldn,” and the description is “This category is applicable all residential land use and buildings where people normally sleep, such as hotels and hospitals.”
FTA manual Appendix C: Background for Transit Noise Impact Criteria, in section C.3: Equations for Noise Impact Criteria Curves, on page 220, states “For land use category 1 and 2, the absolute limit is 65 dBA for moderate impact and 70 dBA for severe impact. For land use category 3, the absolute limit is 75 dBA for moderate impact and 80 dBA for severe impact.”
The residential mobile trailers are not in Land Use Category 3 with a severe impact.
The 80 dBA criteria used in the MND is inapplicable to the project as:
1) The project is not a transit project.
2) The project is not in Land Use Category Type 3, Institutional, per Table 4-3. 3) The project is in Land Use Category 2, Residential, per Table 4-3. 4) The calculated levels in the MND exceed the criteria in the South El Monte MC.
Now, Leq(t) is described in the FTA manual in section B.I.4.4, on page 210, the Equivalent Sound Level, and is described in the manual as follows:
“The metric for cumulative noise exposure over a specific time interval is the equivalent sound level. It is a single decibel value that accounts for total sound energy from all sound levels over a specified time interval (or time period). The time period associated with the equivalent sound level metric can vary for different types of analyses. This metric is abbreviated as Leq(t), where “t” is the duration of the time period. Leq(t) represents a hypothetical constant sound level and contains the same overall sound energy as the actual varying sound energy during the time period “t”. For most transit noise analyses, an A-weighted, hourly equivalent sound level is used, abbreviated here as Leq(1hr). Leq(1hr) is expressed in the unit, dBA.”
Figure B-9, Typical Hourly Leq(1 Hr)’s, in the FTA manual, notes for non-transit sources, 80 dBA is the Hourly Noise Level (HNL) for an 8-Lane Highway – see figure below.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 4 Figure B-9 - Typical Hourly Leq(1 Hr)’s
3) Noise Impacts Below 80 dBA Would Exceed South El Monte Municipal Code Standards, Resulting in Significant Impacts on Residents MC Section 8.20.020 A, Exterior Noise Limits, Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use, Table 1, Exterior Noise Limits by Zone, specifies noise limits for various land use or zones, shown below.
Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits by Zone
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 5 Further, 8.20.020 A states:
1. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased or occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
b. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
c. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus ten dBA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
d. The exterior noise limit plus fifteen dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus twenty dBA for any period of time.
The proposed 80 dBA FTA limits exceed all the criteria in 8.20.020 1. The calculated noise level in Appendix E, Table 11, Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) for the residences south of the proposed project also exceed all the criteria in 8.20.020 1. This is a significant impact requiring mitigation.
The Project’s construction noise levels would also be significant pursuant to MC
8.20.010 (defining “Intrusive noise” and “Noise disturbance”). Section 8.20.010 E provides that “‘Intrusive noise’ means noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency and time of occurrence, and tonal or information content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.” And 8.20.010 provides that “‘Noise disturbance’ means any sound which (i) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (ii) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (iii) endangers or injures personal or real property or (iv) violates the limits set forth in Section 8.20.020.” Italics added.
The Project’s anticipated construction noise levels, as presented in Table 11 of Appendix E, would constitute intrusive noise and would cause a noise disturbance. For example, construction noise impacts at the mobile homes would reach 74 dBA Leq during demolition, grading, and building construction, 68 dBA Leq during paving, and 61.2 dBA during architectural coating. As shown in Appendix E Figure 3 (A-weighted Comparative Sound Levels), below, these noise levels are equivalent to noise sources shown below. These noise levels would annoy or disturb reasonable persons of normal sensitivities.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 6 Figure 3 - A-weighted Comparative Sound Levels
OPERATIONAL NOISE LIMITS
1) Appendix E does not account for mobile noise sources on the proposed project site.
Appendix E page 32, under Project Operational Mobile Noise Source, states:
“Roadway noise levels were calculated for the following scenarios:
● Existing (without Project): This scenario refers to existing year traffic noise conditions.
●Existing Plus Project: This scenario refers to existing year plus project traffic noise conditions.”
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 7 But this analysis of roadway noise levels does not reflect noise generated by mobile sources on the Project site. A review of the Appendix E appendices does not find any worksheet or calculations for the truck traffic on the proposed project site nor the impact of same on the mobile home residences to the south of the project. Appendix E does not discuss the impact of trucks entering and leaving the proposed project site on the residential property to the south (see MND Figure 3) to access the loading docks in the daytime or nighttime. Appendix E does not address the noise from trucks backing up to the docks, pulling away from the docks, nor the noise from the trucks idling while at the docks.
Appendix E’s analysis of loading/unloading noise is internally inconsistent. Although Appendix E under Truck/Drive, on page 23, says “The proposed loading area was modeled using a SoundPLAN sound reference level for loading/unloading adjusted to be a sound level equivalent of 70 dBA Leq at any point within the loading area,” no worksheet was found in Appendix E’s Appendix E, SoundPLAN Worksheets (pages aPx-62 to aPX- 66) that reflect a 70 dBA sound reference level. Rather, on page aPx-63, a SoundPLAN Worksheet shows that the reference level used for “Area Source - Loading/Unloading” is 65 dBA.
Appendix E’s Appendix E, page aPx-63, Noise emissions of industry sources, mentions Area Source – Loading/Unloading, with entries that are HVAC equipment, but this noise level is very quiet compared to the HVAC units. There is no description of this loading/unloading activity.
2) Appendix E is not consistent in regards to the height of the proposed barrier at the south property line of the proposed project.
The MND concludes that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site would bring the Project into compliance with stationary noise standards. This conclusion is not supported by the analysis in Appendix E, which inconsistently references both a 10-foot and 14-foot barrier.
MM NOI-1 is described inconsistently. In the executive summary of Appendix E, MM NOI-1 calls for a 14-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site (Appendix E, page iv). On page 31 of Appendix E, MM NOI-1 calls for a 10-foot-high wall. In the MND, MM NOI-1 calls for a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site. Appendix E fails to provide worksheets, calculations, or spreadsheets resolving this inconsistency.
Tables and figures in Appendix E are internally inconsistent. Appendix E Table 14 is titled on page 38 as “Project Compliance with Stationary Noise Standards – Daytime With 10-foot Barrier,” but is titled in Appendix E’s List of Tables as “Table 14. Project Compliance With Stationary Noise Standards – Daytime, With 14-Foot Barrier” (page ii).
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 8 There is no evidence in the record that Table 14 contains data reflecting a 10-foot wall.
Table 14 itself shows, in the column titled “Operational Noise levels1” the number “45” for Receptor 4. The superscript 1 in the column title refers to note 1 of the table, “(1) See Figure 6.” The citation to Figure 6 is erroneous, as Figure 6 shows the unmitigated noise levels – there is no entry for a 10-foot fence under Signs and Symbols on Figure 6. Table 14 may have intended to refer to mitigated noise levels shown in Appendix E Figure 7. But Figure 7 also does not clearly reflect noise levels with a 10-foot wall – although Figure 7 has an entry for a 10-foot fence under Signs and Symbols, Figure 7 is titled: “Operational Noise Levels (dBA, CNEL) with 14-Foot Barrier.”
Appendix E states: “With construction of a ten-foot concrete barrier along the southern property line where the project site abuts single family land uses operational noise levels would be 45 dBA Leq and no nighttime standards would be exceeded (see Tables 14 and 15, and Figure 7).” There is no evidence in Appendix E supporting the adequacy of a 10-foot wall due to the inconsistent references to 10-foot and 14-foot walls. There is no information in Appendix E showing that Appendix E calculated noise reductions for a 10- foot wall, as are no worksheets, calculations, or spreadsheets for the noise levels noted in Table 14, Figure 6, or Figure 7.
3) The noise barrier must be conditioned to reduce noise flanking.
The noise barrier proposed by MM NOI-1 needs to continue to the north for at least 30 feet at the east and west ends of the barrier to reduce flanking. Flanking refers to when a sound passes around a partition separating two spaces. Simply specifying the height of a wall between adjacent spaces fails to guarantee the noise reductions estimated in Appendix E. 4) Appendix E improperly compares noise metrics.
The noise metric in Figure 6 is “Leq” but, according to the Figure 7 title, the noise metric in Figure 7 is “CNEL”. MC 08.20.010 does not list CNEL and Appendix E, page 31, under “Mobile Source Noise” states “California courts have rejected use of what is effectively a single “absolute noise level” threshold of significance (e.g., exceed 65 dBA CNEL) on the grounds that the use of such a threshold fails to consider the magnitude or severity of increases in noise levels attributable to the project in different environments.
OTHER ISSUES
1) Appendix E pages 37 and 39 appears to be from another project “8388 Beech Avenue Truck-Trailer Storage Facility Noise Impact Analysis 19581.” Table 13 on page 37 and Table 15 on page 39 refer to a “Receptor R-4.” Receptor R-4 is not found anywhere else in Appendix E.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 9
CONCLUSION
Due to the errors in the analysis as described above, the conclusion that the project impact is less than significant is unsupported.
Sincerely,
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
Neil A. Shaw, FASA, FAES
NAS:sk
RESUME - NEIL A. SHAW
Education: University of California, Los Angeles
B. S. Engineering, 1977, cum laude
M. S. Engineering, 1977
Cooper Union, New York, 1968 - 1970
Honors: Kenward S. Oliphant Memorial Fellowship in Acoustical Engineering (awarded by Consulting Engineers Association of California)
Tau Beta Pi
Experience: Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc., Topanga
Designer and manager for acoustic design projects including audio-visual systems, sound reinforcement systems, television and radio production systems, architectural room acoustics, electromagnetic compatibility system design and criteria development, electroacoustic and electronic signal processing equipment product performance criteria development, product design and development, environmental noise surveys and analysis, noise and vibrations control, sound isolation, and machine noise control.
1992 to present.
Principal.
University of Southern California, Thornton School of Music 2008 - 2010.
Southern California Institute of Architecture, Los Angeles 2003.
WEAL, Santa Monica
Design and construction services for sound reinforcement systems, television systems, A/V systems, paging systems, and masking noise systems for various production facilities, convention centers, airport terminals, auditoriums, places of worship, concert halls, athletic facilities, courtrooms, multipurpose rooms, gymnasiums, museums, banquet halls, lecture rooms and other facilities.
Transportation ambient noise surveys and analysis, construction site noise measurements, and field STC and NIC measurements per ASTM E 336-84.
Lead member of team to install, run and maintain database manager computer software for company projects and clients. Part of design, implementation and enhancement team for computer controlled laboratory data acquisition and processing for laboratory tests performed per ASTM E 90-85 and ASTM C 423-84a.
1975 to 1992.
Aero-acoustics Laboratory, UCLA
Responsibilities include computer programming, aero-acoustic measurements, acoustic measurements, database search and statistical processing, A/D antialiasing filter design and prototyping, multi-channel data acquisition and processing, post processing and display.
1978 to 1984.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume 2
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
Affiliations: Fellow, Acoustical Society of America
Chairman, Los Angeles Chapter, 1991 to 2001.
Organizer and Co-Chair, Joint ASA/ASJ meeting 1996, Auralization Special Session.
Organizer and Chair, ASA meeting, 1997, Engineering Acoustics Special Session.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 1999, Engineering Acoustics Special Session.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 2000, Student Loudspeaker Design Competition.
Chairman, ASA meeting, 2001, Architectural Acoustics Modeling and Imaging Special Session.
Organizer and Chair, ASA meeting, 2001, Architectural Acoustics Cruise Ship Acoustics Special Session.
Tutorial on Architectural Acoustics, Joint ASA/ICA/MCA Cancun meeting, December 2002.
Invited Paper, November 2003 ASA meeting, “Sound Quality and Loudspeakers,” Special Session on Sound Quality - When Sound is the Essential Quality.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 2004, Special Session on the Bell Laboratories and Acoustics.
Invited Paper, June 2004 ASA meeting, “Textbooks on Acoustics,” On the Occasion of His 90 Birthday, To Honor the Contributions of Leo th
L. Beranek to Acoustics and Teaching Special Session sponsored by all the Technical Committees and ASA Committees.
Chairman, June 2004 ASA meeting, General Topics in Architectural Acoustics
Invited Paper, June 2005 ASA meeting, “Barnum Hall - The Continuing Renovation of a Streamline Moderne Theater,” Special Session on Preserving Acoustical Integrity in the Course of Renovation.
Invited Paper, Winter 2007 ASA meeting, “Sound Systems for Large Scale Venues,” with John Monitto, Special session on Sound Systems in Large Rooms and Stadia
Member, Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics, 1996 - 2010 Member, Technical Committee on Engineering Acoustics, 1998 - 2010 Member, Technical Committee on Physical Acoustics, 2000 - 2010 Member, Books+ Committee, 1996 - present
Fellow, Audio Engineering Society
Member, Technical Committee on Acoustics and Sound Reinforcement, 1988 to 2005.
Chairman, Large Array Systems Session and Special JAES issue, 1987 Chairman, Workshop on Auralization, 1993
Co-Chairman, Workshop on Weather-Related Issues in Outdoor Sound Reinforcement, 1998
Tutorial on Loudness, Los Angeles Chapter, March 2003
Senior Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Member, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers Member, Standards Community TC-20F Film, TC-20F-30 WG Film Audio, TC-20F-40 Theatrical Projection, ST-SG Theater B-chain 1990 to present.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume 3
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Licenses: Electrical Contractor's License, CA #342710
EIT, CA #37673
Publications: Preface to the Reprint Edition, “Principles and Applications of Room Acoustics”, Lothar Cremer and Helmut A. Muller (translated by Theodore J.
Shultz), Peninsula Publishers, Los Altos Hills, CA, reprint edition, to be republished.
Patent reviews, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2004 -present.
Shaw, Neil A, “Up in Knudsen’s Attic: Some Private papers of Vern O.
Knudsen,” Acoustics Today, 7(1), 29ff, January 2011
Shaw, Neil A., “Seeing, Hearing & Listening - Part II”, Live Sound International, 17(4), 58ff, April 2008
Shaw, Neil A., “Seeing, Hearing & Listening - Part I”, Live Sound International, 17(3), 12ff, March 2008
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 4 of 4, Live Sound International, 16(8), 66ff, August 2007
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 3 of 4, Live Sound International, 16(7), 54ff, July 2007
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 2 of 4, Live Sound International, 15(12), 12ff, December 2006 Shaw, Neil A., “An Early History of Modern Power Amplifiers,” Live Sound International, 15(2), 10ff, February 2006
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 1 of 4, Live Sound International, 14(4), 38ff, November 2005 “Audio” monthly column, Club System International magazine, 2000 - 2003.
Shaw, Neil A.., "The Pre-History and Early History of Loudspeakers", Sound and Communications, 41(4), 118ff, April 1995.
Shaw, Neil A.., "Acoustical Design and Auralization", Sound and Communications, 40(8), 44ff, August 1994.
Shaw, Neil A., Klapholz, Jesse and Gander, Mark R., "Books and Acoustics, Especially Wallace Clement Sabine's Collected Papers on Acoustics," Proceedings of the Sabine Centennial Symposium, Acoustical Society of America, Cambridge, MA, June 1994.
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part Three - Real World Applications for Real World Delay Units," Sound and Communications, 39(10), 16ff, October 1993.
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part Two - Testing Specific Products for Specific Uses," Sound and Communications, 39(5), 62ff, May 1993.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 4
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part One - Reviewing the Basics," Sound and Communications, 393(4), 96ff, March 1993.
Meecham, W. C. and Shaw, Neil, "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise", Proceedings of the International Symposium on Noise and Disease, Berlin, 1991
Meecham, W. C. and Shaw, Neil, "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise," Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Stockholm, 351-356, 1988
Shaw, Neil A., "A Historical Profile: Stereophonic Sound Systems, Part Two," Sound and Communications, 33(7), 24ff, July 1987.
Shaw, Neil A., "A Historical Profile: Stereophonic Sound Systems, P a r t One," Sound and Communications, 33(6), 22ff, June 1987.
Shaw, Neil A., "Exhibit Hall and Theater Sound Reinforcement Systems at the Metro Toronto Convention Center," Proceedings 12th International Congress of Acoustics, E9-5.1 - E9-5.2, 1986.
Meecham, W. C. and N. A. Shaw, "Jet Plane Noise Effects on Mortality Rates," Proceedings Internoise 86 Progress in Noise Control, Volume II, 1451-1455, 1986.
Shaw, N. A., "Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality Rates," Los Angeles County Department of Health, The Effects of Aircraft Noise on Health, June, 1981 Meecham, W. C. and N. A. Shaw, "Effects of Jet Noise On Mortality Rates," British Journal of Audiology, 13, 77-80, 1979.
Book Reviews: "Acoustical Engineering," Harry F. Olson - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, No. 5, May 1992, Sound and Communications, Vol. 38, No. 4, April 27, 1992.
"Concert Sound - Tours, Technologies and Techniques," David Trubitt - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
"Hearing - An Introduction to Psychological and Physiological Acoustics," Stanley A. Gelfand - Sound and Communications, Vol. 37, No. 3, March 22, 1991.
"Room Acoustics," Henrich Kuttruff - Sound and Communications, Vol. 38, No. 2, February 28, 1992.
"The Science of Sound," Thomas D. Rossing - Sound and Communications, Vol. 37, No. 10, October 22, 1991.
"AIP Handbook of Condenser Microphones," George S. K. Wong and Tony F. W. Embleton, Editors - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 43, No. 6, June 1995.
"The ASA Edition of Speech and Hearing in Communication", Harvey Fletcher - Sound and Communication, Vol. 41, No. 9, September 25, 1995.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 5
"The Nature and Technology of Acoustic Space", Mikio Tohyama, Hideo Suzuki and Yoichi Ando - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 44, No. 3, March 1996.
"Concert and Opera Halls - How They Sound", Leo Beranek - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 44, No. 9, September 1996. "Acoustics and Noise Control Handbook for Architects and Builders", Leland K. Irvine and Roy L. Richards - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 46, No. 5, May 1998.
"Encyclopedia of Acoustics", Edited by Malcolm J. Crocker - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 46, No. 9, September 1998. "The New Stereo Soundbook, Ron Streicher and Alton Everest - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 105, No. 6, June 1999. "Introduction to Electroacoustics and Audio Amplifier Design," W. Marshall Leach, Jr. - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 47, No. 7/8, July/August 1999, Sound and Communications, Vol. 45, No. 9, September 20, 1999.
"Architectural Acoustics - Principles and Design," Madan Mehta, Jim Johnson, and Jorge Rocafort - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 47, No. 10, October 1999.
"Architectural Acoustics: Blending Sound Sources, Sound Fields, and Listening," Yoichi Ando - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. ½, January/February 2000.
"Fundamental of Physical Acoustics," David T. Blackstock - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 9, September 2000. "The Science and Applications of Acoustics," Daniel R. Raichel - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 10, October 2000. "Sounds of Our Times," Robert T. Beyer - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 11, November 2000.
"Acoustics: Basic Physics, Theory and Methods," Paul Filippi, Dominique Habalt, Jean-Pierre Lefebvre and Aime Bergassoli - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 1+2, January/February 2001. "Active Noise Control Primer," Scott D. Snyder - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 5, May 2001.
“The Microphone Book,” John Eargle - Sound & Communications, November 2001.
“Computer Speech Recognition, Compression, Synthesis,” Manfred R.
Schroeder - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 12, December 2001.
“Audio Engineering For Sound Reinforcement,” John Eargle and Chris Foreman - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. Vol. 50, No. 12,
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 6
December 2002.
“Pro Audio Reference,” Dennis Bohn - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 51, No. 7/8, July/August 2003.
“Concert Halls and Opera Houses - Music, Acoustics, and Architecture,” Leo L. Beranek - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 52, No. 5, May 2004
“Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers- Theory, Design and Application,” Trevor J. Cox and Peter D’Antonio - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 53, No. 10, October 2005
“Formulas of Acoustics,” F. P. Mechel - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 53, No. 12, December 2005
“Communication Acoustics,” Jens Blauert (editor) - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No.½, January/February 2006 “Acoustics and Psychoacoustics,” David M. Howard and Jamie Angus- Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No. 11, November 2006 “Pro Audio Reference,” Second Edition, Dennis Bohn, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No. 4, April 2007
“Worship, Acoustics, and Architecture,” Ettore Cirillo and Francesco Martellotta - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 55, No. 11, November 2007
“Sound FX Unlocking the Creative Potential of Recording Studio Effects,” Alexander U. Case - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 55, No. 12, December 2007
“Surround Sound Up and Running,” Tomlinson Holman - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 56, No. 9, September 2008
“Sound Reproduction Loudspeakers and Rooms,” Floyd E. Toole - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 57, No.½, January/February 2009 “Handbook for Sound Engineers,” 4 Edition, Glenn Ballou - Journal of the th Audio Engineering Society, Volume 57, No. 7/8, July/August 2009 “Acoustics and the Performance of Music Manual for Acousticians, Audio Engineers, Musicians, Architects and Musical Instrument Makers,” 5 Edition th Jürgen Meyer (translated by Uwe Hanson) - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 58, No. 3, March 2010
“Sound for Film and Television” 3 Edition, Tomlinson Holman - Journal of rd the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 58, No. 11, November 2010 “The Acoustics of Performance Halls Spaces for Music from Carnegie Hall to the Hollywood Bowl,” J. Christopher Jaffe - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 59, No. 4, April 2011
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 7
“Acoustics and Audio Technology,” Mendel Kleiner - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, to be published
“Grounds for Grounding,” Elya B. Joffee and Kai-Sang Lock - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, to be published
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 8
Selected Product Development Projects - Neil A. Shaw
Aura Systems 1992 - 2005 Technical support for audio projects using inherently shielded neodymium speakers.
Peavey 1995 - 1997 Loudspeaker engineering for professional woofers and compression drivers, out-sourcing of electronics and speaker manufacturing, joint venture liaison.
Armstrong World Industries 1999 - 2002 Conception and product definition for active acoustic initiative. Product definition and development of ceiling tile speaker, and other projects.
Microsoft 1999 - 2000 Headset and headset element design for voice recognition product.
Cisco 1999 - 2000 Telephone and speaker-phone design for Internet telephone.
Intel 2000 Internet appliance sound system product
RPG 2001 - 2020 Technical and marketing support for this vendor of acoustical devices for architectural spaces.
Bohlender-Graebener 2001 - 2004 Technical support and loudspeaker engineering for planar diaphragm loudspeaker products.
Johns Manville 2002 Strategic product and market research and analysis.
Tri-path 2002 - 2006 Technical support and system engineering for digital audio power amplifiers.
Extron 2002 - 2003 Technical and material support for loudspeaker development and research.
Microsoft 2003 - 2006 Anechoic chamber design. Electroacoustic product testing protocol development.
University of Illinois 2008 - 2009 Transducer and power amplifier design and selection for food industry processing equipment.
Microsoft 2008 - 2009 Anechoic chamber design. Electroacoustic product testing protocol development.
KLA-Tencor 2010 Vibration isolation engineering for scanning electron microscope semiconductor wafer inspection equipment.
Microsoft 2011 Acoustic measurement and analysis for Kinect manufacturing end-of-line 100% test chamber.
ETC 2011 Noise analysis and noise control for electrically operated variable speed theater hoist equipment.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
9 Selected Projects - Neil A. Shaw:
Arcadia City Council Chambers Arcadia, California
Grossmont Civic Auditorium El Cajon, California
Center for Faith and Life, Luther College Decorah, Iowa Concert Hall, University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky Swimming Pool, University of Riyad Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Oakland-Piedmont Municipal Courts Oakland, California
2500 seat Auditorium, 700 seat Auditorium,
250 seat Library Hall, Mosque and Minaret,
Gymnasium, Fine Arts Recital Hall, 100 seat
Museum Hall, 500 seat Lecture Rooms, 250
seat Lecture Rooms, 1000 seat Banquet Hall,
200 seat Meeting Rooms, 100 seat Meeting
Rooms, University of Riyad Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Des Moines Civic Auditorium Des Moines, Iowa
California School For the Blind Hayward, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Hearing Room El Monte, California
First United Methodist Church Santa Monica, California
George R. Moscone Convention Center San Francisco, California H. J. Kaiser Convention Center Oakland, California
Carson Community Center Carson, California
LAX Terminal One Los Angeles, California
Crocker Bank Auditorium Los Angeles, California
Wilshire Auditorium, Fullerton College Fullerton, California Salt Palace Convention Center Expansion Salt Lake City, Utah Metro Toronto Convention Center and TheaterToronto, Ontario Orpheum Theater Restoration Davenport, Iowa
Athanaeum, Claremont College Claremont, California
San Jose Federal Office Building San Jose, California
Fairmont Hotel San Jose, California
LAX Terminal Five Los Angeles, California
First Presbyterian Church Upland, California
Royal Saudi Air Force Hush Houses Saudi Arabia
NCO Training Facility, March AFB Riverside, California
Veterans Administration Out Patient Clinic Los Angeles, California Lied Center for the Performing Arts,
University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska
MaMaison Hotel Los Angeles, California
Escondido City Council Chambers Escondido, California
Mercy Hospital San Diego, California
Mercy Hospital Sacramento, California
Jain Bhavan Worship Center Santa Ana, California
Ojai Valley Inn Ojai, California
Simon Wiesenthal Center and Holocaust Museum Los Angeles, California New Otani Hotel Los Angeles, California
Oceanside City Council Chambers Oceanside, California
Santa Monica Beach Hotel Santa Monica, California
Greenwood RacetrackToronto, Ontario
Woodbine RacetrackToronto, Ontario
Mohawk Racetrack Campbellville, Ontario
Toyota Training CenterTorrance, California
Fresno Art Center Fresno, California
McLaren Children's Center Los Angeles, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 10
Lindbergh Field West Terminal Expansion San Diego, California Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library Yorba Linda, California Carnation Headquarters Glendale, California
Los Angeles County Bar Association Los Angeles, California Los Angeles Federal Office Building Los Angeles, California Intercontinental Hotel Los Angeles, California
Lake Avenue Congregational Church Pasadena, California
Hewlett Packard Presentation Center North Hollywood, California Dance Recital Hall and Auditorium,
California State University Long Beach, California
Inyo County Superior Court Independence, California
Adele Platt Conference Center,
City of Hope Medical Center Duarte, California
Los Angeles County Emergency Operation Center Los Angeles, California Antonio B Won Pat International Airport Tamuning, Guam
Temple Adat Sholam Westwood, California
Sound Stage 29/30, Paramount Pictures Hollywood, California Executive Screening Room, Theater,
Dubbing Theater, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Santa Monica, California Lakeview Terrace Rehabilitation
Facility, Phoenix House of Los Angeles Lakeview Terrace, California Physiological Acoustics Research
Facility, UCLA Medical Center Westwood, California
Performing Arts Center Lancaster, California
Crystal Harmony, Crystal Cruise Lines Los Angeles, California Integrated Service Facility,
NASA/Dryden Research Facility Edwards, California
Theater, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer New York, New York
Santa Ana Theater Santa Ana, California
Sammy Davis Jr. Festival Plaza Las Vegas, Nevada
City Hall, Council Chamber Santa Monica, California
Video Conference Facility, Sony Music New York, New York Legend of the Seas, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Miami, Florida Orange County Branch Library Aliso Viejo, California
Screening Room, Warner Brothers Animation Glendale, California Screening Room, Turner Feature Animation Glendale, California Las Vegas Motor Speedway North Las Vegas, Nevada
Large Screening Room, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Santa Monica, California Japanese American National Museum Los Angeles, California Carson City Courthouse Carson City, Nevada
St. Mel Parish Center Woodland Hills, California
Congregation Ner Tamid Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Old Town Temecula Streetscape Temecula, California
Grandeur of the Seas, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Miami, Florida Disney Magic, Disney Cruise Lines Orlando, Florida
Coral Sky Amphitheater West Palm Beach, Florida
First Chinese Baptist Church Los Angeles, California
St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church Los Angeles, California C-17 Assembly Facility, Douglas Aircraft
Division, The Boeing Corporation Long Beach, California Crisci's Restaurant Brooklyn, New York
JamSync Studios Nashville, Tennessee
New Standard Post Hollywood, California
Media Artists, Pty Madras, India
The Lobster Santa Monica, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 11
International Rectifier Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico Antelope Valley Courthouse Lancaster, California
Fe Bland Forum, Santa Barbara City College Santa Barbara, California Arizona Humane Society Phoenix, Arizona
Cartoon Network Glendale, California
Santa Monica High School Santa Monica, California
Malibu High School Malibu, California
Barnum Hall Auditorium Santa Monica, California
Sobrato High School Morgan Hill, California
Temple Beth El Aliso Viejo, California
Sacramento East End Project Sacramento, California
Gold Circle Films Beverly Hills, California
Denver City Hall Extension Denver, Colorado
Fullerton City Hall Fullerton, California
Union Station Improvement Los Angeles, California
Intimate Theater, California State University Los Angeles, California San Diego Convention Center, Sails Pavilion San Diego, California Temple Shir Ha-Ma'A Lot Irvine, California
United States Courthouse Fresno, California
Department of Education Office Complex,
State of California Sacramento, California
MGM Constellation Headquarters Century City, California Ketchum Advertising Venice, California
Orange County Register Santa Ana, California
28 Church of Christ, Scientist Westwood, California
th
Temple Solel Escondido, California
NT Audio Mixing and QC Rooms Santa Monica, California
River Cats Restaurant Sacramento, California
Caltrans District 7 Headquarters Los Angeles, California 1221 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, California
Memorial Assembly Hall Manhattan Beach, California
City of Manhattan Beach Annex Manhattan Beach, California Twohy Building San Jose, California
Widget Post Production Culver City, California
1 Church of Christ, Scientist Beverly Hills, California st
Sunrise Assisted Living Pacific Palisades, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Santa Monica, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Woodland Hills, California
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences Boardroom Beverly Hills, California
Getty Villa Outdoor Amphitheater Los Angeles, California Ressler Residence Beverly Hills, California
American Honda Torrance, California
Community Baptist Church Manhattan Beach, California
Bernard Hodes Agency Marina Del Ray, California
Houston’s Restaurant Santa Monica, California
Café R&D Newport Beach, California
Getty Center Auditorium Los Angeles, California
Mid-City Police Station Los Angeles, California
College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Instruction and Research Facility,
University of California Riverside, California
Genomics Research Facility,
University of California Riverside, California
Panasonic Hollywood Laboratory Universal City, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 12
Sports Spectrum Club Pacific Palisades, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Simi Valley, California
Rose Bowl Pasadena, California
First Presbyterian Church Santa Monica, California
Los Angeles Fire Department Headquarters Los Angeles, California New York City Transit No. 7 Line Extension New York, New York Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Goldline Los Angeles, California
South Lawn Project, University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia Shangri-La Hotel Santa Monica, California
Pacific Star, Princess Cruise Lines Santa Clarita, California Allied Post Santa Monica, California
Jet Propulsion Laboratory von Karman Auditorium Pasadena, California Self Realization Fellowship Los Angeles, California
Temple Beth Am Los Angeles, California
Broome Library, California State University,
Channel Islands Camarillo, California
California High-Speed Train Project State of California Morongo Band of Mission Indians Administrative
Complex Banning, California
The Buddy Group Irvine, California
Café R&D Santa Monica, California
Club 7969 West Hollywood, California
Brent’s Deli Westlake Village, California
Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Complex Nogales, Arizona Porto’s Bakery Burbank, California
Microsoft Hardware Group Audio Test Laboratories Redmond, Washington University of California, Irvine, Arts Building Irvine, California Los Angeles Unified School District High
School No. 9 South Gate, California
Notre Dame High School Sherman Oaks, California
St. Mark Presbyterian Church Newport Beach, California
Fame Academy Poly High School Sun Valley, California
FAA Sonic Boom Simulator (with the
Pennsylvania State University) State College, Pennsylvania Metropolitan Transit District Hearing Room Los Angeles, California St. Peter and St. Paul Coptic Church Santa Monica, California Lifehouse Properties Pacific Palisades, California
Wilson Well No.2 San Gabriel, California
Habitat for Humanity Lynwood Housing Lynwood, California Whole Foods Plaza Malibu, California
Habitat for Humanity Burbank Housing Burbank, California The Cork Los Angeles, California
Cove Way Residence Beverly Hills, California
Habitat for Humanity Lawndale Housing Lawndale, California Forest Lawn Chapel Cypress, California
Rodney Bay and Gros Islet Villages St. Lucia
Panasonic Avionics Lake Forest, California
Capitol Records Hollywood, California
Art of Living Foundation Los Angeles, California
Conexant Corporation Newport Beach, California
University of California, Santa Barbara
Faculty Center Santa Barbara, California
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, Washington
J Restaurant and Lounge Los Angeles, California
Newcom Santa Monica, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 13
American School in Vietnam Hanoi, Vietnam
Apple Yellowstone Anechoic Chamber Facility Cupertino, California Barnum Hall Continuing Renovation Santa Monica, California Malibu High School Auditorium Renovation Malibu, California John Adams Middle School Auditorium Renovation Santa Monica, California Westminster Presbyterian Church Newbury Park, California American School in Bombay Mumbai, India
Temple Judea Tarzana, California
Holy Angel Church San Marino, California
Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice
University of San Diego San Diego, California
7 June 2012
7554-007acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
November 27, 2024
VIA E-Mail Submission & Overnight Mail
City Council
c/o Adrian Garcia
City Clerk
City of South El Monte
1415 Satna Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
[email protected]
[email protected]
Via E-Mail Only
Guillermo Arreola, Director
[email protected]
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09, Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, and Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13 for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project Dear City Council, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Arreola, and Mr. Marquez:
We write on behalf of the Coalition of Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.060 and § 17.03.130 to appeal the City of South El Monte (“City”) Planning Commission’s November 19, 2024 land use and environmental approvals for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2024100046; Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13) (“Project”) as set forth in Resolution No. 24-09.1 The Project is proposed by Tait & Associates (“Applicant”).
1 Exhibit A, City of South El Monte, Planning Commission, Resolution No. 24-09: A Resolution of the South El Monte Planning Commission Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Prepared in Compliance with the California
ATTACHMENT K
November 27, 2024
7554-007acp
printed on recycled paper
This appeal is timely filed within ten days of the Planning Commission’s decision and is accompanied by the required appeal fee of $750.2 CREED LA respectfully requests that the City Council vacate all Planning Commission approvals, including Resolution 24-09 as amended, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and approval of Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) No. 21-13, and all other related approvals and findings, and remand this matter City staff to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) that accurately describes the Project and fully disclose, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), public health, energy, noise, transportation, and public utilities impacts before bringing the Project back for a further hearing.
I. STANDING TO APPEAL
Pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.060, any person aggrieved by the Planning Commission’s decision may appeal to the City Council.
CREED LA and its members are aggrieved persons who would be adversely affected by the Planning Commission’s land use and environmental approvals.
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and Environmental Quality Act; Approving Conditional Use Permit 21-13 to Allow for the Development of a New Approximately 156,877 Square Foot Warehouse Building Located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard (Nov. 19, 2024).
2 City of South El Monte, General Fee Schedule (Sept. 1, 2023), available at https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/DocumentCenter/View/4365/General-Fee-Schedule-EffectiveSept-1-2023-PDF-?bidId=.
November 27, 2024
7554-007acp
printed on recycled paper
health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
CREED LA presented written and oral comments to the City and to the Planning Commission identifying errors and omissions in the City’s environmental and land use review of the Project which were not resolved prior to Project approval.
CREED LA and its experts also presented substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts on air quality, public health, climate change, noise, energy, transportation and public utilities that the MND fails to accurately disclose or mitigate below levels of significance.
II. DECISIONS BEING APPEALED
On November 19, 2024, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 24-09, as modified in its oral motion following a public hearing. The resolution adopts the MND and MMRP, and approved CUP No. 21-13, as conditioned, for the Project. Pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.130, CREED LA appeals Resolution No. 24-09 as condition and modified.
III. ERRORS IN THE DECISION AND EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING
REVERSAL
Pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.130.C., the written appeal must indicate in what ways the appellant feels the Planning Commission’s decision was incorrect or must provide extenuating circumstances which the appellant feels would justify reversal or modification of the Commission’s decision.
CREED LA’s October 30, 2024 comment letter and accompanying expert report prepared by transportation expert, Norm Marshall, as well as CREED LA’s November 18, 2024 comment letter and accompanying expert report prepared by
November 27, 2024
7554-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Neil Shaw, detail the basis for the instant appeal.3 These documents are attached as exhibits to this appeal letter and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
In sum, the City improperly concluded that there is no substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Contrary to this finding, CREED LA and other members of the public presented substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in potentially significant impacts on public health, air quality, GHG, energy, noise, transportation and public utilities.4 These impacts are neither adequately disclosed nor mitigated by the measures proposed in the MND. The City must prepare an EIR to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and lawfully approve the Project’s entitlements.5
The City consultant’s written and oral responses to CREED LA’s comments ignore or fail to resolve many critical issues and do not constitute substantial evidence supporting Project approval. Consequently, the Planning Commission violated CEQA by adopting the MND and MMRP, and approving the CUP for the Project.
IV. REQUEST TO VACATE APPROVALS, REMAND TO PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN EIR
The record demonstrates that the Planning Commission abused its discretion by finding that the environmental impacts of the proposed Project would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation because it ignored substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project’s environmental impacts are significant and unmitigated.
CREED LA urges the City Council to vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution No. 24-09, remand this matter to the Planning Commission,6 and direct City staff to prepare an EIR that fully discloses, analyzes, and mitigates 3 Exhibit B, Letter to Guillermo Arreola, City of South El Monte from Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (Oct. 30, 2024); Exhibit C, Letter to Planning Commission, City of South El Monte from Andrew J. Graf, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Agenda Item No. 7.c.: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (Nov. 19, 2024). 4 See generally Exhibit B, Exhibit C.
5 Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 6 See South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.130 (City Council may remand the matter to the Planning Commission).
November 27, 2024
7554-007acp
printed on recycled paper
the Project’s significant public health, air quality, GHG, energy, noise, transportation and public utilities impacts.
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Graf
Attachments
AJG:acp
EXHIBIT A
01257.0005/1032934.1
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION AND MONITORING
REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-13 TO ALLOW
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW APPROXIMATELY
156,877 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED
AT 2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, Rosemead Holding LLC (“Applicant” filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) for the development of a new 156,877 square foot warehouse building located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code (“SEMMC”) Section 17.03.060, the Project requires Planning Commission review and approval because the Project consists of request for a CUP; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 19, 2024, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the Planning Commission in making its determination.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission hereby adopts an Initial Environmental Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program that was prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and was made available for public review and comment October 1, 2024 to October 30, 2024. The study concluded that there will be less than significant impacts with project mitigation. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program has been prepared. The documents and other material, which constitute the record on which this decision is based, are located in the Department of Community Development and are in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2: A record of the public hearing indicates the following:
A. Pursuant to SEMMC Section 17.03.060, an application for a CUP requires that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Project shall not be detrimental to persons or properties in the immediate vicinity nor to the City in general. State law requires that the Project be compatible with surrounding uses.
B. The General Plan Land Use designation for the Property is “Commercial Manufacturing.” The Zoning Code designation is “CM” (Commercial Manufacturing).
C. The proposed Project promotes the City’s goals and objectives stated in the General Plan. No goal or policy will be impaired.
01257.0005/1032934.1
D. The construction and operation of the warehouse, office, and retail building is not anticipated to become a nuisance to surrounding properties.
SECTION 3: Based on the record of the hearing, including all information presented at the hearing, including the Staff Report dated November 19, 2024, which is hereby incorporated into this Resolution 24-09 by reference, the Planning Commission hereby finds:
A. As conditioned, the Project meets the requirements of SEMMC Section 17.03.060 and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it adversely affect property values or the present or future development of the surrounding areas. The conditions that are included in this resolution, as well as the fact that many of the surrounding parcels are industrial uses, ensures that this will hold true in the future.
B. Pursuant to SEMMC Section 17.03.060, the approval of the CUP will not be detrimental to persons or properties in the immediate vicinity nor to the City in general. This is because the Project, as conditioned, will be required to operate in a way that does not negatively impact the area through conditions imposed. as well as many of the surrounding parcels being utilized as industrial and provide similar types of uses in nature.
C. As conditioned, the Project represents a quality establishment that will be compatible with surrounding commercial and manufacturing uses, the surrounding area, and the goals of the City. The proposed Project will contribute to the general well-being of the City in that the Project benefits neighboring uses and will be an asset to the surrounding area, as well as to the rest of the City. Previously, the site was occupied by multiple vehicular repair and sales establishments. The proposed use shall provide a new enclosed facility that will operate entirely within the building. There shall be no outdoor storage or operation of any kind. As a result, approving this application will not adversely affect the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance.
D. As conditioned, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
The proposed Project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, economic development and programs specified in the General Plan which includes, but is not limited to, the following goals:
Land Use Element
Policy 1.5: Continue to provide opportunities for establishment and expansion of a broad range of industrial businesses within those areas of the City designated for industrial. This Project will serve the area by creating a single location for storage, wholesale, and retail operations for new businesses to establish their operations within the area. This new development along with the newly adopted zoning code will allow new businesses to flourish in the City.
Goal 2: Focus new revenue-generating development in those areas of the City with high visibility.
The proposed Project will in-fill a vacant parcel and provide a new warehouse/wholesale and commercial mixed-use type of development to complement the existing adjacent sites along the already established Rosemead Boulevard.
Goal 3.0: Accommodate new development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses by allowing for the establishment of a warehouse, office, wholesale and retail that fits with the surrounding uses. Adjacent to north, south, and west of the Project site similar uses and types of buildings are already established. Previously, the site was occupied by multiple vehicular repair and sales establishments. The proposed use shall provide a new enclosed facility that will operate entirely within the building. There shall be no outdoor storage or operation of any kind.
01257.0005/1032934.1
Goal 6.0: Provide for the revitalization of deteriorating land uses and properties. The new development will not only provide a new 156,877 square foot building on a property that has remained vacant for many years, but will also provide off-site improvements by restoring existing street pavement along the length of the property frontage to the centerline of the street on Rosemead Boulevard and new sidewalk, curb ramps, curb and gutter, and driveways would be newly constructed as well.
SECTION 4: Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit A), and CUP (No 21-13) to construct a new approximately 156,877 square foot warehouse, and office building with ancillary retail subject to the following conditions:
General Conditions
1. The Applicant and the business entity allowed for hereunder shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any and all claims, lawsuits, or actions arising from the granting of, or the exercise of, the rights permitted by this approval, and from any and all claims or losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation, or property for damage, injury, or death arising out of, or connected in anyway, with the performance of the use permitted hereby. The Applicant’s obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City shall include, but not be limited to, paying all legal fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City’s choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits, or actions, and any award of damages or attorney’s fees in any such lawsuit or action.
2. The Applicant and the business entity allowed for hereunder shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of these conditions in the presence of a Notary Public and return the Affidavit to the Director of Community Development within ten calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission’s approval.
3. The approval shall lapse and become void if the privilege authorized is not utilized or where some form of construction pursuant to issuance of a building permit has not commenced within two years from the date of this approval.
4. Applicant and its employees, agents and contractors shall comply with all State, Federal, and Municipal Code provisions.
Planning Conditions
5. All buildings and walls must be finished with graffiti resistant materials. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the Property or on any adjacent area under the control of the Applicant shall be removed or painted over within 48 hours of discovery or notice from the City.
6. The Property shall be maintained in a safe and clean condition and the Applicant shall ensure that no trash or litter originating from the site is deposited on neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. At the end of each business day, the Applicant shall pick up any and all litter including but not limited to large, discarded items that may have collected in the Property’s parking area and public right-of-way.
7. The Applicant shall maintain all required permits and licenses in good standing.
01257.0005/1032934.1
8. The Applicant understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the CUP.
9. The construction site shall always be kept in a clean manner prior, during, and after construction.
10. The Applicant shall develop the Property as shown in the site plan and landscaping plan approved by the Planning Commission.
11. The Applicant shall provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan, prepared by a registered Landscape Architect to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to submitting the plans to the Building Division.
12. The Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping in strict compliance with a landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect drawn at a minimum scale of 1” = 10’ which will include all proposed softscape elements (included areas of ornamental plantings and turf areas), with the perimeter planting design for the exterior of building. The Applicant shall incorporate the following into the landscape plan:
a. Enclose all planters within parking lot areas with raised six-inch P.C.C. curbs, except at sidewalks.
b. Provide an automated underground irrigation system for all landscaped areas. c. Provide adequate landscaping to completely screen all ground mounted mechanical equipment.
13. All exterior doors shall be lit with a minimum of one-foot candle power of intensity and constructed of tamper-resistant fixtures.
14. The Applicant shall have no outside storage of material or equipment during or after hours in the required parking lot areas or near the front entrance of the Property visible from Rush Street.
15. There shall be no loading or unloading of materials on the public right of way (Rush Street).
16. There shall be no queuing or parking of vehicles on or along Rush Street as a result of this development.
17. At no time shall the site store inoperable freight trucks or vehicles in its parking areas either within the vehicle spaces or the freight truck spaces.
18. No repair of vehicles or freight trucks shall occur at any time.
19. All exterior lights on the property shall be LED and shall be directed, positioned, and/or shielded such that they do not illuminate surrounding properties and/or the public right of way.
20. For security purposes, lighting shall be place in such a way as to illuminate the area surrounding the trash enclosure(s), transformer, and all vehicle parking spaces. This lighting shall be un-switched and photo sensor controlled.
21. Any bollards on the site visible from the public right of way shall be decorative in nature and shall be approved by the Director of Community Development or designee.
01257.0005/1032934.1
22. Noise generated from the site shall comply with the South El Monte Municipal Code Chapter 8.20.
23. The applicant must incorporate a copy of these conditions of approval into the approved set of building plans.
24. The consolidation of parcels shall be finalized and recorded prior to the issuance of building permits.
Public Works Conditions
PW1. The second sheet of building plans, grading plans and/or offsite improvement plans is to list all conditions of approval and to include a copy of the Planning Commission Decision letter. This information shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the first submittal for plan check.
PW2. A geotechnical and soils investigation report is required, the duties of the soils engineer of record, as indicated on the first sheet of the approved plans, shall include the following:
a) Observation of cleared areas and benches prepared to receive fill; b) Observation of the removal of all unsuitable soils and other materials; c) The approval of soils to be used as fill material;
d) Inspection of compaction and placement of fill;
e) The testing of compacted fills; and
f) The inspection of review of drainage devices.
PW3. The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all grading, site preparation, and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be performed by another soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the subsequent soils and/or geotechnical engineer submits and has accepted by the Public Works Department, a new Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation.
PW4. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate how all storm drainage including contributory drainage from adjacent lots is carried to the public way or drainage structure approved to receive storm water.
PW5. Low Impact Development (LID) review shall be completed prior submitting grading plans for plan review. Grading plans shall be submitted including the proof of approval of LID or exemption of LID.
PW6. Install new driveway approach in accordance with SPPWC Standard Plan 110-2, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
PW7. Remove and replace broken and off grade sidewalk in accordance with SPPWC standard plan 113-2, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
PW8. Install an irrigation system and landscape the designated parkway area, and as directed by the City Engineer and/or his/her designee.
01257.0005/1032934.1
PW9. Protect and maintain existing street tree through the duration of the project. Existing street tree must be maintained in healthy condition through the duration of any planning and construction. Trees should be deemed healthy and in good condition upon the conclusion of any construction in order for the project to be accepted as completed by the Public Works Department.
PW10. Remove and replace broken and off grade curb and gutter in accordance with SPPWC Standard Plan 120-2, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
PW11. Relocate water meter from the sidewalk as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
PW12. Rehabilitate existing AC street pavement along the length of the property frontage to the centerline of the street, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee, PW13. Underground all utility services to the property.
PW14. Protect existing tree(s).
PW15. Sewer Study shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer or his/her designee, prior to the issuance of permits. If sewer is found to be inadequate, sewer improvement plans shall be submitted to the City for approval and required improvements shall be made at the sole cost to the property owner/developer.
PW16. Project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. Any necessary public improvements determined by Traffic Engineering, shall be made at the sole cost to the property owner/developer.
Building Division Conditions
B3. The second sheet of building plans is to list all conditions of approval and to include a copy of the Planning Commission Decision letter. This information shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the first submittal for plan check.
B4. Fees shall be paid to the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District prior to issuance of the building permit.
B5. The building shall be addressed as 2222 Rosemead Blvd., and an application to assign unit numbers shall be filed with City prior to plan check submittal.
B6. In accordance with paragraph 5538(b) of the California Business and Professions Code, plans are to be prepared and stamped by a licensed architect.
B7. Structural calculations prepared under the direction of an architect, civil engineer or structural engineer shall be provided.
B8. A geotechnical and soils investigation report is required, the duties of the soils engineer of record, as indicated on the first sheet of the approved plans, shall include the following:
a) Observation of cleared areas and benches prepared to receive fill; b) Observation of the removal of all unsuitable soils and other materials; c) The approval of soils to be used as fill material;
d) Inspection of compaction and placement of fill;
e) The testing of compacted fills; and
01257.0005/1032934.1
f) The inspection of review of drainage devices.
B9. The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all grading, site preparation, and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be performed by another soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the subsequent soils and/or geotechnical engineer submits and has accepted by the Public Works Department, a new Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation.
B10. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved by Engineering Division prior to issuance of the building permit. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate how all storm drainage including contributory drainage from adjacent lots is carried to the public way or drainage structure approved to receive storm water.
B11. Prior submitting grading plans to Engineering Department, LID review shall be completed and approved.
B12. Mechanical ventilation in accordance with Los Angeles County Building Code is required for the enclosed parking garage.
B13. Mezzanine design shall comply with Section 505 of the California Building Code. Each mezzanine area shall also comply with the applicable means of egress requirements of Chapter 10. The aggregate area of all mezzanines within the room shall be not greater than one-third of the floor area of that room or space in which they are located.
B14. Interior exit stairway shall discharge directly to the exterior of the building per Section 1023.3 and 1028 of California Building, unless Exceptions 1 and 2 under Section 1028 are satisfied.
B15. All State of California disability access regulations for accessibility shall be complied with.
B16. The retaining/garden wall design along the property line fronting Rosemead Boulevard shall be designed in such way to provide an accessible route from the public street sidewalks to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve per Section 11B206.2.1 pf the California Building Code.
B17. The number of accessible parking spaces provided on the site shall be calculated according to the number of spaces required for each parking facility per Section 11B208.2 of the California Building Code. Surface parking and underground parking garage are separate parking facilities. Accessible parking spaces shall only be permitted to be located in different parking facilities if Exception 2 under Section 11B-208.3.1 is satisfied.
B18. The number of accessible electrical vehicle charging station (EVCS) provided on the site shall be calculated according to the number required for each parking facility per Section 11B-228.3.2 of the California Building Code. Surface parking and underground parking garage are separate parking facilities. Ambulatory accessible EVCS shall be provided if more than 25 EVCS are provided per Table 11B-228.3.2.1.
B19. The following plan checks are required:
a. Electrical plan check
01257.0005/1032934.1
b. Mechanical plan check
c. Plumbing plan check
B20. Plumbing fixtures shall be provided as required by the Chapter 4 of the California Plumbing Code.
B21. Project shall comply with the CalGreen Non-Residential mandatory requirements.
B22. No form work or other construction materials will be permitted to encroach into adjacent property without written approval of the affected property owner.
B23. Demolition permit is required for any existing buildings which are to be demolished.
B24. Separate plan review and building permit is required for the proposed signs.
B25. All fire sprinkler hangers must be designed, and their location approved by an engineer or an architect. Calculations must be provided indicating that the hangers are designed to carry the tributary weight of the water filled pipe plus a 250-pound point load. A plan indication this information must be stamped by the engineer or the architect and submitted for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
B26. Separate permit is required for Fire Sprinklers.
B27. The building permit will not be issued until the property has been surveyed and the boundaries marked by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California.
B28. Foundation inspection will not be made until the excavation has been surveyed and the depth of the footings has been determined to be in accordance with the approved plans by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California. THIS NOTE IS TO BE PLACED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN IN A PROMINENT LOCATION.
B29. Foundation inspection will not be made until setback on all sides of the proposed building has been surveyed and the location of the footings has been determined to be in accordance with the approved plans by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California. THIS NOTE IS TO BE PLACED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN IN A PROMINENT LOCATION.
B30. Prior to the issuance of building permit, a written consent shall be obtained from the current easement holder(s) for any proposed development encroaching into existing easement(s).
B31. City records indicate the proposed site is a combination of lots under common ownership.
A parcel merger by document shall be processed prior to issuance of the building permit.
B32. Proposed lot line adjustment involving another adjacent parcel shall be executed in such way that the adjusted fire separation distance to any existing buildings as a result shall not impose additional fire-resistance rating requirements to their existing exterior wall or openings in accordance with the current building code requirements.
B33. Building permits shall not be issued until lots merger have been processed to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
01257.0005/1032934.1
Los Angeles County Fire Department Conditions
1. Submitted plans shall correspond with the plans approved by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Land Development Unit.
County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Conditions
1. Installation of security cameras and building lights with motion sensors shall be placed around the proposed development where feasible to reduce opportunities of criminal activities. Cameras and lighting shall be placed in such a way where law enforcement can adequately identify vehicle license plates upon entry/exit to the site.
2. Height of hedge-type plants shall be limited to allow visibility from the street.
Landscaping shall not block building addresses from street patrol car line of sight.
3. Provide numerical addresses in a font size on the corner of the building that can be easily viewed and read from the street.
4. During construction of the project emergency access shall be maintained at all times.
SECTION 5: Exhibit “A” hereto is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 6: Any interested party may appeal this decision to the City Council pursuant to Section 17.03.060 of the South El Monte Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November 2024. _____________________________
Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________________________
________________________________
Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Renee Reyes, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 24-09 was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South El Monte at a regular meeting of said Commission held on the 19th day of November 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ____________________________________
Secretary
EXHIBIT B
7554-004acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
October 30, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Guillermo Arreola, Director
Community Development Department
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
Email: [email protected]
Re: Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse
Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046)
Dear Mr. Arreola and Ms. Marquez:
We are writing on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) to provide preliminary comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared by the City of South El Monte (“City”) for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (“Project”), proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”).
The Project would construct an approximately 156,877 square foot (“SF”) concrete tilt-up warehouse and 13 dock doors. Of the 156,877 SF, the Project would have 113,703 SF of warehouse space, 7,879 SF of retail use, 20,305 SF of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 SF of warehouse storage. The Project site is located at 2200, 2212, 2218, and 2226 Rosemead Boulevard in the northwestern portion of the City of South El Monte, Los Angeles County, California. The approximately 5.14-acre project site includes four parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 8102-039-029, 8102-039-030, 8102-039-031, and 8102-039-035).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
We reviewed the IS/MND with the assistance of transportation expert Norm Marshall.1 The City must separately respond to these technical comments.
Based upon our review of the IS/MND and supporting documentation, the IS/MND’s project description is inaccurate, preventing meaningful review of the Project’s impacts. Further, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project would have potentially significant public health, air quality, energy, GHG emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities impacts that are not adequately mitigated by the mitigation proposed in the IS/MND. The City cannot approve the Project until the errors in the IS/MND are remedied by preparing an environmental impact report (“EIR”) which fully discloses and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant impacts.
We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later proceedings and hearings related to the Project.2
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
1 Mr. Marshall’s comments and curricula vitae and are attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Marshall Comments”). 2 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
I. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
The IS/MND does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include an accurate and complete Project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate. California courts have repeatedly held that “an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”3 CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.4 Without a complete project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus minimizing the project’s impacts and undermining meaningful public review.5 Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to obtain a complete and accurate project description.6
CEQA Guidelines section 15378 defines “project” to mean “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”7 “The term “project” refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental 3 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85– 89; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193. 4 14 CCR § 15124; see, Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 192-193. 5 Id.
6 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (“Sundstrom”) (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. 7 CEQA Guidelines § 15378.