October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
agencies. The term project does not mean each separate governmental approval.”8 Courts have explained that a complete description of a project must “address not only the immediate environmental consequences of going forward with the project, but also all “reasonably foreseeable consequence[s] of the initial project.”9 “If a[n]…EIR…does not adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project, informed decision-making cannot occur under CEQA and the final EIR is inadequate as a matter of law.”10
A. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable
Warehouse Uses
The MND explains that the Project is proposed as a speculative warehouse without specific end uses or tenants,11 yet the IS/MND fails to describe or analyze the Project’s reasonably foreseeable end uses, in violation of CEQA. The IS/MND explains that, of the Project’s 156,877 SF, the Project would have 113,703 SF of warehouse space, 7,879 SF of retail use, 20,305 SF of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 SF of warehouse storage.12 However, the IS/MND states that “the retail and warehouse end users are unknown at this time.”13 In the absence of more specific information or restrictions on the types of retail and warehouse uses that will occur after Project buildout, the City has a duty to analyze the impacts of all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project site.14 Instead, the IS/MND limits its analysis to the least intensive categories of warehouse use, thereby omitting an analysis of impacts from common warehouse uses that would result in more severe air quality, transportation, energy and noise impacts.
Transportation expert Norm Marshall explains that warehouse trip generation rates and air quality impacts vary greatly by type of warehouse.15 In order to determine the trips generated by the proposed Project, the IS/MND utilizes statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual for the proposed Project’s land uses.16 The IS/MND 8 Id., § 15378(c).
9 Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 398 (emphasis added); see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 449-50. 10 Riverwatch v. Olivenhain Municipal Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 1186, 1201. 11 IS/MND, pg. 5. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311.
15 Marshall Comments, pg. 2.
16 IS/MND, Appendix A, Table 2, PDF pg. 5; Appendix F, pg. 18.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
characterizes this Project as ITE land use code 150 (Warehousing).17 Mr. Marshall explains that this land use code is just one of many land use codes potentially applicable to the Project, and does not reflect all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project.18 The figure below shows other warehousing land use codes and compares trips generated by each land use.19
The IS/MND lacks evidence to support the City’s assumption that the other warehouse land use codes shown above would be inapplicable to the Project. Rather, it the opposite. The IS/MND lacks sufficient information about the Project’s end uses and configuration for the public and decisionmakers to exclude any of these end uses from its impact analysis. For example, the IS/MND states that “[t]he Project does not propose refrigeration as part of the warehouse operations,” but the IS/MND does not identify any conditions of approval or mitigation measures preventing cold storage uses. Cold storage is therefore a reasonably foreseeable use of the Project site. Similarly, there is no restriction prohibiting subsequent parcel hub or fulfillment center uses. The Project could therefore be used as a parcel hub 17 Id.
18 Marshall Comments, pg. 4.
19 Id. at 2.
1.40 1.71 1.81
2.12 4.63
6.44 1.71
Transload and
Short-Term
Storage
Warehouse
Warehousing Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
Cold Storage
Warehouse
Parcel Hub
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
DEIR
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
or fulfillment center warehouse – two highly common warehouse uses by large warehouse distributors such as Amazon, Walmart, and grocery chains – which would result in more intensive land uses and impacts than the “Warehouse” category analyzed in the IS/MND. Since the Project’s future uses are broadly described as warehouse and retail, CEQA requires the City to analyze and mitigate the impacts associated with all reasonably foreseeable warehouse and retail uses, including high-intensity uses like those outlined by Mr. Marshall.
Courts have held in situations such as this that “the identity of a tenant is irrelevant to CEQA review.”20 The court in Maintain Our Desert Environment v.
Town of Apple Valley explained that “land use entitlements such as conditional use permits and development approvals run with the land and do not belong to the permittee…. had [the developer] developed the Project and then held it out for sale to any interested buyer, no additional CEQA review would have been necessary for the new owner so long as the use was consistent with that that had already been approved.”21 Here, the project analyzed in the IS/MND is a Conditional Use Permit and Lot Merger to develop an 156,877 sf warehouse, which could be used for many potential warehousing end uses. Because the IS/MND fails to analyze the full range of uses that would be authorized under these entitlements, the IS/MND’s project description is inadequate.
The defects in the project description affect the IS/MND’s environmental impacts, as different types of warehousing have differing severities of environmental impacts. For example, Mr. Marshall explains that the land use code selected by the IS/MND would underestimate the number of car and truck trips generated by the Project. As shown above, the IS/MND applies a rate of 1.71 daily trips per 1000 sq. ft. of warehouse.22 The daily trips would be significantly higher if the Project includes cold storage uses or is developed as a parcel hub or fulfillment center. Mr. Marshall explains that whereas the ITE Warehouse category used in the IS/MND results in an estimated 89 daily truck trips, the Cold Storage Warehouse rate is estimated to generate daily 111.6 truck trips.23 By underestimating the overall trips generated by the Project, the IS/MND underestimates the Project’s health risk, air quality, GHG, and VMT impacts.
20 Am. Canyon Cmty. United for Responsible Growth v. City of Am. Canyon (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1074 (citing Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430, 443–449)). 21 Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 444. 22 Marshall Comments, pg. 2. 23 Marshall Comments, pg. 3.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
The IS/MND’s assumption that the Project will include no cold storage uses results in underestimation of health risk, air quality, energy, GHG, and noise impacts. Cold storage generates more trips per square foot and has higher energy impacts due to the low temperatures required by the facility’s transport refrigeration units (“TRUs”) and on-site storage. TRUs are refrigeration systems powered by integral diesel engines.24 The refrigeration systems are used to control the environment of temperature-sensitive products transported in insulated trucks, trailers, shipping containers, or railcars. The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states that TRUs emit diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), fine particulate matter (“PM2.5”), oxides of nitrogen (“NOx”), and GHGs while in transit and during stationary operation at refrigerated warehouses or distribution centers, grocery stores, seaport facilities, intermodal railyards, and other locations of operation.
CARB explains that communities near facilities where TRUs operate bear a disproportionate health burden:
PM2.5 pollution contributes to more fatalities than other air pollutants and can lodge deep in the lungs or pass through the lungs to enter the blood stream and affect the heart, brain, and other organs. Adverse health effects from long-term exposure to PM2.5 pollution include increased risk of heart attacks and heart disease, impaired lung development in children, the development and exacerbation of asthma, and premature death. NOx is a precursor to ozone, which can cause irritation and damage lung tissue, worsen asthma and chronic illnesses including obstructive pulmonary disease and reduce lung function.25
CARB also explains that TRUs’ emissions of GHGs contribute towards climate change,26 and that TRUs generate noise impacts: “TRU operations produce noise that can be problematic when deliveries that often occur late evening or early morning are near residential neighborhoods, hotels, hospitals, and elder care facilities… One study conducted by LSA Associates found that a diesel-powered TRU operating at high idle produces an A-weighted decibel (dBA) noise rating of 104 dBA, while a diesel truck at idle produces a noise rating of 96 dBA.”27 In the California Attorney General’s (“AG”) guidance for warehouse projects, the AG recommends that, if the agency intends to prohibit cold storage, unless a developer adopts mitigation measures limiting cold storage impacts, the developer 24 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 1, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
10/CARB%202022%20TRU%20Technology%20Assessment%2010-14-22.pdf. 25 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 26 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 27 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 17-18.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
should record a covenant on the title of the underlying property to ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.28 No such mitigation or land use covenants are described in the IS/MND. If the City intends to prohibit cold storage during Project operations, the City should include such title restrictions for this Project. Alternatively, the City must prepare an EIR that analyzes and mitigates impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable cold storage uses and all other reasonably foreseeable intensive warehousing uses at the Project site.
B. The IS/MND Is Unclear Regarding the Project’s Hours of Operation
The IS/MND is internally inconsistent regarding whether truck movement, loading, and unloading activities would be authorized between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The IS/MND states:
The retail and warehouse end users are unknown at this time. The hours of operation would be determined by the lessee; however, at this time, the hours are proposed to be seven days a week and operate 24 hours a day. However, all on-site truck movement and loading and unloading activities at the proposed loading docks, which are located behind electronic gates, would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.29
This statement is contradicted by Mitigation Measure (“MM”) NOI-1, which states that the nighttime prohibition of onsite truck activities is optional:
Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the City of South El Monte Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that either: (1) require the installation of a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site; or (2) prohibit truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.30
28 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 9, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf (“Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.”). 29 IS/MND, pg. 5; see pg. 6 (“As previously noted, the gates would be closed between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.”).
30 IS/MND, pg. 97.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
The IS/MND is internally inconsistent because it states that truck movement, loading, and unloading would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM31 while also stating that such activities would be authorized if a masonry wall is constructed. Clarity on whether nighttime truck activities are proposed by the Project is necessary because the noise study shows that nighttime operations would result in significant noise impacts unless mitigation is adopted.32 C. Use of Back-Up Generators is a Reasonably Foreseeable Consequence of the Project that the IS/MND Fails to Describe The IS/MND fails to disclose that the Project would include back-up generators in its discussion of the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. The IS/MND’s CalEEMod analysis of criteria air pollutants fails to include emissions from backup generators,33 and the IS/MND’s qualitative discussion of health risk impacts fails to disclose use of back-up generators.34 The use of backup generators is a reasonably foreseeable activity during Project operation due to the prevalence of power safety shutoffs, extreme heat events, and other emergencies which lead to temporary losses of power.
In East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland,35 the Court of Appeal upheld an EIR’s analysis of emissions from backup generators. The EIR’s analysis assumed that generators would operate for 50 hours of testing and maintenance annually, while allocating no time for actual emergency use. In discussing the lead agency’s duty to analyze backup generator emissions, the Court stated that “if the annual need for emergency generator use is reasonably foreseeable, the EIR was not entitled to disregard such use merely because it would occur at unpredictable times.”36 The Court explained that use of a generator was reasonably foreseeable because, “[a]s noted in the EIR, some parts of the Bay Area are subject to predictable, sustained power outages undertaken to reduce the risk of fire.”37 Thus, “[t]he EIR was required to make neither a generally applicable nor a worst-case assumption; rather it was required to make a reasonable estimate of likely annual use of the generators at the project site.”38
31 IS/MND, pg. 5.
32 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. iii, iv.
33 IS/MND, Appendix A, PDF pg. 160.
34 IS/MND, pg. 40-41; Appendix A, pg. 56.
35 (2023) 889 Cal. App. 5th 1226.
36 Id. at 1252.
37 Id. at 1253.
38 Id.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Here, as in East Oakland Stadium Alliance, backup generator emissions are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project due to increasingly common Public Safety Power Shutoff (“PSPS”) events and extreme heat events (“EHE”).
EHEs are defined as periods where in the temperatures throughout California exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.39 From January 2019 through December 2019, Southern California Edison reported 158 of their circuits underwent a PSP event.40 In Los Angeles County, two circuits had 4 PSPS events during that period, lasting an average of 35 to 38 hours. The total duration of the PSPS events lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. According to the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) de-energization report41 in October 2019, there were almost 806 PSPS events that impacted almost 973,000 customers (~7.5% of households in California) of which ~854,000 of them were residential customers. The California Air Resources Board estimates that with 973,000 customers impacted by PSPS events in October 2019, approximately 125,000 back-up generators were used by customers to provide electricity during power outages.42 The widespread use of back-up generators to adapt to PSPS and EHE events suggests that back-up generators are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project. In addition to emergency use, any generators included in the Project would be operated for routine testing.
Generators can emit criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants. This equipment commonly relies on fuels such as natural gas or diesel,43 and thus can significantly impact public health through DPM emissions.44 39 Governor of California. 2021. Proclamation of a state of emergency. June 17, 2021. 40 SCAQMD. 2020. Proposed Amendment To Rules (PARS) 1110.2, 1470, and 1472. Dated December 10, 2020. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1110.2/1110- 2_1470_1472/par1110-2_1470_wgm_121020.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 41 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/deenergization/ as cited in CARB, 2020. Potential Emission Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage associated With Power Outage.
42 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps. 43 SCAQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators (“Most of the existing emergency backup generators use diesel as fuel”).
44 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps (showing that generators commonly rely on gasoline or diesel, and that use of generators during power outages results in excess emissions); California Air Resources Board, Use of Back-up Engines for Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events (October 25, 2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/use-back-engines-electricity-generation-during-publicsafety-power-shutoff (“When electric utilities de-energize their electric lines, the demand for back-up
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
This equipment can emit significant amounts of NOx, sulfur dioxides (“SO2”), particulate matter (“PM10”), carbon dioxide (“CO2”), carbon monoxide (“CO”), volatile organic compounds (“VOC”), particulate matter less than 10 microns (“PM10”), PM less than 2.5 microns (“PM2.5”), and air toxins such as DPM.45 the IS/MND’s omission of an impact analysis for an onsite generator system thus results in an underestimation of the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts.46
II. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.47 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment, but also informed self-government.”48 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”49 power increases. This demand for reliable back-up power has health impacts of its own. Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer-causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.
Much of the back-up power produced during PSPS events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California’s 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts)”).
45 University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering—Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Air Quality Implications Of Backup Generators In California, (March 2005), pg. 8, available at
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=84c8463118e4813a117db3d768151 a8622c4bf6b; South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators (“Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from diesel-fired emergency engines are 200 to 600 times greater, per unit of electricity produced, than new or controlled existing central power plants fired on natural gas.
Diesel-fired engines also produce significantly greater amounts of fine particulates and toxics emissions compared to natural gas fired equipment.”), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators#Fact2. 46 Clark Comments, pg. 5. 47 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21000; CEQA Guidelines, § 15002. 48 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (“Goleta Valley”) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564, internal citations omitted.
49 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
CEQA’s purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.50 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.51
In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but:
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.52
Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.”53 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration.54 An agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.55
50 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21100
51 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080, subd. (d), 21082.2, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subd. (k)(3), 15064, subds. (f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (“Laurel Heights II”) (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150- 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (“Quail Botanical”) (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601- 1602. 52 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5 (emphasis added). 53 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320.
54 Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754 55 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street v.
City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 (“Friends of B Street”) (“If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
“Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”56 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining whether an EIR is required, the lead agency is required to apply the principles set forth in Section 15064, subdivision (f):
[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.57
Furthermore, CEQA documents, including EIRs and MNDs, must mitigate significant impacts through measures that are “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.”58 Deferring formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies is generally impermissible.59 Mitigation measures adopted after Project approval deny the public the opportunity to comment on the Project as modified to mitigate impacts.60 If identification of specific mitigation measures is impractical until a later stage in the Project, specific performance criteria must be articulated and further approvals must be made contingent upon meeting these performance criteria.61 Courts have held that simply requiring a project applicant to obtain a future report and then comply with the report’s recommendations is insufficient to meet the standard for properly deferred mitigation.62
With respect to this Project, the IS/MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The IS/MND fails to adequately disclose, investigate, and analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts, and fails to provide substantial evidence to conclude that impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. Because the negative declaration, because it could be ‘fairly argued’ that the project might have a significant environmental impact”).
56 CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).
57 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5.
58 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).
59 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309; Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.
60 Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1393; Quail Botanical, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1604, fn. 5.
61 Id.
62 Id.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
IS/MND lacks basic information regarding the Project’s potentially significant impacts, the IS/MND’s conclusion that the Project will have a less than significant impact on the environment is unsupported.63 Moreover, substantial evidence shows that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts that are not reduced to less than significant levels with the mitigation measures included in the IS/MND.
Therefore, a fair argument can be made that the Project may cause significant impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.
A. The IS/MND Fails to Disclose and Mitigate Significant Health Risk Impacts
Project construction and operation would generate DPM, a type of toxic air contaminant (“TAC”).64 DPM would be emitted during construction by heavy equipment and diesel trucks, and likely during operations by a diesel backup generator or other diesel-fueled stationary equipment.65 DPM has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. The Project’s emissions of DPM would impact sensitive receptors near the Project site, including residents of a mobile home park directly south of the Project site. The IS/MND fails to analyze and mitigate health risk impacts from construction activities or evaluate the combined lifetime risk of exposure to both the Project’s construction and operational TAC emissions.
CEQA requires analysis of human health impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) provides that the City is required to find a project will have a significant impact on the environment and prepare an EIR if the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings.66 The Supreme Court has also explained that CEQA requires the lead agency to disclose the health consequences that result from exposure to a project’s air emissions.67 Courts have held that an environmental review document must disclose a project’s potential health risks to a degree of specificity that would allow the public to make the correlation between the project’s impacts and adverse effects to human health.68 63 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5.
64 SCAQMD, Classification of Diesel PM as a Carcinogen, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/toxic-hot-spots-ab-2588/iws-facilities/dice/dice-b2; OEHHA, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust (May 21, 2001),
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 65 Id. 66 PRC § 21083(b)(3), (d). 67 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523. 68 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, the court found that the EIR’s description of health risks were insufficient and that after reading them, “the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin.”69 Likewise, in Sierra Club, the California Supreme Court held that the EIR’s discussion of health impacts associated with exposure to the named pollutants was too general and the failure of the EIR to indicate the concentrations at which each pollutant would trigger the identified symptoms rendered the report inadequate.70 Some connection between air quality impacts and their direct, adverse effects on human health must be made. As the Court explained, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.”71 CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.72
For development projects like this one, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) risk assessment guidelines also recommend a formal health risk analysis (“HRA”) for short-term construction exposures to TACs lasting longer than 2 months and exposures from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project.73 In an HRA, lead agencies must first quantify the concentration released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern.74 Following that analysis, then the City can make a determination of the relative significance of the emissions. Here, the IS/MND states that exposure to TACs would be significant if it would result in an incremental cancer risk of 10 in one million or greater.75 Here, the IS/MND fails to quantify the magnitude of TACs that would be emitted by the Project’s operations and construction. The IS/MND also fails to 69 Id. at 1220.
70 Sierra Club, at 521.
71 Id. at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514–515.
72 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522. 73 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Risk Assessment Guidelines:
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015 (OEHHA 2015), Section 8.2.10: Cancer Risk Evaluation of Short Term Projects, pp. 8-17/18; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0. 74 Id. 75 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 25.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
quantify sensitive receptors’ exposure to TACs and whether significance thresholds would be exceeded. As such, the MND fails to adequately connect the Project’s emissions and their direct, adverse effects on human health.76 The IS/MND reasons that health risks from exposure to TACs emitted during operations would be less than significant because “[t]he most recent Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Land Use Projects prepared by CAPCOA (July 2009) recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).”77 The IS/MND states that because the Project is estimated to generate 89 truck trips a day, “significant TAC impacts from the project-related operational DPM sources are not anticipated and no significant long-term operations-related TAC impacts from the proposed project to nearby sensitive receptors would occur.”78
This reasoning is not supported by substantial evidence. First, as explained by Mr. Marshall, the Project could foreseeably generate more than 89 daily truck trips, depending on the warehouse’s ultimate uses. As shown herein, the 89-truck trip estimate assumes that the Project would be used for a relatively low intensity warehousing use (ITE 150). Mr. Marshall shows that the Project’s warehouse component could result in more than 100 daily truck trips if different ITE land use codes are applied.79 And because there is no restriction on cold storage at the Project site, the Project may generate over 40 TRUs. Thus, the Project’s criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions may be substantially higher than assumed in the IS/MND.
Second, the IS/MND’s focus on daily truck trips ignores that the Project would foreseeably include other sources of TAC emissions. Emissions from a backup generator and fire pump would combine with truck trip emissions to result in potentially significant health risks to nearby sensitive receptors.
Third, the IS/MND fails to properly apply the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) guidance cited in the IS/MND. CAPCOA’s siting guidance states:
76 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 77 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 43.
78 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 43.
79 Marshall Comments, pg. 2-3.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.80
The IS/MND purports to follow the CAPCOA guidance, but fails to conduct the second half of the CAPCOA’s recommended analysis by failing to take into account existing distribution centers. As will be discussed in more detail below, the IS/MND fails to identify cumulative projects or otherwise characterize the Project’s combined effects with other industrial projects in the area. The IS/MD also fails to consider the location of the Project’s entry and exit points in relation to sensitive receptors. As shown below, the Project’s loading docks would be located near the southern border of the Project site.81 Trucks would access these loading docks via a driveway along the southern property line. Directly across the southern border of the Project site are mobile homes.
80 CAPCOA, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, Table 2, Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities, available at
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/glsdzpx3/capcoa_hra_lu_guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 81 Excerpt of Figure 6, Site Plan, IS/MND, PDF pg. 24.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
By locating the loading docks and a driveway by the southern property line, emissions from truck idling and movement would be generated nearby residential sensitive receptors. Per the CAPCOA siting guidance, this Project’s configuration would result in heightened health risk impacts. The Project’s configuration is therefore a factor justifying preparation of an HRA pursuant to the guidance relied upon by the City.
Regarding exposure to construction TACs, the IS/MND states that “[g]iven the temporary and short-term construction schedule (approximately 12 months), the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure as a result of project construction.”82 This reasoning ignores that OEHHA guidance explains that health risks from construction activities lasting for as little as two months can result in significant health risk impacts. The Project’s one-year construction schedule exceeds OEHHA’s two-month threshold for preparing an HRA. OEHHA’s guidance explains that exposure to TACs is a function of the breathing rate, the exposure frequency, and the concentration of a substance in the air.83 The exposure 82 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 30.
83 OEHHA, Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, pg. 5-23.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
frequency and concentration of TACs near sensitive receptors increase the closer construction activities occur to sensitive receptors.84 Because emissions of TACs during construction would occur across the property line from residences, sensitive receptors’ exposure to TACs is potentially significant.
The IS/MND states that Project construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (“LSTs”).85 But analysis of LSTs does not address DPM and other TACs that would be emitted by the Project.86 LSTs are based on the number of pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project that would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts.
But LSTs only apply to four criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs do not apply to DPM and other TACs, which contain carcinogenic compounds not found in criteria pollutants, and thus do not disclose the magnitude of the Project’s health impacts from exposure to the Project’s air emissions. Thus, the IS/MND’s analysis of LSTs does not answer the question required by CEQA Appendix G as to whether the Project would “expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations”87 and is no substitute for the IS/MND’s failure to analyze health risk impacts from exposure to TACs.
The IS/MND thus fails to meet CEQA’s information and analytical requirements, and the Project’s health risk impacts remain potentially significant and unmitigated. These potentially significant impacts must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR.
B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
84 Id. at 1-3 (“The process by which Districts identify priority facilities for risk assessment involves consideration of potency, toxicity, quantity of emissions, and proximity to sensitive receptors such as hospitals, daycare centers, schools, work-sites, and residences.”). 85 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. iv.
86 SCAQMD, Localized Significance Thresholds, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds; SCAQMD, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (June 2003, revised June 2008), available at www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 87 CEQA Appendix G, III(d).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
An EIR must evaluate a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.”88 This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental impacts “viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”89 Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.”90
1. The IS/MND’s Cumulative Air Emissions Analysis Does
Not Comply with CEQA or Attorney General Warehouse
Guidance
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the significance of the Project’s cumulative air quality emissions. The IS/MND asserts that, under South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) guidance, that a project would not have cumulatively-considerable impacts if its individual emissions of criteria air pollutant that fall below SCAQMD’s threshold for individual projects.91 Similarly, the IS/MND provides that projects’ health risk impacts that exceed the projectspecific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable, and vice versa.92
This reasoning contravenes CEQA because projects that do not have significant individual impacts may nonetheless create significant cumulative impacts.93 In addition, a proper cumulative impact analysis considers whether a project has a cumulatively considerable impact in the context of a particular existing cumulative impact.94
88 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a).
89 Id., §§ 15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
90 Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.
91 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 41.
92 Id.
93 See Kings Cty. Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720. 94 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15065, subd. (a)(3). (“The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”)
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
In People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, the Attorney General’s petition for writ of mandate challenged an MND that erroneously applied SCAQMD guidance in the same way as the instant IS/MND.95 The petition explained:
[T]he MND’s cumulative air quality impact analysis does not account for—or even acknowledge—the multitude of other warehouses near the Project.
Rather than consider the environmental setting within which the Project will be situated, the MND simply states that the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions because the Project’s individual air quality impacts will be less than significant. The MND even applies this reasoning to its analysis of health impacts from localized emissions, despite making no attempt to determine or disclose the severity of the existing health impacts from localized emissions in the community.96 The Attorney General further explained that merely citing to SCAQMD guidance does not justify a failure to analyze a Project’s cumulative impacts:
The MND cites Appendix D of an August 2003 white paper published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) entitled “White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution” (“2003 SCAQMD White Paper”). To the extent that the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper asserts that any project with less than significant individual air quality impacts also necessarily has less than significant cumulative air quality impacts, it is inconsistent with CEQA for at least the reasons stated above. Moreover, the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper lacks substantial evidence to support such a contention, and thus the MND’s reliance on it violates CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.7, subd. (c).) The MND further violated CEQA by failing to provide substantial evidence to support its reliance on the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper, Appendix D as “guidance.” (Ibid.) Finally, even if the MND’s reliance on the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper were proper and supported by substantial evidence, the MND did not consider other evidence—such as public comments and the existence of many other sources of pollution near the Project site—showing that the Project could have a 95 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/casedocuments/2021/20210723_docket-CIVSB2121829_petition-for-writ-of-mandate.pdf. 96 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, pg. 9, paragraph 32.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
significant cumulative air quality impact. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (b).) [emphasis added]97
The Attorney General’s litigation resulted in a settlement which requires compliance with an ordinance adopted on April 12, 2022, that establishes sustainability standards for warehouses in Fontana, including standards intended to address cumulative air quality impacts. For example, the standards include requirements that rooftop solar panels supply 100% of power for non-refrigerated portions of facilities with buildings over 400,000 square feet, trees in automobile parking areas, zero emission motorized operational equipment, other equipment electrification requirements, and solar-ready buildings roofs.98 The City of Fontana’s decision to suspend its erroneous reliance on SCAQMD’s drop-in-thebucket approach and to address the cumulative impacts of warehouse projects in the City as a component of its settlement with the Attorney General’s office reflects an approach consistent with CEQA. The Fontana settlement also demonstrates that there is feasible mitigation available to reduce cumulative air quality impacts from warehouse projects, in compliance with CEQA.
Here, the IS/MND’s analysis fails to account for health risks resulting from emissions of TACs from existing industrial development in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The IS/MND acknowledges that there are multiple existing and proposed warehouses in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, but does not describe these projects or consider them in its analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts.99 The IS/MND discloses the CalEnviroScreen scores for the census tract, which reflect the census tract’s pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state, but fails to account for this information in its cumulative impacts analysis. This census tract scores 78.4 for particulate matter and 91.6 for DPM.100 These are high scores that demonstrate that the Project’s emissions of air pollutants would contribute to cumulative impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.101 The IS/MND’s cumulative impacts analysis violates CEQA by failing to take this context into account.
97 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, pg. 13, paragraph 49.
98 Id., Stipulation For Entry Of Final Judgment On Consent, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/20220414_docketCIVSB2121605-CIVSB2121829_stipulation.pdf. 99 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 41 (“There are a number of cumulative projects in the project area that have not yet been built or are currently under construction”). 100 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. PDF pg. 163-164.
101 Id. (The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
In addition to violating CEQA, the SCAQMD approach used in the IS/MND also directly conflicts with the recent Attorney General guidance document setting forth best practices for evaluating the environmental impacts of warehouse projects like this one under CEQA.102 With respect to cumulative air quality and GHG emissions analysis, the Attorney General’s guidance states that best practices include “[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold [emphasis added].”103 The IS/MND also fails to note that SCAQMD’s cumulative impacts significance thresholds, adopted in 2003, are being revised to reflect current conditions.104 The updates are statedly being prepared in response to recent CEQA cases such as People of the State of California v. City of Fontana.105 The updated cumulative impacts significance thresholds will reflect projects’ existing background MATES cancer risk and additional criteria such as whether the project would generate a high volume of diesel-fueled trucks.106
In sum, the IS/MND’s cumulative air quality impacts analysis does not comply with CEQA. The City must prepare an EIR that properly evaluates and mitigates such impacts.
C. The IS/MND Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
The IS/MND does not include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project. The IS/MND concludes that operational energy impacts of the Project would be less than significant because the buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance 102 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf . 103 Id., pg. 7. 104 See e.g., http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-3_20230124.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 105 San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2121829; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) pg. 6 106 SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm4_20230602_final.pdf?sfvrsn=16; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting #5, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (March 20, 2024) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/documents/wgm-5-20240320-final.pdf?sfvrsn=20.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
with the State’s Title 24 guidelines and regulations.107 However, compliance with Title 24 regulations alone does not support a conclusion that energy impacts are less than significant, and the IS/MND does not sufficiently consider energy conservation measures like solar facilities, use of alternate fuel sources, or passive energy efficiency measures to ensure the Project’s energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. This lack of analysis violates CEQA.
CEQA requires an environmental document to discuss mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts, including “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.”108 The CEQA Guidelines require discussion of energy conservation measures when relevant, and provide examples in Appendix F:109
1) Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. 2) The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste.
3) The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
4) Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5) Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
Courts have rejected CEQA documents that fail to include adequate analysis investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for a project.110 In California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”),111 the Court of Appeal reviewed an EIR for a shopping center on undeveloped agricultural land. Similar to the IS/MND here, the EIR in CCEC concluded that, due to the proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 guidelines and regulations, the project would be expected to have a less-thansignificant impact regarding the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. But the lead agency’s EIR did not include discussion regarding the different renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project. The Court held “the City's EIRs failed to comply with the requirements of 107 IS/MND, pg. 50.
108 Pub. Resources Code, § 21100(b)(3); Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 930. 109 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”). 110 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256; Spring Valley Lake Ass’n v.
City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91. 111 (2014) 225 CA4th 173.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Appendix F to the Guidelines by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.”112 The lead agency argued that compliance with the Building Code sufficed to address energy impact concerns for the project.113 But the Court explained:
Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of a new commercial construction, it does not address many of the considerations required under Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines… These considerations include whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope. Here, a requirement that Gateway II comply with the Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of the project.114
The Supreme Court of California agreed with the CCEC court’s decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer, holding that even projects that find a less-than-significant energy impact must “discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project.”115 In Save Lake Tahoe, the Court considered an EIR for a land use specific plan and rezoning to permit residential and commercial development and preserve forest land near Truckee and Lake Tahoe. The EIR did not consider whether it was feasible to power the project on 100 percent renewable electrical energy or some lesser percentage, nor evaluate strategies for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, increasing reliance on renewable resources, reducing peak loads, and reducing the impacts of relying on remote generation facilities. The lead agency reasoned that this analysis was not required because energy impacts would be less than significant. Citing CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, subdivision (b) and the decision in CCEC, the Court held that when an EIR analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project. The Court found that the EIR violated CEQA for not discussing whether the project could increase its reliance on renewable energy sources to meet its energy demand.
Here, the IS/MND lacks basic analysis of energy consumption measures in violation of CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The IS/MND fails to analyze the feasibility of onsite solar facilities, such as rooftop, parking lot, or ground-level solar 112 Id. at 213.
113 Id. at 210, 211. 114 CECC (2014) 225 CA4th 173, 213. 115 (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167–68.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
photovoltaics. This analysis must address considerations such as the technical and economic feasibility of installing solar facilities on the Project site, the potential size of the Project’s solar zone, and the potential magnitude of mitigation provided by installing solar facilities.
The IS/MND also fails to evaluate the extent to which mobile source energy consumption could be reduced during Project operations through electric vehicle charging infrastructure (above what is required by existing regulations).
The IS/MND’s discussion of construction energy conservation measures also violates CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The IS/MND fails to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
In sum, the IS/MND’s energy analysis fails adequately analyze measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, and fails to meaningfully address Appendix F’s considerations of whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope.116 This analysis must be provided in an EIR.
D. The IS/MND Fails to Fully Mitigate the Project’s Significant VMT Impact
The IS/MND states that the Project is anticipated to generate 16.4 (actually
16.5)117 VMT per worker, which exceeds the City-established threshold of 15.83 VMT per worker.118 The IS/MND states that MM TRANS-1 would reduce the Project’s VMT impact to a less than significant level (i.e., 15.80 VMT per worker).119 MM TRANS-1 calls for implementation of a Commute Trip Reduction Program (which is measure T-5 in the CAPCOA Handbook).120
116 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256, 264. 117 Mr. Marshall explained that IS/MND Appendix F correctly shows that the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool shows that the project would result in 16.5 VMT per worker per day, but the number is incorrectly reported as 16.4 VMT per worker per day in the body of the MND. Marshall Comments, pg. 1.
118 IS/MND, pg. 104.
119 Id.
120 CAPCOA) publication Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (Final Draft, December 2021).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Mr. Marshall explains that this measure would not reduce VMT impacts to a less-than-significant level.121 The CAPCOA Handbook states that Measure (T-5) can reduce employee commute VMT by up to 4.0%. However, the IS/MND’s reliance on the maximum 4.0% reduction is unsupported because Measure (T-5) would not apply to Project workers during night shifts, resulting in lower reductions.122 Moreover, even assuming the maximum reduction, Mr. Marshall shows that a 4.0% reduction reduces VMT to 15.84 per worker per day, which still exceeds the threshold value of 15.8.123 Therefore, VMT remains significant and unmitigated.
Additional mitigation must be proposed in an EIR to reduce the Project’s VMT to less than significant levels.
E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate
Potentially Significant Noise Impacts
1. The IS/MND’s Noise Significance Thresholds Are
Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the Project would cause a significant noise impact if it would result in “[g]eneration of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.”124 The IS/MND violates this requirement by failing to correctly apply the noise standards in the municipal code.
The IS/MND states that “[c]onstruction noise is regulated within City of South El Monte Municipal Code Section 8.20.030(D).”125 Section 8.20.030(D) prohibits nighttime operation of construction equipment resulting in noise disturbances.126 The IS/MND incorrectly states that this is the only limitation applicable to construction noise, but Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code sets forth standards applying to all sources of noise:
121 Marshall Comments, pg. 4. 122 Id. 123 Id. 124 IS/MND, pg. 25. 125 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 29. 126 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 16 (“No person shall operate or cause or authorize the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across the real property line of an adjacent or nearby property developed entirely or partially for residential use.”)
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased or occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
b. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus five dbA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
c. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus ten dbA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
d. The exterior noise limit plus fifteen dbA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus twenty dbA for any period of time.
The IS/MND states that these noise limits only apply to stationary noise,127 but this interpretation conflicts with the plain language of the code. Section
8.20.020 does not include language limiting its provisions to stationary noise, and Section 8.20.030(D) does not contain language stating that it is the only limit on construction noise. The code is properly read as imposing a prohibition on nighttime construction resulting in noise disturbances, as well as imposing limits on noise generated by daytime construction activities. Because the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s construction noise impacts to the thresholds in Section 8.20.020, the IS/MND fails evaluate whether noise would exceed standards established in the local noise ordinance, as required by the CEQA Guidelines.
The IS/MND’s reliance on Section 8.20.030 as a significant threshold also fails to meet CEQA’s requirement that lead agencies analyze the increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project.”128 California courts have clearly held that “the lead agency should consider both the increase in noise level and the absolute noise level associated with a project”.129 The courts have held that reliance 127 Appendix E, pg. 30 (“[a]s shown above, the project is exempt from the stationary noise ordinance standards presented in Tables 5 and 6 as long as it is in compliance with the hours outlined in Section 83.20.030(D).”).
128 Id., Appendix E, pg. 30; Section 8.20.030(D).
129 Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 733; see King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 894 (citing Keep Our Mountains Quiet).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
on a maximum noise level as the sole threshold of significance for noise impacts violates CEQA because it fails to consider whether the magnitude of changes in noise levels is significant.130 In Keep our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara,131 neighbors of a wedding venue sued over the County of Santa Clara’s failure to prepare an EIR for a proposed project to allow use permits for wedding and other party events at a residential property abutting an open space preserve.
Neighbors and their noise expert contended that previous events at the facility had caused significant noise impacts that reverberated in neighbors’ homes and disrupted the use and enjoyment of their property.132 Similar to the City’s thresholds in this case, the County’s EIR relied on the noise standards set forth in its noise ordinance as its thresholds for significant noise exposure from the project, deeming any increase to be insignificant so long as the absolute noise level did not exceed those standards.133 The Court examined a long line of CEQA cases which have uniformly held that conformity with land use regulations is not conclusive of whether or not a project has significant noise impacts134 in holding that the County’s reliance on the project’s compliance with noise regulations did not constitute substantial evidence supporting the County’s finding of no significant impacts.135
In King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern,136 the Court of Appeal cited Keep our Mountains Quiet and decisions cited therein when it rejected the use of a single “absolute noise level” threshold of significance (construction and operational noise impacts were only deemed significant if they exceeded 65 dBA CNEL) on the grounds that the sole use of such a threshold fails to consider the magnitude or severity of increases in noise levels attributable to the project in different environments. The Court explained the lead agency failed to “refer to evidence showing why the magnitude of an increase was irrelevant in determining the significance of a change in noise.”137
130 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC, 45 Cal.App.5th at 865.
131 Keep our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714. 132 Id. at 724.
133 Id. at 732.
134 Id., citing Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1338; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881–882; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1416 (project’s effects can be significant even if “they are not greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan”); Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354, (“CEQA nowhere calls for evaluation of the impacts of a proposed project on an existing general plan”).
135 Id. at 732-734; see also King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 893, as modified on denial of rehearing (Mar. 20, 2020). 136 King and Gardiner Farms, LLC, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 814. 137 Id. at 894.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Here, the IS/MND fails to meet CEQA’s requirement that the lead agency consider the increase in noise level. As in King and Gardiner Farms, the IS/MND fails to refer to any evidence showing why the increase in noise over ambient levels is irrelevant to establishing the significance of a noise impact. Per Keep our Mountains Quiet, conformity with the City’s noise ordinance and general plan is not conclusive of whether a project has significant noise impacts. An EIR must be prepared that applies legally adequate noise thresholds.
2. The Project’s Construction Noise Would Be Potentially Significant
The Project’s construction activities would generate noise in excess of standards in Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code, as well as result in a significant increase over ambient levels. In Table 12, shown below, the IS/MND applies the standards of Section 8.20.020 to the receptor land uses near the Project site.138
According to the table above, the daytime noise standard for the mobile home park (Receptor #4 in the table above) is 55 dBA. The table shows that the existing 138 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 36.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
ambient noise level is 54 dBA. Table 11 in Appendix E of the IS/MND shows the noise levels generated by the Project’s construction.139 As shown above, the noise levels generated by the Project’s construction would exceed the 55 dBA threshold for the mobile home park. These exceedances would occur during each phase of the Project’s construction. These exceedances of the standards in Section 8.20.020 are significant impacts requiring disclosure and mitigation in an EIR.
The noise levels shown in Table 11 would also result in a significant increase over ambient levels. The 54 dBA existing ambient would be exceeded by approximately 20 dBA during demolition, grading, and building construction, 14 dBA during paving, and 7 dBA during architectural coating. Increases of this magnitude would be significant impacts, as the FTA Manual states that “[o]n average, each A-weighted sound level increase of 10 dB corresponds to an 139 Id. at 35.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
approximate doubling of subjective loudness.”140 Further, Figure 3-6 of the FTA Manual presents data from case studies showing that reactions to increases in noise between 5 to 10 dBA above existing levels vary from “widespread complaints” to “threats of legal action.”141 Increases in noise of 20 dBA over existing levels typically results in “vigorous action.” An EIR must be prepared that acknowledges and mitigates this significant noise increase.
F. The Project May Result in Potentially Significant Public Utilities Impacts.
Under CEQA, a public utilities impact is considered significant if a project would “[r]equire or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.”142 The IS/MND states that no off-site water line construction or upsizing of either the existing 6-inch or 10-inch water mains in Rosemead Boulevard and Rush Street would be required to provide water or fire protection service to the Project.143 But this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because the IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s fire flow requirement or the ability of existing infrastructure to supply adequate fire flow.
Without an evaluation of these factors, this public utility impact remains unanalyzed and potentially significant.
III. CONCLUSION
The City lacks substantial evidence to find that the Project will have less than significant impacts. Moreover, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project’s impacts may be significant and unmitigated. Due to the IS/MND’s deficiencies, the City cannot conclude that the Project’s impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level.
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR be prepared if there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of 140 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pg. 206, available at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. 141 Id. at 18, Figure 3-6 (Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment) 142 IS/MND, pg. 50.
143 IS/MND, pg. 7, 112.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial.144 As discussed in detail above, there is a fair argument based on substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant adverse impacts not identified in the IS/MND.
We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA by withdrawing the IS/MND and preparing an EIR to address the issues raised in this preliminary comment letter. This is the only way the City and the public can ensure the Project’s significant environmental impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels.
Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachment
APM:acp
144 CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1).
EXHIBIT C
7554-006acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
agraf @adamsbroadwell.com
printed on recycled paper
November 18, 2024
VIA E-Mail and Overnight Mail
Planning Commission
c/o Renee Reyes
Community Development Department
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
[email protected]
VIA E-Mail Only
Guillermo Arreola, Director
[email protected]
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 7.c.: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project
Dear Commissioners, Ms. Reyes, Mr. Arreola, and Mr. Marquez:
We write on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) regarding Agenda Item No. 7.c., which concerns the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) (SCH No. 2024100046),1 a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 21-13) for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (“Project”) proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”).
The City of South El Monte (“City”) Community Development Department Staff (“Staff”) recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 24- 09, adopt the MND and MMRP, and approve the CUP for a new 156,877 square foot warehousing building.2 Staff’s recommendation is premature and unsupported by 1 City of South El Monte, 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Oct. 2024) (hereinafter “IS/MND”). 2 City of South El Monte, Planning Commission Agenda Report: Agenda Item No. 7.c. re: Approval of Resolution No. 24-09 (Nov. 19, 2024) (“Staff Report”) p. 5, available at
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the record because the City has not yet complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). CEQA requires the City to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) when there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that a project has potentially significant environmental or public health impacts that are not fully mitigated by a proposed MND, and where the MND does not contain the information required by law.
In this case, the IS/MND lacks information and analysis required by CEQA, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed Project will result in potentially significant impacts on public health, air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities which are not adequately disclosed and mitigated by the measures proposed in the IS/MND. The City consultant’s responses to CREED LA’s comments included in the Staff Report (“Responses”) ignore or fail to resolve most of these issues, and do not provide substantial evidence supporting Project approval.
Consequently, the Planning Commission cannot adopt the MND or approve the Project’s entitlements at this time.
In its Responses, the City asserts that the comments received on the IS/MND do not raise substantive environmental issues that would necessitate recirculation of the MND or preparation of an EIR.3 The City further claims that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND require no modifications based on public comments.4 These assertions lack merit and include precisely the type of disputes of fact that require preparation of an EIR under CEQA.
Under CEQA, any comments presenting a “fair argument” supported by substantial evidence, including facts or expert opinion, necessitate the preparation of an EIR, regardless of whether the City agrees with those comments.5 As https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/DocumentCenter/View/5872/11-19-24-Planning-CommissionRegular-Meeting-Agenda-PDF. 3 Id. at p. 5; see also Kimley Horn, Response to Comment Letter 2: Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Attorneys at Law (on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles [“CREED LA”]), October 30, 2024 (undated) (hereinafter “Kimley Horn Memorandum”); Memorandum to Dana Privitt, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. from Roma Stromberg, Ganddini Group, Inc. re: Response to Adams Broadwell Joseph &Cardozo Comment Letter Dated October 30, 2024, Regarding IS/MND Technical Studies for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) (Nov. 13, 2024) (hereinafter “Ganddini Memorandum”).
4 Ibid. 5 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (“Laurel Heights II”) (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
demonstrated in CREED LA’s preliminary comments on the IS/MND and detailed further below, the issues by CREED LA provide facts and expert evidence demonstrating that the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts that meet the fair argument standard.6
CREED LA respectfully urges the Planning Commission to continue this hearing and direct Staff to prepare an EIR for the Project before bringing the Project back for further consideration.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150- 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v.
City of Encinitas (“Quail Botanical”) (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601- 1602. 6 Letter to Guillermo Arreola, City of South El Monte from Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (Oct. 30, 2024) (hereinafter “CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments”).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
II. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY
APPROVE THE PROJECT
In most cases, CEQA mandates that lead agencies prepare an EIR for projects that could have significant environmental effects.7 The purpose of an EIR is to ensure that the public and decision-makers are fully informed about potential environmental consequences before decisions are made, thus promoting informed decision-making and protecting the environment.8
The “fair argument” standard underscores a preference for EIR preparation.
Under this standard, an EIR must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in the record indicating a fair argument that the project could significantly impact the environment.9 This standard sets a “low threshold” for triggering environmental review through an EIR, rather than through a mitigated negative declaration, which is only appropriate if all potentially significant effects of the project are avoided or reduced to insignificance.10
“Substantial evidence” under the fair argument standard means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”11 In cases where it’s uncertain whether substantial 7 Pub. Res. Code § 21000; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002. 8 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 9 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 1501-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.Appl.4th 1597, 1601-02.
10 Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b). 11 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
evidence exists regarding a project’s potential environmental effects, the lead agency must consider expert opinion and facts.12 If there is disagreement among experts about the significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency must treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR.13
Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may cause significant public health, air quality, GHG emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, and mitigates these impacts, while also exploring less environmentally damaging alternatives, before it can approve the Project.
A. The IS/MND Project Description Remains Inadequate
1. The City Fails to Acknowledge or Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable High Intensity Warehouse Uses
CREED LA provided substantial evidence, supported by expert opinion, demonstrating that higher intensity warehouse uses, including high-cube warehouse operations, are reasonably foreseeable uses at the Project site under the proposed CUP.14 In response, the City claims, without supporting evidence, that high-cube warehouse uses are not applicable to the proposed Project simply because it is less than 200,000 square feet in size.15 This assertion ignores CREED LA’s comments, which described the range of feasible high-intensity warehouse uses at the Project site.
The Project’s operational characteristics and the severity of its environmental and public health impacts are not determined solely by size but by allowable uses.
In the absence of binding restrictions – such as conditions of approval, a covenant on the title of the underlying property, or mitigation measures – which prohibit future high intensity retail, warehouse (and cold storage uses, as discussed below) at the Project site, there is no evidence supporting the City’s assertion that these activities would not occur.
The City has a duty under CEQA to analyze the impacts of all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project site.16 High-cube warehouses are defined by their 12 Id. § 15064(g).
13 Ibid. 14 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 4-6. There is nothing in the General Plan or Municipal Code prohibiting high intensity or cold storage warehouse uses under the proposed CUP. 15 Ganddini Memorandum at pp. 1-2. 16 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
function, such as the storage and distribution of goods, often involving high levels of truck traffic, energy consumption, and GHG emissions. These characteristics can apply to warehouses smaller than 200,000 square feet, particularly if the facility is designed or intended to support logistics operations requiring frequent truck trips or intensive energy use. By focusing solely on square footage, the IS/MND failed to analyze the Project’s impacts resulting from potential operation as a higher intensity warehouse. This oversight results in inadequate disclosure and mitigation of the Project’s potential environmental impacts.
The City’s unsupported dismissal of higher intensity uses is inconsistent with the allowable uses under the Project’s proposed CUP, which do not restrict the type of warehouse operations that can occur at the Project site. CEQA’s mandate is to analyze all reasonably foreseeable impacts of a Project. Given the feasibility of high intensity use at the Project site, and the substantial evidence in the record from CREED LA and its experts demonstrating that the impacts from high intensity use would be significant and unmitigated, the City’s decision to ignore these uses is unsupported and contrary to law. There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may operate in a manner consistent with high-cube warehouse uses. An EIR is required to fully evaluate and mitigate these potentially significant impacts.
2. The City Fails to Describe and Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable Cold Storage Warehouse Use
CREED LA provided substantial evidence, supported by expert opinion, demonstrating that cold storage warehouse uses are reasonably foreseeable for the proposed Project and would result in significant, unmitigated impacts.17 In response, the City asserts that the Project can be conditioned to prohibit cold storage.18 However, this claim is misleading, as none of the Project’s proposed conditions of approval explicitly prohibit cold storage.19 Without an enforceable condition prohibiting this use, there is no guarantee that cold storage operations – which could significantly increase energy consumption, GHG emissions, and other environmental impacts – will not occur as part of the Project. 17 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 5-8. 18 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 2. 19 See Staff Report, attach. A (Draft Resolution No. 24-09: A Resolution of the South El Monte Planning Commission Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Prepared in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; Approving Conditional Use Permit 21-13 to Allow for the Development of a New Approximately 156,877 Square Foot Warehouse Building Located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard) (hereinafter “Draft Resolution No. 24-09”).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Under CEQA, a mitigation measure or condition of approval must be enforceable and clearly articulated to ensure that environmental impacts are adequately mitigated.20 The Attorney General also recommends that, if an agency intends to prohibit cold storage at warehouse projects, the project must either adopt mitigation measures limiting cold storage impacts or record a covenant on the title of the underlying property to ensure that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.21 No such mitigation or land use covenants are included in the IS/MND or Responses.
The absence of a specific and enforceable prohibition against cold storage renders the City’s response insufficient and undermines the credibility of the environmental review process. The potential for unmitigated impacts from cold storage operations further supports the need for a full EIR to analyze and disclose these potential impacts comprehensively.
B. The City Fails to Analyze Public Health Impacts Associated with Exposure to the Project’s Emissions
CREED LA commented that the IS/MND failed to analyze public health impacts associated with toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), particularly diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), generated during Project construction and operation on nearby sensitive receptors, including residents of a mobile home park directly south of the Project site.22 In response to comments, the City claims that it is not required to perform a quantitative health risk analysis (“HRA”), arguing that is a recommendation rather than a mandate by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), or the City itself.23 In addition, the City asserts the SCAQMD did not request a construction or operational HRA.24 However, these arguments overlook CEQA’s core requirement to fully disclose and analyze significant environmental impacts, including those related to public health.25 The California Supreme Court 20 Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2). 21 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 9, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf (“Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.”). 22 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 14-19. 23 Ganddini Memorandum at pp. 2-3. 24 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 3. 25 CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4); Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
has interpreted this requirement to include a specific duty to disclose the health effects posed by exposure to a project’s air emissions.26 While preparation of an HRA may not be explicitly mandated by OEHHA or SCAQMD, CEQA requires that lead agencies evaluate whether a project has the potential for significant impacts, including health risks from exposure to TACs and DPM generated during construction and operation of the Project. To comply with CEQA, the City must assess whether exposure to the Project’s TACs/DPM emissions would result in exceedances of appliable health-based CEQA significance thresholds. Here, the SCAQMD significance thresholds for TAC exposure include:
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment).27 A quantitative HRA is a standard methodology for assessing these risks and ensuring compliance with CEQA’s requirement for a good-faith, evidence-based environmental analysis. The City failed to perform this analysis in the IS/MND.
The City’s reliance on SCQAMD’s lack of a project-specific request for an HRA is a red herring. CEQA does not allow the lead agency to delegate its responsibility for a comprehensive environmental review to other entities.28 The City must independently evaluate the Project’s health risks based on substantial evidence in the record.29 By declining to perform an HRA, the City fails to provide the quantitative analysis necessary to compare exposure to Project emissions to applicable significance thresholds, or to assess whether additional mitigation measures are required to reduce those impacts.
The City also improperly relies on SCAQMD’s localized significant thresholds (“LSTs”).30 LSTs are designed to prevent exceedances of federal or state air quality 26 Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522. 27 See South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.aqmd.gov/docs /default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D25&ved=2ahUKEwj_2MnOOaJAxWaMzQIHRAJNiwQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07n1OZu8Nvvtfq0AnstLMG (last visited Nov. 18, 2024).
28 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308. 29 Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a). 30 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 3.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
standards, not to assess the health risks of TACs such as DPM.31 Unlike criteria pollutants with established ambient air quality standards, DPM has no known safe exposure threshold. Therefore, the use of LSTs as a proxy for DPM impacts is not only scientifically inappropriate but also legally insufficient under CEQA.
Finally, public health impacts are often cumulative in nature, particularly in areas already burdened by poor air quality or high concentrations of diesel emissions. Indeed, the CalEnviroScreen scores for the Project’s census tract are in the 78th percentile for particulate matter and the 92nd percentile for DPM.32 Without an HRA, the City cannot adequately assess the cumulative health risks posed by this Project in conjunction with other existing and planned developments in the area. This failure leaves a critical gap in the environmental review, undermining the validity of the IS/MND.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that includes a comprehensive HRA. This analysis is essential for disclosing the Project’s potential health impacts, evaluating cumulative risks, and identifying feasible mitigation measures to protect public health.
C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument the Project Would Result in Significant Noise Impacts
1. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support the Construction Noise Significance Threshold
The City’s reliance on an 80 dBA Leq threshold for construction noise, as derived from the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”), is inappropriate and constitutes a misapplication of the manual’s guidance.33 The FTA Manual emphasizes that construction noise impact assessments should consider several contextual factors, including existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels anticipated during construction activities, the duration and timing of construction, and the sensitivity of adjacent land uses.34 By adopting a blanket 80 dBA Leq threshold without 31 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (July 2008), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 32 IS/MND, appen. E, PDF pp. 163-64. 33 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 7.
34 Attachment A, Letter to Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo from Neil P.
Shaw, Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc. re: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Acoustic Review (Nov. 15, 2024) pp. 2-3 (hereinafter “Shaw Comments”).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
accounting for these critical factors, the City fails to ensure that its analysis reflects site-specific conditions and potential impacts as required under CEQA.
The FTA Manual does not prescribe the use of an 80 dBA Leq as a universal standard but instead recommends tailoring the threshold to the specific circumstances of a project.35 CEQA similarly requires agencies to evaluate noise impacts in context, considering the significance of an impact in relation to the environment’s baseline conditions and the characteristics of the affected receptors.36 The City’s rigid application of the FTA Manual’s threshold without such contextual considerations undermines the adequacy of the noise analysis and fails to comply with CEQA’s mandate for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
Furthermore, when contextual factors are appropriately considered, it is evident that the 80 dBA Leq threshold is inapplicable. As CREED LA’s acoustical expert Neil Shaw explains, residential mobile trailers do not fall within Land Use Category 3, which is defined by the FTA Manual as a land use category subject to severe noise impact thresholds.37 Residential mobile trailers are more acoustically sensitive and align more closely with Land Use Categories 1 and 2, which are afforded stricter noise thresholds under the FTA Manual.38 These categories impose absolute limits of 65 dBA for moderate impact and 70 dBA for severe impact, reflecting the need for greater noise protection for sensitive receptors.39 The City’s application of an 80 dBA Leq threshold fails to account for this critical distinction, effectively misclassifying residential mobile trailers under a land use category with inapplicable thresholds. This oversight not only disregards the heightened sensitivity of residential receptors, but also demonstrates a broader failure to align the noise analysis with the FTA Manual’s guidance. By neglecting to apply the appropriate thresholds for more acoustically sensitive land uses, the City’s analysis underestimates the potential noise impacts of construction activities, resulting in unsupported significance conclusions and further undermining compliance with CEQA’s requirements for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
35 Id. at pp. 2-3.
36 Pub. Res. Code § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15360, appen. G; King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v.
County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 884.
37 Shaw Comments at p. 3. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
2. The Project’s Construction Noise Is Significant and Unmitigated CREED LA’s preliminary comments and Mr. Shaw’s expert opinion demonstrate that the Project’s construction noise would exceed the applicable daytime noise standards in Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code, causing significant impacts that require mitigation.40 These comments highlight that the construction noise levels would exceed the 55 dBA daytime standards set forth in Section 8.20.020 for the mobile homes located south of the Project site.41 Specifically, Table 11 of Appendix E shows that construction noise impacts at the mobile homes would reach 74 dBA Leq during demolition, grading, and building construction, 68 dBA Leq during paving, and 61.2 dBA Leq during architectural coating, constituting a significant impact under CEQA.42 In addition to violating the quantitative standards, Mr. Shaw’s comments demonstrate that the Project’s construction activities would also violate Section
8.20.010’s qualitative standards for “intrusive noise” causing a “noise disturbance.”43 “Intrusive noise” is defined as “noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location.”44 “Noise disturbance” is defined as “any sound which (i) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (ii) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (iii) endangers or injures personal or real property or (iv) violates the limits set forth in Section 8.20.020.”45
The Project’s noise levels exceed ambient noise levels at the mobile homes by wide margins, qualifying as “intrusive noise” under the Municipal Code.46 These noise levels also constitute a “noise disturbance” because, as illustrated in Figure 3 of Appendix E,47 they are equivalent to a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet.48 Such levels would undoubtedly annoy or disturb reasonable people of normal sensitivity.49 40 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 30-32; Shaw Comments at pp. 4-5. 41 Ibid. 42 IS/MND, appen. E, p. 35; CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 30-32; Shaw Comments at pp. 4-5; Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (exceedance of established significance threshold is a significant impact); Endangered Habitats League v. Orange (2005) 131 CA4th 777, 783-4; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7. 43 Shaw Comments at pp. 4-6. 44 Municipal Code § 8.20.010(E). 45 Municipal Code § 8.20.010 (emphasis added).
46 Shaw Comments at p. 5. 47 IS/MND, appen. E at p. 7. 48 Shaw Comments at pp. 5-6. 49 Ibid.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
CREED LA’s preliminary comments cite Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) data showing that noise increases of 5 to 10 dBA typically result in “widespread complaints,” and 10 dBA or more can provoke “threats of legal action.”50 The Project’s construction noise, which exceeds ambient noise by as much as 20 dBA,51 clearly supports a fair argument that the Project will result in significant noise impacts requiring analysis in an EIR.
Substantial evidence, including expert comments, demonstrates that the Project’s construction noise would exceed both quantitative and qualitative noise thresholds, causing significant impacts under CEQA. These impacts must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. Without such analysis, the IS/MND is deficient and does not provide the Commission with substantial evidence to support approval findings.
3. The IS/MND Fails to Adopt Enforceable Construction Noise Mitigation Measures
In response to comments, the City asserts that certain best management practices (“BMPs”) would be adopted as conditions of approval to reduce construction noise impacts.52 However, none of these BMPs are explicitly included in the conditions of approval or referenced in a manner that ensures their enforceability.53
Under CEQA, mitigation measures must be specific, enforceable, and committed to by the lead agency.54 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2) states that mitigation measures “must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.” BMPs that are vaguely described or omitted entirely from the conditions of approval fail to meet this requirement.
The City’s failure to incorporate the promised BMPs into the conditions of approval creates a significant gap in the environmental review process. Without enforceable conditions: (1) there is no assurance that the BMPs will be implemented during the Project’s construction, (2) the purported benefits of these BMPs in reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts cannot be credited in the 50 CREED LA Preliminary Comments, pg. 32-33; Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pg. 18, Figure 3-6 (Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment) 51 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 31-32; Shaw Comments at p. 5. 52 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 8. 53 See Draft Resolution No. 24-09.
54 Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental analysis, and (3) the omission undermines the credibility of the City’s claim that potential impacts have been adequately mitigated.
This omission is not merely procedural but has substantive implications for the adequacy of the IS/MND under CEQA. Without enforceable commitments to implement the BMPs, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in significant environmental impacts that have not bene mitigated to a less than significant level. Courts have consistently held that vague or unenforceable mitigation measures cannot support the finding of less than significant impacts.55
The City’s reliance on unenforceable BMPs to mitigate potentially significant impacts is a clear violation of CEQA. An EIR must be prepared to fully analyze the Project’s impacts and include enforceable mitigation measures to address them.
4. The IS/MND Underestimates Operational Noise Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze noise impacts generated by truck operations on the Projects site, including noise from driving, backing up, and idling.
Although the IS/MND evaluates roadway noise and loading/unloading activities, it omits critical on-site noise sources associated with operational truck movements.56 This omission is particularly significant given the Project’s proximity to sensitive receptors, such as the residences immediately south of the property line, where noise from truck operations could exceed thresholds of significance and cause substantial impacts.
Studies by the California Air Resources Board highlight the severity of these potential impacts. Diesel trucks at idle generate noise levels of approximately 96 dBA, while diesel-powered TRUs operating at high idle produce 104 dBA.57 Trucks accessing the loading docks via the southern driveway would expose nearby residences to these elevated noise levels. Without analysis or mitigation of these impacts, the IS/MND fails to disclose potentially significance noise effects as required under CEQA.
In addition, the IS/MND’s discussion of loading/unloading noise is inconsistent and underestimates impacts. While the Appendix E claims to rely on a 55 Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261. 56 Shaw Comments at p. 7.
57 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Technology Assessment: Non-Truck Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) (Oct. 2022) pp. 17-18, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 10/CARB%202022%20TRU%20Technology%20Assessment%2010-14-22.pdf.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
70 dBA Leq reference level for these activities, the included SoundPLAN worksheet instead shows a 65 dBA reference level.58 This discrepancy undermines the validity of the IS/MND’s findings. Even if the 70 dBA reference level were used consistently, it still significantly underestimates potential impacts, given that truck idling noise levels range from 96 to 104 dBA. The failure to account for these higher, more realistic noise levels renders the IS/MND’s conclusion that operational noise impacts are less than significance unsupported.
By omitting on-site truck noise from its analysis and underestimating loading/unloading noise impacts, the IS/MND fails to meet CEQA’s requirement to disclose and evaluate all potentially significance environmental impacts. Given the proximity of sensitive receptors and the likelihood of noise levels significantly exceeding ambient thresholds, the Project could result in unmitigated significant noise impacts.
An EIR must be prepared to provide a comprehensive analysis of operational noise impacts from all on-site truck activities, including idling, driving, and backing up. Additionally, the EIR should identify and implement feasible mitigation measures, such as operational restrictions, noise barriers, or buffer zones, to ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Without this analysis and mitigation, the IS/MND does not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for transparency and impact reduction.
5. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Lacks Substantial Evidence
The IS/MND claims that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the Project site would reduce operational noise impacts to less than significant.59 However, this conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence due to significant inconsistencies in the analysis and description of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) NOI-1.
Mr. Shaw identifies numerous inconsistencies in the IS/MND and Appendix E regarding the proposed barrier wall height.60 These discrepancies create confusion and prevent meaningful analysis of whether the proposed mitigation is adequate to reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Critically, there is no evidence in the record to confirm that a 10-foot wall would provide sufficient noise reduction.61 Without clarity on the height and configuration of the proposed 58 Shaw Comments at p. 7.
59 IS/MND at pp. 91, 97.
60 Shaw Comments at pp. 7-8.
61 Id. at p. 8.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
barrier, the City cannot demonstrate that the Project’s significant operational noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
The noise analysis in Appendix E fails to clarify which barrier height – 10 feet or 14 feet – was used in its calculations.62 This lack of transparency undermines the reliability of Table 14, which purports to show mitigated daytime noise levels, and Table 15, which purports to show nighttime noise levels.63 If the analysis relied on a 14-foot barrier, but the IS/MND ultimately proposes a 10-foot barrier, the mitigation is demonstrably insufficient.
Additionally, Figure 7 in Appendix E reflects operational noise levels mitigated by a 14-foot barrier, further casting doubt on whether a 10-foot barrier would meet stationary noise standards.64 The City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that a 10-foot barrier is adequate to mitigate the Project’s significant operational noise impacts.
Even assuming a 14-foot barrier, Mr. Shaw identifies critical design flaws in MM NOI-1 that would render the mitigation inadequate. Specifically, the proposed wall does not account for flanking, a phenomenon where sound travels around the edges of a barrier.65 To address flanking, Mr. Shaw recommends extending the barrier northward by at least 30 feet at the east and west ends of the southern property line.66 This configuration would help block sound from bypassing the wall and reduce noise impacts to sensitive receptors.67 Simply specifying the height of the wall is insufficient to ensure the noise reduction estimates in Appendix E are achieved.68
The failure to resolve inconsistencies regarding the barrier’s height and to account for critical design flaws violates CEQA’s requirement for substantial evidence and enforceable mitigation measures.69 Without a clear, accurate, and enforceable noise mitigation plan, the IS/MND cannot support its conclusion that operational noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR to (1) resolve the inconsistencies regarding the barrier height, (2) re-evaluate the Project’s 62 Id. at pp. 7-8.
63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Id. at p. 8.
66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
operational noise impacts based on realistic and enforceable mitigation measures, and (3) address flanking and other design flaws to ensure the mitigation measures are effective.
D. Substantial Evidence Demonstrates that Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures Are Insufficient to Reduce the Impact to a Less than Significant Level
CREED LA commented that MM TRANS-1 fails to mitigate the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts to less than significant levels.70 This failure is due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction and the fact that, even with the maximum assumed reduction, the Project’s VMT exceeds the threshold of significance.71 The City’s response to comments does not resolve these deficiencies.
The City asserts that the maximum assumed VMT reduction is appropriate because MM TRANS-1 includes components that are applicable to 100% of employees.72 However, broad applicability does not inherently ensure that the measure will achieve the claimed reductions. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating their feasibility and actual effectiveness.73 The City’s response fails to provide any evidence that 100% applicability translates to achieving the assumed VMT reduction. Without such data, studies, or other substantial evidence to validate the effectiveness of MM TRANS-1, the mitigation measure remains speculative and legally inadequate.
The City also argues that calculating the VMT values to two decimal points introduces an inappropriate level of precision by adding a significant digit.74 This argument is misplaced. Accurate and precise calculations are essential to properly evaluate whether the Project complies with the threshold of significance, particularly in cases where small variances could determine whether impacts are deemed significant. By dismissing the importance of precision, the City fails to substantively address CREED LA’s concern that VMT impacts remain above the threshold, even under the maximum reduction assumptions.
In sum, MM TRANS-1 fails to adequately mitigate the Project’s significant VMT impacts to less than significant levels, as required by CEQA. The lack of 70 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 26-27. 71 Id. at p. 27. 72 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 6. 73 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 866. 74 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 7.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction, combined with the Project’s exceedance of the significance threshold, demonstrates the inadequacy of the mitigation measure. Furthermore, the City’s responses to comments do not resolve these deficiencies. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that provides substantial evidence supporting the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures, identifies and evaluates additional feasible measures to reduce VMT impacts to less-than-significant levels, and ensures transparent and precise VMT calculations to accurately assess compliance with thresholds of significance.
E. The City Fails to Analyze Fire Flow Requirements and Public Utility Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze potentially significant public utility impacts related to fire flow requirements.75 Fire flow requirements, which refer to the volume and pressure needed to combat fires, are critical for public safety and ensuring that existing infrastructure can accommodate the increased demands of new development.
In response to CREED LA’s comment, the City attempts to defer the evaluation of fire flow requirements and infrastructure capacity to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (“LACFD”) Fire Prevention Division’s site review.76 However, deferring this analysis is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement that the environmental review document provide sufficient analysis to determine whether a project may result in significant impacts, including impacts on public utilities and infrastructure.77 Deferral to another agency’s technical review process fails to meet CEQA’s requirement for a transparent and comprehensive analysis of environmental consequences.
Moreover, while LACFD is responsible for ensuring compliance with fire safety codes, its review is limited to regulatory and technical standards. LACFD’s process does not encompass the broader environmental evaluation required by CEQA, such as analyzing whether the Project may overburden water supply systems or create cumulative impacts. Courts have consistently held that deferring environmental review to a later stage or another agency violates CEQA.78 75 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at p. 32. 76 Kimley Horn Memorandum at pp. 4-5. 77 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063, 15070. 78 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
By failing to analyze the Project’s fire flow requirements or the infrastructure’s capacity to supply adequate fire flow, the IS/MND omits a crucial aspect of environmental review. To ensure compliance with CEQA and adequately address these concerns, the City must prepare an EIR that thoroughly evaluates, discloses and mitigates potential public utility impacts.
III. CONCLUSION
The City cannot approve the proposed Project without first addressing the numerous deficiencies in the IS/MND identified by CREED LA and members of the public. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare a legally adequate EIR that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, and mitigates all potentially significant impacts.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Graf
Attachment
AJG:acp
ATTACHMENT A
POT OFFICE BOX1610, TOPANGA, CALIFORNIA 90290 TEL: 310-455-2221 MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
Consultants in Acoustics and Communication Technologies 15 November 2024
Mr. Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Acoustic Review
Dear Mr. Marshall,
Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc., reviewed the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a (MND), Appendix E Noise Impact Analysisb, and the City of South El Monte Municipal Codec (MC) in regards to the subject project, concerning the proposed development in the City of South El Monte of an approximately 156,877-sf concrete tilt-up warehouse with 13 dock doors. Sensitive receptors near the project site include a mobile home park located directly to the south of the proposed project. This report addresses deficiencies in the MND’s analysis of impacts on the mobile home park during both the construction and operational phase.
Our review of these documents finds the following items of concern that call into question the findings contained in Appendix E and thus the findings in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of no significant impact.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
1) It is unclear whether a nighttime prohibition on truck movement is part of the unmitigated Project Description.
The IS/MND states that all on-site truck movement and loading and unloading activities at the proposed loading docks, which are located behind electronic gates, would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.d Appendix E MM NOI-1 states: “Install a 14-foothigh concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site as shown in Figure 7.” Yet MND MM NOI-1 states “…(1) require the installation of a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site; or (2) prohibit a Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. b Prepared by Ganddini Group Inc. c http://southelmonte-ca.elaws.us/code/coor_title8
d IS/MND, page 6 (“As previously noted, the gates would be closed between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.”).
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 2 truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.” Italics and bold for “or” added. Due to this inconsistency, it is unclear whether a nighttime prohibition on truck movement is part of the unmitigated project. 2) The 80 dBA Construction Noise Threshold Is Inapplicable to the Project Appendix E, Noise Impact Analysis, states that the project’s construction noise has been analyzed using a maximum noise threshold contained in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”).e Appendix E, on page 30, says “Based on the FTA criteria, project construction noise would be considered significant if it exceeds 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period at residential and noise-sensitive outdoor areas.” Appendix E concludes that since the calculated impacts would be below 80 dBA, and so the calculated impacts would be less than significant.
However, this threshold is inapplicable to the subject project.
The FTA Manual prefaces its discussion of construction noise thresholds by cautioning that “criteria must be developed on a project-specific basis,” and that “it is not the purpose of this manual to specify standardized criteria for construction noise impact.”f The FTA Manual also cautions, “Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use.”g The MND misapplies the FTA Manual’s guidance because it has not set a construction noise significance threshold with consideration of any of these factors. Careful application of recommendations in the FTA Manual demonstrates that a lower maximum noise threshold is appropriate for this Project and the nearby receptors.
The FTA manual section 4.1 Determine Noise Impact Criteria, starting on page 20, states “This section describes the procedure for determining the appropriate criteria for assessing project noise impact based on the type of project and project noise source.” Step I: Identify Project Type, on page 21, provides three types of projects:
Option A: Transit Project Only, Option B: Multimodal Project (Transit and Highway Noise), and Option C: Other Multimodal Projects.
The subject project does not include new transit rail and similar sources (Option A), does not include transit and highway sources (Option B), and does not include, on page 23, “components from other modes.”
e Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. f FTA Manual, pg. 179.
g Id.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 3 The manual then discusses Land Use Categories, on page 23, in Table 4-3, Table 4-3 Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria. The table presets the land use category, land use type, the noise metric (dBA), and a description of land use category.
Land Use Category 2 in Table 4-3 is “Residential”, the noise metric is “Outdoor Ldn,” and the description is “This category is applicable all residential land use and buildings where people normally sleep, such as hotels and hospitals.”
FTA manual Appendix C: Background for Transit Noise Impact Criteria, in section C.3: Equations for Noise Impact Criteria Curves, on page 220, states “For land use category 1 and 2, the absolute limit is 65 dBA for moderate impact and 70 dBA for severe impact. For land use category 3, the absolute limit is 75 dBA for moderate impact and 80 dBA for severe impact.”
The residential mobile trailers are not in Land Use Category 3 with a severe impact.
The 80 dBA criteria used in the MND is inapplicable to the project as:
1) The project is not a transit project.
2) The project is not in Land Use Category Type 3, Institutional, per Table 4-3. 3) The project is in Land Use Category 2, Residential, per Table 4-3. 4) The calculated levels in the MND exceed the criteria in the South El Monte MC.
Now, Leq(t) is described in the FTA manual in section B.I.4.4, on page 210, the Equivalent Sound Level, and is described in the manual as follows:
“The metric for cumulative noise exposure over a specific time interval is the equivalent sound level. It is a single decibel value that accounts for total sound energy from all sound levels over a specified time interval (or time period). The time period associated with the equivalent sound level metric can vary for different types of analyses. This metric is abbreviated as Leq(t), where “t” is the duration of the time period. Leq(t) represents a hypothetical constant sound level and contains the same overall sound energy as the actual varying sound energy during the time period “t”. For most transit noise analyses, an A-weighted, hourly equivalent sound level is used, abbreviated here as Leq(1hr). Leq(1hr) is expressed in the unit, dBA.”
Figure B-9, Typical Hourly Leq(1 Hr)’s, in the FTA manual, notes for non-transit sources, 80 dBA is the Hourly Noise Level (HNL) for an 8-Lane Highway – see figure below.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 4 Figure B-9 - Typical Hourly Leq(1 Hr)’s
3) Noise Impacts Below 80 dBA Would Exceed South El Monte Municipal Code Standards, Resulting in Significant Impacts on Residents MC Section 8.20.020 A, Exterior Noise Limits, Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use, Table 1, Exterior Noise Limits by Zone, specifies noise limits for various land use or zones, shown below.
Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits by Zone
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 5 Further, 8.20.020 A states:
1. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased or occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
b. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
c. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus ten dBA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
d. The exterior noise limit plus fifteen dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus twenty dBA for any period of time.
The proposed 80 dBA FTA limits exceed all the criteria in 8.20.020 1. The calculated noise level in Appendix E, Table 11, Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) for the residences south of the proposed project also exceed all the criteria in 8.20.020 1. This is a significant impact requiring mitigation.
The Project’s construction noise levels would also be significant pursuant to MC
8.20.010 (defining “Intrusive noise” and “Noise disturbance”). Section 8.20.010 E provides that “‘Intrusive noise’ means noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency and time of occurrence, and tonal or information content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.” And 8.20.010 provides that “‘Noise disturbance’ means any sound which (i) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (ii) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (iii) endangers or injures personal or real property or (iv) violates the limits set forth in Section 8.20.020.” Italics added.
The Project’s anticipated construction noise levels, as presented in Table 11 of Appendix E, would constitute intrusive noise and would cause a noise disturbance. For example, construction noise impacts at the mobile homes would reach 74 dBA Leq during demolition, grading, and building construction, 68 dBA Leq during paving, and 61.2 dBA during architectural coating. As shown in Appendix E Figure 3 (A-weighted Comparative Sound Levels), below, these noise levels are equivalent to noise sources shown below. These noise levels would annoy or disturb reasonable persons of normal sensitivities.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 6 Figure 3 - A-weighted Comparative Sound Levels
OPERATIONAL NOISE LIMITS
1) Appendix E does not account for mobile noise sources on the proposed project site.
Appendix E page 32, under Project Operational Mobile Noise Source, states:
“Roadway noise levels were calculated for the following scenarios:
● Existing (without Project): This scenario refers to existing year traffic noise conditions.
●Existing Plus Project: This scenario refers to existing year plus project traffic noise conditions.”
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 7 But this analysis of roadway noise levels does not reflect noise generated by mobile sources on the Project site. A review of the Appendix E appendices does not find any worksheet or calculations for the truck traffic on the proposed project site nor the impact of same on the mobile home residences to the south of the project. Appendix E does not discuss the impact of trucks entering and leaving the proposed project site on the residential property to the south (see MND Figure 3) to access the loading docks in the daytime or nighttime. Appendix E does not address the noise from trucks backing up to the docks, pulling away from the docks, nor the noise from the trucks idling while at the docks.
Appendix E’s analysis of loading/unloading noise is internally inconsistent. Although Appendix E under Truck/Drive, on page 23, says “The proposed loading area was modeled using a SoundPLAN sound reference level for loading/unloading adjusted to be a sound level equivalent of 70 dBA Leq at any point within the loading area,” no worksheet was found in Appendix E’s Appendix E, SoundPLAN Worksheets (pages aPx-62 to aPX- 66) that reflect a 70 dBA sound reference level. Rather, on page aPx-63, a SoundPLAN Worksheet shows that the reference level used for “Area Source - Loading/Unloading” is 65 dBA.
Appendix E’s Appendix E, page aPx-63, Noise emissions of industry sources, mentions Area Source – Loading/Unloading, with entries that are HVAC equipment, but this noise level is very quiet compared to the HVAC units. There is no description of this loading/unloading activity.
2) Appendix E is not consistent in regards to the height of the proposed barrier at the south property line of the proposed project.
The MND concludes that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site would bring the Project into compliance with stationary noise standards. This conclusion is not supported by the analysis in Appendix E, which inconsistently references both a 10-foot and 14-foot barrier.
MM NOI-1 is described inconsistently. In the executive summary of Appendix E, MM NOI-1 calls for a 14-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site (Appendix E, page iv). On page 31 of Appendix E, MM NOI-1 calls for a 10-foot-high wall. In the MND, MM NOI-1 calls for a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site. Appendix E fails to provide worksheets, calculations, or spreadsheets resolving this inconsistency.
Tables and figures in Appendix E are internally inconsistent. Appendix E Table 14 is titled on page 38 as “Project Compliance with Stationary Noise Standards – Daytime With 10-foot Barrier,” but is titled in Appendix E’s List of Tables as “Table 14. Project Compliance With Stationary Noise Standards – Daytime, With 14-Foot Barrier” (page ii).
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 8 There is no evidence in the record that Table 14 contains data reflecting a 10-foot wall.
Table 14 itself shows, in the column titled “Operational Noise levels1” the number “45” for Receptor 4. The superscript 1 in the column title refers to note 1 of the table, “(1) See Figure 6.” The citation to Figure 6 is erroneous, as Figure 6 shows the unmitigated noise levels – there is no entry for a 10-foot fence under Signs and Symbols on Figure 6. Table 14 may have intended to refer to mitigated noise levels shown in Appendix E Figure 7. But Figure 7 also does not clearly reflect noise levels with a 10-foot wall – although Figure 7 has an entry for a 10-foot fence under Signs and Symbols, Figure 7 is titled: “Operational Noise Levels (dBA, CNEL) with 14-Foot Barrier.”
Appendix E states: “With construction of a ten-foot concrete barrier along the southern property line where the project site abuts single family land uses operational noise levels would be 45 dBA Leq and no nighttime standards would be exceeded (see Tables 14 and 15, and Figure 7).” There is no evidence in Appendix E supporting the adequacy of a 10-foot wall due to the inconsistent references to 10-foot and 14-foot walls. There is no information in Appendix E showing that Appendix E calculated noise reductions for a 10- foot wall, as are no worksheets, calculations, or spreadsheets for the noise levels noted in Table 14, Figure 6, or Figure 7.
3) The noise barrier must be conditioned to reduce noise flanking.
The noise barrier proposed by MM NOI-1 needs to continue to the north for at least 30 feet at the east and west ends of the barrier to reduce flanking. Flanking refers to when a sound passes around a partition separating two spaces. Simply specifying the height of a wall between adjacent spaces fails to guarantee the noise reductions estimated in Appendix E. 4) Appendix E improperly compares noise metrics.
The noise metric in Figure 6 is “Leq” but, according to the Figure 7 title, the noise metric in Figure 7 is “CNEL”. MC 08.20.010 does not list CNEL and Appendix E, page 31, under “Mobile Source Noise” states “California courts have rejected use of what is effectively a single “absolute noise level” threshold of significance (e.g., exceed 65 dBA CNEL) on the grounds that the use of such a threshold fails to consider the magnitude or severity of increases in noise levels attributable to the project in different environments.
OTHER ISSUES
1) Appendix E pages 37 and 39 appears to be from another project “8388 Beech Avenue Truck-Trailer Storage Facility Noise Impact Analysis 19581.” Table 13 on page 37 and Table 15 on page 39 refer to a “Receptor R-4.” Receptor R-4 is not found anywhere else in Appendix E.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 9
CONCLUSION
Due to the errors in the analysis as described above, the conclusion that the project impact is less than significant is unsupported.
Sincerely,
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
Neil A. Shaw, FASA, FAES
NAS:sk
RESUME - NEIL A. SHAW
Education: University of California, Los Angeles
B. S. Engineering, 1977, cum laude
M. S. Engineering, 1977
Cooper Union, New York, 1968 - 1970
Honors: Kenward S. Oliphant Memorial Fellowship in Acoustical Engineering (awarded by Consulting Engineers Association of California)
Tau Beta Pi
Experience: Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc., Topanga
Designer and manager for acoustic design projects including audio-visual systems, sound reinforcement systems, television and radio production systems, architectural room acoustics, electromagnetic compatibility system design and criteria development, electroacoustic and electronic signal processing equipment product performance criteria development, product design and development, environmental noise surveys and analysis, noise and vibrations control, sound isolation, and machine noise control.
1992 to present.
Principal.
University of Southern California, Thornton School of Music 2008 - 2010.
Southern California Institute of Architecture, Los Angeles 2003.
WEAL, Santa Monica
Design and construction services for sound reinforcement systems, television systems, A/V systems, paging systems, and masking noise systems for various production facilities, convention centers, airport terminals, auditoriums, places of worship, concert halls, athletic facilities, courtrooms, multipurpose rooms, gymnasiums, museums, banquet halls, lecture rooms and other facilities.
Transportation ambient noise surveys and analysis, construction site noise measurements, and field STC and NIC measurements per ASTM E 336-84.
Lead member of team to install, run and maintain database manager computer software for company projects and clients. Part of design, implementation and enhancement team for computer controlled laboratory data acquisition and processing for laboratory tests performed per ASTM E 90-85 and ASTM C 423-84a.
1975 to 1992.
Aero-acoustics Laboratory, UCLA
Responsibilities include computer programming, aero-acoustic measurements, acoustic measurements, database search and statistical processing, A/D antialiasing filter design and prototyping, multi-channel data acquisition and processing, post processing and display.
1978 to 1984.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume 2
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
Affiliations: Fellow, Acoustical Society of America
Chairman, Los Angeles Chapter, 1991 to 2001.
Organizer and Co-Chair, Joint ASA/ASJ meeting 1996, Auralization Special Session.
Organizer and Chair, ASA meeting, 1997, Engineering Acoustics Special Session.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 1999, Engineering Acoustics Special Session.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 2000, Student Loudspeaker Design Competition.
Chairman, ASA meeting, 2001, Architectural Acoustics Modeling and Imaging Special Session.
Organizer and Chair, ASA meeting, 2001, Architectural Acoustics Cruise Ship Acoustics Special Session.
Tutorial on Architectural Acoustics, Joint ASA/ICA/MCA Cancun meeting, December 2002.
Invited Paper, November 2003 ASA meeting, “Sound Quality and Loudspeakers,” Special Session on Sound Quality - When Sound is the Essential Quality.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 2004, Special Session on the Bell Laboratories and Acoustics.
Invited Paper, June 2004 ASA meeting, “Textbooks on Acoustics,” On the Occasion of His 90 Birthday, To Honor the Contributions of Leo th
L. Beranek to Acoustics and Teaching Special Session sponsored by all the Technical Committees and ASA Committees.
Chairman, June 2004 ASA meeting, General Topics in Architectural Acoustics
Invited Paper, June 2005 ASA meeting, “Barnum Hall - The Continuing Renovation of a Streamline Moderne Theater,” Special Session on Preserving Acoustical Integrity in the Course of Renovation.
Invited Paper, Winter 2007 ASA meeting, “Sound Systems for Large Scale Venues,” with John Monitto, Special session on Sound Systems in Large Rooms and Stadia
Member, Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics, 1996 - 2010 Member, Technical Committee on Engineering Acoustics, 1998 - 2010 Member, Technical Committee on Physical Acoustics, 2000 - 2010 Member, Books+ Committee, 1996 - present
Fellow, Audio Engineering Society
Member, Technical Committee on Acoustics and Sound Reinforcement, 1988 to 2005.
Chairman, Large Array Systems Session and Special JAES issue, 1987 Chairman, Workshop on Auralization, 1993
Co-Chairman, Workshop on Weather-Related Issues in Outdoor Sound Reinforcement, 1998
Tutorial on Loudness, Los Angeles Chapter, March 2003
Senior Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Member, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers Member, Standards Community TC-20F Film, TC-20F-30 WG Film Audio, TC-20F-40 Theatrical Projection, ST-SG Theater B-chain 1990 to present.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume 3
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Licenses: Electrical Contractor's License, CA #342710
EIT, CA #37673
Publications: Preface to the Reprint Edition, “Principles and Applications of Room Acoustics”, Lothar Cremer and Helmut A. Muller (translated by Theodore J.
Shultz), Peninsula Publishers, Los Altos Hills, CA, reprint edition, to be republished.
Patent reviews, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2004 -present.
Shaw, Neil A, “Up in Knudsen’s Attic: Some Private papers of Vern O.
Knudsen,” Acoustics Today, 7(1), 29ff, January 2011
Shaw, Neil A., “Seeing, Hearing & Listening - Part II”, Live Sound International, 17(4), 58ff, April 2008
Shaw, Neil A., “Seeing, Hearing & Listening - Part I”, Live Sound International, 17(3), 12ff, March 2008
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 4 of 4, Live Sound International, 16(8), 66ff, August 2007
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 3 of 4, Live Sound International, 16(7), 54ff, July 2007
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 2 of 4, Live Sound International, 15(12), 12ff, December 2006 Shaw, Neil A., “An Early History of Modern Power Amplifiers,” Live Sound International, 15(2), 10ff, February 2006
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 1 of 4, Live Sound International, 14(4), 38ff, November 2005 “Audio” monthly column, Club System International magazine, 2000 - 2003.
Shaw, Neil A.., "The Pre-History and Early History of Loudspeakers", Sound and Communications, 41(4), 118ff, April 1995.
Shaw, Neil A.., "Acoustical Design and Auralization", Sound and Communications, 40(8), 44ff, August 1994.
Shaw, Neil A., Klapholz, Jesse and Gander, Mark R., "Books and Acoustics, Especially Wallace Clement Sabine's Collected Papers on Acoustics," Proceedings of the Sabine Centennial Symposium, Acoustical Society of America, Cambridge, MA, June 1994.
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part Three - Real World Applications for Real World Delay Units," Sound and Communications, 39(10), 16ff, October 1993.
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part Two - Testing Specific Products for Specific Uses," Sound and Communications, 39(5), 62ff, May 1993.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 4
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part One - Reviewing the Basics," Sound and Communications, 393(4), 96ff, March 1993.
Meecham, W. C. and Shaw, Neil, "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise", Proceedings of the International Symposium on Noise and Disease, Berlin, 1991
Meecham, W. C. and Shaw, Neil, "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise," Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Stockholm, 351-356, 1988
Shaw, Neil A., "A Historical Profile: Stereophonic Sound Systems, Part Two," Sound and Communications, 33(7), 24ff, July 1987.
Shaw, Neil A., "A Historical Profile: Stereophonic Sound Systems, P a r t One," Sound and Communications, 33(6), 22ff, June 1987.
Shaw, Neil A., "Exhibit Hall and Theater Sound Reinforcement Systems at the Metro Toronto Convention Center," Proceedings 12th International Congress of Acoustics, E9-5.1 - E9-5.2, 1986.
Meecham, W. C. and N. A. Shaw, "Jet Plane Noise Effects on Mortality Rates," Proceedings Internoise 86 Progress in Noise Control, Volume II, 1451-1455, 1986.
Shaw, N. A., "Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality Rates," Los Angeles County Department of Health, The Effects of Aircraft Noise on Health, June, 1981 Meecham, W. C. and N. A. Shaw, "Effects of Jet Noise On Mortality Rates," British Journal of Audiology, 13, 77-80, 1979.
Book Reviews: "Acoustical Engineering," Harry F. Olson - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, No. 5, May 1992, Sound and Communications, Vol. 38, No. 4, April 27, 1992.
"Concert Sound - Tours, Technologies and Techniques," David Trubitt - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
"Hearing - An Introduction to Psychological and Physiological Acoustics," Stanley A. Gelfand - Sound and Communications, Vol. 37, No. 3, March 22, 1991.
"Room Acoustics," Henrich Kuttruff - Sound and Communications, Vol. 38, No. 2, February 28, 1992.
"The Science of Sound," Thomas D. Rossing - Sound and Communications, Vol. 37, No. 10, October 22, 1991.
"AIP Handbook of Condenser Microphones," George S. K. Wong and Tony F. W. Embleton, Editors - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 43, No. 6, June 1995.
"The ASA Edition of Speech and Hearing in Communication", Harvey Fletcher - Sound and Communication, Vol. 41, No. 9, September 25, 1995.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 5
"The Nature and Technology of Acoustic Space", Mikio Tohyama, Hideo Suzuki and Yoichi Ando - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 44, No. 3, March 1996.
"Concert and Opera Halls - How They Sound", Leo Beranek - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 44, No. 9, September 1996. "Acoustics and Noise Control Handbook for Architects and Builders", Leland K. Irvine and Roy L. Richards - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 46, No. 5, May 1998.
"Encyclopedia of Acoustics", Edited by Malcolm J. Crocker - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 46, No. 9, September 1998. "The New Stereo Soundbook, Ron Streicher and Alton Everest - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 105, No. 6, June 1999. "Introduction to Electroacoustics and Audio Amplifier Design," W. Marshall Leach, Jr. - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 47, No. 7/8, July/August 1999, Sound and Communications, Vol. 45, No. 9, September 20, 1999.
"Architectural Acoustics - Principles and Design," Madan Mehta, Jim Johnson, and Jorge Rocafort - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 47, No. 10, October 1999.
"Architectural Acoustics: Blending Sound Sources, Sound Fields, and Listening," Yoichi Ando - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. ½, January/February 2000.
"Fundamental of Physical Acoustics," David T. Blackstock - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 9, September 2000. "The Science and Applications of Acoustics," Daniel R. Raichel - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 10, October 2000. "Sounds of Our Times," Robert T. Beyer - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 11, November 2000.
"Acoustics: Basic Physics, Theory and Methods," Paul Filippi, Dominique Habalt, Jean-Pierre Lefebvre and Aime Bergassoli - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 1+2, January/February 2001. "Active Noise Control Primer," Scott D. Snyder - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 5, May 2001.
“The Microphone Book,” John Eargle - Sound & Communications, November 2001.
“Computer Speech Recognition, Compression, Synthesis,” Manfred R.
Schroeder - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 12, December 2001.
“Audio Engineering For Sound Reinforcement,” John Eargle and Chris Foreman - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. Vol. 50, No. 12,
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 6
December 2002.
“Pro Audio Reference,” Dennis Bohn - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 51, No. 7/8, July/August 2003.
“Concert Halls and Opera Houses - Music, Acoustics, and Architecture,” Leo L. Beranek - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 52, No. 5, May 2004
“Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers- Theory, Design and Application,” Trevor J. Cox and Peter D’Antonio - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 53, No. 10, October 2005
“Formulas of Acoustics,” F. P. Mechel - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 53, No. 12, December 2005
“Communication Acoustics,” Jens Blauert (editor) - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No.½, January/February 2006 “Acoustics and Psychoacoustics,” David M. Howard and Jamie Angus- Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No. 11, November 2006 “Pro Audio Reference,” Second Edition, Dennis Bohn, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No. 4, April 2007
“Worship, Acoustics, and Architecture,” Ettore Cirillo and Francesco Martellotta - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 55, No. 11, November 2007
“Sound FX Unlocking the Creative Potential of Recording Studio Effects,” Alexander U. Case - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 55, No. 12, December 2007
“Surround Sound Up and Running,” Tomlinson Holman - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 56, No. 9, September 2008
“Sound Reproduction Loudspeakers and Rooms,” Floyd E. Toole - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 57, No.½, January/February 2009 “Handbook for Sound Engineers,” 4 Edition, Glenn Ballou - Journal of the th Audio Engineering Society, Volume 57, No. 7/8, July/August 2009 “Acoustics and the Performance of Music Manual for Acousticians, Audio Engineers, Musicians, Architects and Musical Instrument Makers,” 5 Edition th Jürgen Meyer (translated by Uwe Hanson) - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 58, No. 3, March 2010
“Sound for Film and Television” 3 Edition, Tomlinson Holman - Journal of rd the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 58, No. 11, November 2010 “The Acoustics of Performance Halls Spaces for Music from Carnegie Hall to the Hollywood Bowl,” J. Christopher Jaffe - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 59, No. 4, April 2011
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 7
“Acoustics and Audio Technology,” Mendel Kleiner - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, to be published
“Grounds for Grounding,” Elya B. Joffee and Kai-Sang Lock - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, to be published
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 8
Selected Product Development Projects - Neil A. Shaw
Aura Systems 1992 - 2005 Technical support for audio projects using inherently shielded neodymium speakers.
Peavey 1995 - 1997 Loudspeaker engineering for professional woofers and compression drivers, out-sourcing of electronics and speaker manufacturing, joint venture liaison.
Armstrong World Industries 1999 - 2002 Conception and product definition for active acoustic initiative. Product definition and development of ceiling tile speaker, and other projects.
Microsoft 1999 - 2000 Headset and headset element design for voice recognition product.
Cisco 1999 - 2000 Telephone and speaker-phone design for Internet telephone.
Intel 2000 Internet appliance sound system product
RPG 2001 - 2020 Technical and marketing support for this vendor of acoustical devices for architectural spaces.
Bohlender-Graebener 2001 - 2004 Technical support and loudspeaker engineering for planar diaphragm loudspeaker products.
Johns Manville 2002 Strategic product and market research and analysis.
Tri-path 2002 - 2006 Technical support and system engineering for digital audio power amplifiers.
Extron 2002 - 2003 Technical and material support for loudspeaker development and research.
Microsoft 2003 - 2006 Anechoic chamber design. Electroacoustic product testing protocol development.
University of Illinois 2008 - 2009 Transducer and power amplifier design and selection for food industry processing equipment.
Microsoft 2008 - 2009 Anechoic chamber design. Electroacoustic product testing protocol development.
KLA-Tencor 2010 Vibration isolation engineering for scanning electron microscope semiconductor wafer inspection equipment.
Microsoft 2011 Acoustic measurement and analysis for Kinect manufacturing end-of-line 100% test chamber.
ETC 2011 Noise analysis and noise control for electrically operated variable speed theater hoist equipment.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
9 Selected Projects - Neil A. Shaw:
Arcadia City Council Chambers Arcadia, California
Grossmont Civic Auditorium El Cajon, California
Center for Faith and Life, Luther College Decorah, Iowa Concert Hall, University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky Swimming Pool, University of Riyad Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Oakland-Piedmont Municipal Courts Oakland, California
2500 seat Auditorium, 700 seat Auditorium,
250 seat Library Hall, Mosque and Minaret,
Gymnasium, Fine Arts Recital Hall, 100 seat
Museum Hall, 500 seat Lecture Rooms, 250
seat Lecture Rooms, 1000 seat Banquet Hall,
200 seat Meeting Rooms, 100 seat Meeting
Rooms, University of Riyad Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Des Moines Civic Auditorium Des Moines, Iowa
California School For the Blind Hayward, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Hearing Room El Monte, California
First United Methodist Church Santa Monica, California
George R. Moscone Convention Center San Francisco, California H. J. Kaiser Convention Center Oakland, California
Carson Community Center Carson, California
LAX Terminal One Los Angeles, California
Crocker Bank Auditorium Los Angeles, California
Wilshire Auditorium, Fullerton College Fullerton, California Salt Palace Convention Center Expansion Salt Lake City, Utah Metro Toronto Convention Center and TheaterToronto, Ontario Orpheum Theater Restoration Davenport, Iowa
Athanaeum, Claremont College Claremont, California
San Jose Federal Office Building San Jose, California
Fairmont Hotel San Jose, California
LAX Terminal Five Los Angeles, California
First Presbyterian Church Upland, California
Royal Saudi Air Force Hush Houses Saudi Arabia
NCO Training Facility, March AFB Riverside, California
Veterans Administration Out Patient Clinic Los Angeles, California Lied Center for the Performing Arts,
University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska
MaMaison Hotel Los Angeles, California
Escondido City Council Chambers Escondido, California
Mercy Hospital San Diego, California
Mercy Hospital Sacramento, California
Jain Bhavan Worship Center Santa Ana, California
Ojai Valley Inn Ojai, California
Simon Wiesenthal Center and Holocaust Museum Los Angeles, California New Otani Hotel Los Angeles, California
Oceanside City Council Chambers Oceanside, California
Santa Monica Beach Hotel Santa Monica, California
Greenwood RacetrackToronto, Ontario
Woodbine RacetrackToronto, Ontario
Mohawk Racetrack Campbellville, Ontario
Toyota Training CenterTorrance, California
Fresno Art Center Fresno, California
McLaren Children's Center Los Angeles, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 10
Lindbergh Field West Terminal Expansion San Diego, California Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library Yorba Linda, California Carnation Headquarters Glendale, California
Los Angeles County Bar Association Los Angeles, California Los Angeles Federal Office Building Los Angeles, California Intercontinental Hotel Los Angeles, California
Lake Avenue Congregational Church Pasadena, California
Hewlett Packard Presentation Center North Hollywood, California Dance Recital Hall and Auditorium,
California State University Long Beach, California
Inyo County Superior Court Independence, California
Adele Platt Conference Center,
City of Hope Medical Center Duarte, California
Los Angeles County Emergency Operation Center Los Angeles, California Antonio B Won Pat International Airport Tamuning, Guam
Temple Adat Sholam Westwood, California
Sound Stage 29/30, Paramount Pictures Hollywood, California Executive Screening Room, Theater,
Dubbing Theater, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Santa Monica, California Lakeview Terrace Rehabilitation
Facility, Phoenix House of Los Angeles Lakeview Terrace, California Physiological Acoustics Research
Facility, UCLA Medical Center Westwood, California
Performing Arts Center Lancaster, California
Crystal Harmony, Crystal Cruise Lines Los Angeles, California Integrated Service Facility,
NASA/Dryden Research Facility Edwards, California
Theater, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer New York, New York
Santa Ana Theater Santa Ana, California
Sammy Davis Jr. Festival Plaza Las Vegas, Nevada
City Hall, Council Chamber Santa Monica, California
Video Conference Facility, Sony Music New York, New York Legend of the Seas, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Miami, Florida Orange County Branch Library Aliso Viejo, California
Screening Room, Warner Brothers Animation Glendale, California Screening Room, Turner Feature Animation Glendale, California Las Vegas Motor Speedway North Las Vegas, Nevada
Large Screening Room, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Santa Monica, California Japanese American National Museum Los Angeles, California Carson City Courthouse Carson City, Nevada
St. Mel Parish Center Woodland Hills, California
Congregation Ner Tamid Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Old Town Temecula Streetscape Temecula, California
Grandeur of the Seas, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Miami, Florida Disney Magic, Disney Cruise Lines Orlando, Florida
Coral Sky Amphitheater West Palm Beach, Florida
First Chinese Baptist Church Los Angeles, California
St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church Los Angeles, California C-17 Assembly Facility, Douglas Aircraft
Division, The Boeing Corporation Long Beach, California Crisci's Restaurant Brooklyn, New York
JamSync Studios Nashville, Tennessee
New Standard Post Hollywood, California
Media Artists, Pty Madras, India
The Lobster Santa Monica, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 11
International Rectifier Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico Antelope Valley Courthouse Lancaster, California
Fe Bland Forum, Santa Barbara City College Santa Barbara, California Arizona Humane Society Phoenix, Arizona
Cartoon Network Glendale, California
Santa Monica High School Santa Monica, California
Malibu High School Malibu, California
Barnum Hall Auditorium Santa Monica, California
Sobrato High School Morgan Hill, California
Temple Beth El Aliso Viejo, California
Sacramento East End Project Sacramento, California
Gold Circle Films Beverly Hills, California
Denver City Hall Extension Denver, Colorado
Fullerton City Hall Fullerton, California
Union Station Improvement Los Angeles, California
Intimate Theater, California State University Los Angeles, California San Diego Convention Center, Sails Pavilion San Diego, California Temple Shir Ha-Ma'A Lot Irvine, California
United States Courthouse Fresno, California
Department of Education Office Complex,
State of California Sacramento, California
MGM Constellation Headquarters Century City, California Ketchum Advertising Venice, California
Orange County Register Santa Ana, California
28 Church of Christ, Scientist Westwood, California
th
Temple Solel Escondido, California
NT Audio Mixing and QC Rooms Santa Monica, California
River Cats Restaurant Sacramento, California
Caltrans District 7 Headquarters Los Angeles, California 1221 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, California
Memorial Assembly Hall Manhattan Beach, California
City of Manhattan Beach Annex Manhattan Beach, California Twohy Building San Jose, California
Widget Post Production Culver City, California
1 Church of Christ, Scientist Beverly Hills, California st
Sunrise Assisted Living Pacific Palisades, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Santa Monica, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Woodland Hills, California
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences Boardroom Beverly Hills, California
Getty Villa Outdoor Amphitheater Los Angeles, California Ressler Residence Beverly Hills, California
American Honda Torrance, California
Community Baptist Church Manhattan Beach, California
Bernard Hodes Agency Marina Del Ray, California
Houston’s Restaurant Santa Monica, California
Café R&D Newport Beach, California
Getty Center Auditorium Los Angeles, California
Mid-City Police Station Los Angeles, California
College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Instruction and Research Facility,
University of California Riverside, California
Genomics Research Facility,
University of California Riverside, California
Panasonic Hollywood Laboratory Universal City, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 12
Sports Spectrum Club Pacific Palisades, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Simi Valley, California
Rose Bowl Pasadena, California
First Presbyterian Church Santa Monica, California
Los Angeles Fire Department Headquarters Los Angeles, California New York City Transit No. 7 Line Extension New York, New York Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Goldline Los Angeles, California
South Lawn Project, University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia Shangri-La Hotel Santa Monica, California
Pacific Star, Princess Cruise Lines Santa Clarita, California Allied Post Santa Monica, California
Jet Propulsion Laboratory von Karman Auditorium Pasadena, California Self Realization Fellowship Los Angeles, California
Temple Beth Am Los Angeles, California
Broome Library, California State University,
Channel Islands Camarillo, California
California High-Speed Train Project State of California Morongo Band of Mission Indians Administrative
Complex Banning, California
The Buddy Group Irvine, California
Café R&D Santa Monica, California
Club 7969 West Hollywood, California
Brent’s Deli Westlake Village, California
Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Complex Nogales, Arizona Porto’s Bakery Burbank, California
Microsoft Hardware Group Audio Test Laboratories Redmond, Washington University of California, Irvine, Arts Building Irvine, California Los Angeles Unified School District High
School No. 9 South Gate, California
Notre Dame High School Sherman Oaks, California
St. Mark Presbyterian Church Newport Beach, California
Fame Academy Poly High School Sun Valley, California
FAA Sonic Boom Simulator (with the
Pennsylvania State University) State College, Pennsylvania Metropolitan Transit District Hearing Room Los Angeles, California St. Peter and St. Paul Coptic Church Santa Monica, California Lifehouse Properties Pacific Palisades, California
Wilson Well No.2 San Gabriel, California
Habitat for Humanity Lynwood Housing Lynwood, California Whole Foods Plaza Malibu, California
Habitat for Humanity Burbank Housing Burbank, California The Cork Los Angeles, California
Cove Way Residence Beverly Hills, California
Habitat for Humanity Lawndale Housing Lawndale, California Forest Lawn Chapel Cypress, California
Rodney Bay and Gros Islet Villages St. Lucia
Panasonic Avionics Lake Forest, California
Capitol Records Hollywood, California
Art of Living Foundation Los Angeles, California
Conexant Corporation Newport Beach, California
University of California, Santa Barbara
Faculty Center Santa Barbara, California
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, Washington
J Restaurant and Lounge Los Angeles, California
Newcom Santa Monica, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 13
American School in Vietnam Hanoi, Vietnam
Apple Yellowstone Anechoic Chamber Facility Cupertino, California Barnum Hall Continuing Renovation Santa Monica, California Malibu High School Auditorium Renovation Malibu, California John Adams Middle School Auditorium Renovation Santa Monica, California Westminster Presbyterian Church Newbury Park, California American School in Bombay Mumbai, India
Temple Judea Tarzana, California
Holy Angel Church San Marino, California
Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice
University of San Diego San Diego, California
7 June 2012
7554-010acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
January 27, 2025
VIA E-Mail and U.S. Mail
City Council
c/o Adrian Garcia
City Clerk
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, California 91733
[email protected]
[email protected]
Via E-Mail Only
Guillermo Arreola, Director
[email protected]
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 8.a: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2222 Rosemead Boulevard
Dear Mayor Olmos, Mayor Pro Tem Delgado, Mr. Acosta, Mr. Bojorquez, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Garcia:
We write on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) regarding Agenda Item No. 8.a., which concerns CREED LA’s appeal of the City of South El Monte (“City”) Planning Commission’s November 19, 2024 land use and environmental approvals for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2024100046; Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13) (“Project”) proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”) as set forth in Resolution No. 24-09.
According to the Staff Report, the appeal hearing will be continued to February 18, 2025, pursuant to Government Code Section 54955.1.1 The Staff 1 Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council, South El Monte from Guillermo Arreola, Director of Community Development, South El Monte re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09, Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 21-13 to Allow for the Development of a New 156,877 Square Foot Warehouse Building to be Located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard (Jan. 28, 2025) (hereinafter “City Council
ATTACHMENT L
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
Report does not contain any substantive responses or new analysis in response to CREED LA’s appeal, and the City still has not prepared an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project. CREED LA supports a continuance but asks that the City Council further extend the date for the continued hearing to allow sufficient time for the City to prepare and circulate an EIR for the Project and bring its actions into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and land use laws before any further hearings are conducted.2 In the alternative, if the City Council chooses to act on the appeal at this time, CREED LA respectfully requests that the City Council uphold the appeal and vacate all Planning Commission approvals. This includes vacating Resolution 24- 09, adoption of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration3 (“IS/MND”) and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (“MMRP”), the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13, and all other related approvals and findings. In upholding the appeal, the City Council should also remand the Project to City staff to prepare and circulate a legally adequate EIR.
As detailed in CREED LA’s appeal, the IS/MND is fundamentally flawed and fails to meet the requirements of CEQA.4 Specifically, the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, public health, energy, noise, transportation, and public utilities. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that these impacts are significant and unmitigated. These unresolved issues demonstrate that an EIR is required for the Project and that the City’s environmental review failed to comply with CEQA.
In addition to the deficiencies outlined in CREED LA’s appeal, the IS/MND’s deficient disclosure and mitigation of impacts associated with remediation of the Project’s site-specific soil contamination impacts require the preparation of an EIR.
Specifically, the IS/MND fails to adequately disclose and mitigate potentially Agenda Report”), available at
https://southelmonteca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/372/files/report/1709. 2 Letter to City Council, City of South El Monte from Andrew J. Graf, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09, Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, and Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13 for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (Nov. 27, 2024) (hereinafter “CREED LA Appeal”). 3 City of South El Monte, 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Oct. 2024) (hereinafter “IS/MND”), available at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/306909-1/attachment/NNeca6u-dkBdc7O_85UzriOH1- jlPl91DSP4H9aBaRjycZ4HV9N7ItQHuOv4VAi_XOKsW6nMv_V3J16H0. 4 See generally CREED LA Appeal.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
significant hazard risks to construction workers, fails to analyze construction impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable soil remediation activities that are required for the Project to proceed, and fails to analyze compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) Indirect Source Rule. These omissions represent critical gaps in the environmental review process.
We urge the City Council to take meaningful action to ensure compliance with CEQA by vacating the Project’s approvals and requiring the preparation of a comprehensive EIR that addresses these deficiencies.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
II. THE CITY’S HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACT ANALYSES
FAIL TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
The IS/MND acknowledges that the Project site has a decades-long history of significant soil and groundwater contamination, which has prompted cleanup orders from both the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Los Angeles RWQCB”) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental investigations at the Project site have identified concentrations of hazardous compounds in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater samples that exceed current regulatory thresholds, including high levels of polychlorinated biphenyl (“PCB”), lead, arsenic and hexavalent chromium.5 These contaminants are the result of prior on-site operations, including a steel drum reconditioning facility and various autobody shops, as well as off-site sources of contamination migrating onto the site.6 While the IS/MND notes that some contamination has been remediated, substantial contamination remains. The residual contamination exceeds commercial environmental screening levels and poses significant risks to public health, particularly to on-site workers and surrounding communities. The IS/MND states that site contamination must be addressed before the grading phase of Project construction commences and requires preparation and implementation of a Soil Remediation Work Plan (“SRWP”) and Soil Management Plan (“SMP”) as mitigation measures. Therefore, remediation activities are an integral component of the Project.
However, the IS/MND fails to analyze the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the site cleanup, including but not limited to constructionrelated air quality impacts from dust and emissions, noise from remediation equipment, and transportation impacts from hauling contaminated soil off-site.
CEQA requires that all phases of a project, including activities necessary for site preparation and remediation or those required by mitigation, be analyzed for potential significant impacts.7 CEQA also requires an analysis of impacts that are 5 See generally IS/MND at pp. 64-70, appen. C.
6 Ibid. 7 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(d), 15126.4(a)(1)(D).
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
exacerbated by the project, even if the contamination is not directly caused by the project.8
The City’s own record provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that contamination impacts and associated cleanup efforts are potentially significant. Despite this evidence, the IS/MND fails to adequately disclose the extent of these impacts or provide sufficient mitigation measures to address them.
An EIR is required to fully evaluate and mitigate the potential impacts of contamination and the proposed cleanup efforts.
A. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Potential Public Health Impacts to On-Site Construction Workers from Exposure to Hazardous Materials
The IS/MND acknowledges the presence of significant soil and groundwater contamination at the Project site but concludes that construction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.9 However, the IS/MND fails to adequately disclose the severity of potential health risks to on-site construction workers or provide effective mitigation measures to address these risks.
The human health risk assessment (“HHRA”) prepared by the City’s consultant reveals that the cumulative incremental lifetime excess cancer risk (“ILECR”) is 4x10-5, four times OEHHA’s benchmark cancer risk level of 1x10-5.10 This elevated risk is predominantly attributable to inhalation of hexavalent chromium (83%),which can cause cancer and damage the respiratory system, liver, skin, and eyes.11 Additionally, the non-cancer hazard index (“HI”) is 17, far exceeding the acceptable threshold of 1, primarily due to arsenic (41%) and Aroclor1242 (31%).12 These findings indicate that construction workers face significant health risks during Project implementation, which the IS/MND fails to disclose or mitigate effectively.
8 See California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.
9 IS/MND at pp. 64-73; see also id., appen. C.
10 IS/MND, appen C., Haley & Aldrich, Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum (Apr. 2024), appen. F (Haley & Aldrich, Report on Updated Risk Evaluation for South El Monte Site 2200-2226 North Rosemead Boulevard South El Monte, California (Apr. 2024) p. 20. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
While the IS/MND includes mitigation measures (MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-5) aimed at addressing contamination,13 these measures are insufficient to protect on-site workers during construction activities. MM HAZ-2 and MM HAZ-3 require the implementation of existing remediation work plans and postremediation risk evaluations to confirm whether remedial action goals have been achieved.14 However, the IS/MND does not expressly prohibit non-remediation construction activities until the Los Angeles RWQCB and U.S. EPA confirmed that site is safe for on-site construction workers.
While the mitigation measures require specific cleanup activities to be completed prior to the grading phase, there is no guarantee that post-remediation evaluations will demonstrate that contamination has been sufficiently reduced to safe levels, and the IS/MND’s mitigation measures do not restrict issuance of grading permits on that basis. If residual contamination remains after initial cleanup efforts are completed as required under MM HAZ-2 and MM HAZ-3, construction workers and nearby communities may still be exposed to hazardous conditions. By allowing construction to proceed without certainty that risks have been eliminated, the IS/MND improperly shifts the burden of risk to construction workers and fails to ensure their health and safety are adequately protected.
This lack of disclosure and inadequate mitigation violates CEQA’s informational and procedural requirements, preventing the public and decisionmakers from fully understanding the Project’s health impacts. Therefore, the IS/MND lacks substantial evidence to conclude hazard impacts are less than significant. An EIR must be prepared to comprehensively analyze constructionphase health risks and enforceable mitigation measures to ensure worker safety.
B. The IS/MND Underestimates Air Quality Impacts by Excluding Soil Remediation Activities from Emission Estimates
According to a Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum, approximately 4,999 cubic yards (“cy”) of contaminated soil will be excavated from the eastern portion of the Project site.15 This includes 4,670 cy of soil contaminated with PCB, 164 cy with lead, 122 cy with arsenic, and 7 yards with total petroleum hydrocarbons diesel.16 The soil will then be segregated, stockpiled, sampled, profiled, and transported to an appropriate waste disposal facility.17 These 13 IS/MND at pp. 75-77. 14 Id. at p. 76.
15 LSRWPA, Table 8 (Soil Remedial Excavation Volumes).
16 LSRWPA, Table 9 (Soil Remedial Excavation Volumes by [Contaminant of Concern]). 17 LSRWPA at pp. 17-20.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
remediation activities are anticipated to last approximately 45 days.18 Despite acknowledging the need for such extensive remediation, the IS/MND fails to analyze the associated air quality impacts, resulting in an incomplete and inadequate environmental review.
Under CEQA, lead agencies are required to use good faith and best efforts to analyze reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts. This includes evaluating the scope, types, and duration of remediation activities and quantifying the associated emissions. These emissions must then be incorporated into the Project’s construction emissions profile and evaluated against the selected significance thresholds. By omitting an analysis of emissions from soil remediation activities, the IS/MND violates CEQA’s fundamental requirement for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
Soil remediation activities associated with the Project will require the use of heavy-duty, diesel-fueled equipment to excavate and transport contaminated soils, as well as vehicle trips by workers conducting cleanup operations. These activities will generate substantial emissions, including criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, due to truck hauling and excavation-related operations. Despite these foreseeable impacts, the CalEEMod output files provided in the IS/MND fail to account for remediation activities. Specifically, the construction schedule used in the air quality analysis omits a remediation phase, even though such activities are clearly planned (and possibly even underway)19 and would result in significant emissions.
18 LSRWPA at p. 20.
19 See Email to Jennifer Nobui, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board from Chris Tsiatsios, Haley & Aldrich, Inc. re: Rosemead Holding – South El Monte – Pacific Coast Drum – Soil Remediation Completion Report Schedule Extension (Jan. 10, 2025), available at https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/2819116532/SL603798723.P DF; Letter to Wayne Wang, Rosemead Holding L.L.C. from Jennifer Nobui, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board re: Approval of Soil Management Plan (Nov. 5, 2024), available at https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/9613248527/SCP 5_JN_Pacific%20Coast%20Drum_Appr%20Letter%20of%20SMP%2010152024%20(1).pdf; Letter to Wayne Wange, Rosemead Holding L.L.C from Jennfer Nobui, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board re: Approval of Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan, Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum, and Technical Memorandum – Response to Comments on the “Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum” (Oct. 2, 2024), available at https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/2461286246/SCP 5_JN_Pacific%20Coast%20Drum_Appr%20of%20Soil%20Rem%20WP%20Addm_10-02- 24%20Final.pdf.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
For example, the IS/MND assumes that demolition and grading activities for the entire Project site will require only 40 days,20 yet the 45-day estimate for remediation activities for only a portion of the site exceeds this timeframe.21 This inconsistency demonstrates that the IS/MND underestimates both the duration and intensity of construction-related emissions. By failing to include a remediation phase, the IS/MND overlooks a significant source of construction-related air quality impacts in violation of CEQA.
Additionally, the IS/MND underestimates emissions associated with haul truck trips. The CalEEMod output files indicate that the City used a default oneway trip length of 20 miles to quantify emissions for hauling construction materials and importing or exporting soil.22 However, no soil export is included in the analysis despite the clear need to remove and dispose of contaminated soil as part of the remediation process.
This omission is particularly problematic given the longer trip lengths required to transport soil to appropriate disposal facilities. For example, the nearest landfill accepting non-hazardous soil is the Bradley Municipal Landfill, located approximately 27 miles from the Project site.23 For RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous soil, the nearest permitted hazardous waste facility is the Clean Harbors Buttonwillow facility, located approximately 146 miles away from the Project site.24 Additionally, the Waste Management Kettleman Hills facility, approximately 188 miles away from the Project site, is the only facility in California that accepts Toxic Substances Control Act-regulated PCB waste for disposal.25 Given that most of the contaminated soil (~4,670 cy) contains PCB,26 the need to transport this material to Kettleman Hills significantly increases haul truck trip lengths and associated emissions. These significantly longer one-way trip 20 IS/MND, appen. A, Memorandum to City of South El Monte from Giancarlo Ganddini, Ganddini Group re: Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project – Updated Plan Set and Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/ Energy Impact Studies (Aug. 15, 2024), appen. B (CalEEMod Model Detailed Report & EMFAC Data) p. 36. 21 LSRWPA at p. 20. 22 CalEEMod Model Detailed Report & EMFAC Data at pp. 37-38. 23 IS/MND, appen. C (Leighton Consulting Inc., Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard South El Monte, California 91733 (Apr. 25, 2023) (hereinafter “LSRWP”) p. 25. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.; see also Department of Toxic Substances Control, Kettleman Hills Facility, https://dtsc.ca.gov/kettleman-hills-facility/ (last visited Jan. 27, 2025). 26 LSRWPA, Table 9 (Soil Remedial Excavation Volumes by [Contaminant of Concern]).
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
distances must be accurately reflected in the emissions analysis to ensure a complete and accurate evaluation of air quality impacts.
The failure to analyze emissions from soil remediation activities and associated haul truck trips undermines the IS/MND’s conclusions regarding the Project’s air quality impacts. These emissions are likely significant, particularly given the volume of soil to be excavated and the potential trip distances to appropriate disposal facilities.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR which includes a detailed and accurate analysis of air quality impacts from soil remediation activities. This analysis must quantify emissions from heavy-duty equipment, worker trips, and haul truck trips using appropriate one-way trip lengths to disposal facilities. The emissions from remediation activities must also be integrated into the Project’s overall construction emissions profile. Without this revised analysis, the IS/MND fails to meet CEQA’s good faith disclosure requirements.
C. The IS/MND Fails to Evaluate Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 On May 7, 2021, SCAQMD adopted Rule 2305, also known as the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (“WAIRE”) Program, along with Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305.27 Rule 2305 is designed to reduce regional and local emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), including diesel PM, which are associated with warehouse operations and mobile sources such as trucks that service these facilities. These reductions are essential for helping the region attain federal and state ambient air quality standards. Rule 316 establishes a fee schedule to allow SCAQMD to recover costs associated with compliance activities under Rule 2305.28 Rule 2305 applies to owners and operators of warehouses that exceed 100,000 square feet.29 Operators are subject to an annual WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation, calculated based on the number of truck trips to the warehouse each 27 See South Coast Air Quality Management District, WAIRE Program, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/waire-program (last visited Jan. 27, 2025). 28 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 316. Fees for Rule 2305 (May 3, 2024), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-iii/r316.pdf?sfvrsn=15. 29 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 2305. Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program (May 7, 2021), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xxiii/r2305.pdf?sfvrsn=15.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
year.30 WAIRE Points can be earned by implementing actions from a prescribed menu, developing a custom site-specific plan, or paying a mitigation fee.31 Warehouse owners are only required to submit limited information reports but can opt to earn WAIRE Points on behalf of their tenants by implementing measures during the development phase, such as installing solar panels or electric vehicle charging infrastructure.32
The proposed Project includes a 156,877-square-foot warehouse consisting of 113,703 square feet of warehouse space, 7,879 square feet of retail use, 20,305 square feet of accessory warehouse office space, and 14,990 square feet of warehouse storage space.33 Because the Proposed Project exceeds the 100,000- square-foot threshold, its owners and operators will be subject to Rule 2305 requirements once the warehouse is occupied.
Despite this, the IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s compliance with Rule 2305. Specifically, the IS/MND does not evaluate the potential WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation for future warehouse operators. Nor does it consider whether additional measures or project requirements could be incorporated into the Project to help future operators meet their compliance obligations under Rule 2305.
For example, implementing measures during the development phase – such as installing solar panels, EV charging infrastructure, or other emissions-reducing infrastructure – could reduce the future compliance burden for warehouse operators while also enhancing the Project’s environmental performance. By failing to evaluate compliance with Rule 2305, the IS/MND overlooks an important regulatory requirement that could result in unaddressed environmental impacts and missed opportunities for mitigation.
To comply with CEQA, the lead agency must revise the IS/MND to include an analysis of Rule 2305 compliance. This analysis should estimate the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation based on the projected number of truck trips to the proposed Project, identify feasible measures that could be implemented during the development phase to facilitate compliance, and evaluate whether such measures should be incorporated as project requirements or CEQA mitigation measures.
Without this analysis, the IS/MND does not provide sufficient information to fully 30 South Coast Air Quality Management District, WAIRE Implementation Guidelines (June 2021) p. 2, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/fbmsm-docs/waireimplementation-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=12. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 IS/MND at p. 5.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
evaluate the Proposed project’s environmental impacts and compliance with applicable regulations.
III. CONCLUSION
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 uphold the appeal, vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution No. 24-09, remand this matter to the Planning Commission,34 and direct City staff to prepare an EIR that fully discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant public health, air quality, GHG, energy, noise, transportation, public utilities, and hazards impacts.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Graf
Attorney
AJG:acp
34 See South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.130 (City Council may remand the matter to the Planning Commission).
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 9.a.
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rene Salas, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Gerardo Marquez, Interim Director of Community Development SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.
25-036, APPROVING A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH
EL MONTE AND MAGELLAN VALUE PARTNERS (MVP)
SOUTH EL MONTE I, LLC FOR A PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 825
LEXINGTON-GALLATIN ROAD ("PROPERTY").
SUMMARY: A change to the site plan proposed under the previously approved Memorandum of Understanding, dated June 26, 2023 ("MOU"), authorized under Resolution No. 23-27 regarding the proposed development of property located at 825 Lexington-Gallatin Road ("Property")
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 25- 036, approving the First Amendment to the MOU to replace a revised site plan for the MOU with MVP South El Monte I, LLC ("MVP") for Property.
FISCAL/FINANCIAL IMPACT: The revised site plan will not change the fiscal impact of the project.
DISCUSSION: On March 28, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-27, approving the MOU between the City of South El Monte ("City") and MVP for a proposed development of property located at 825 Lexington-Gallatin Road. The site is vacant and measures approximately 21 acres. Development of the Property includes developing approximately ten acres (10.45) with an approximate 222,000 square foot industrial building, and dedicating 10.72 acres, with limited site preparation, to the City for future recreational uses. The entire project will be designed in accordance with Army Corps and Los Angeles County Flood Control stormwater storage requirements.
The 10.72 acre area to be controlled by the City (approximately 11 acres) will include limited site preparation for future recreational uses, to be owned, managed, and operated by the City. The conceptual site plan included in the March 28, 2023 MOU included one
soccer field and a meandering walkway with no on-site parking. Since then, the applicant has worked with staff, while at the same time, addressing the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) concern regarding the accommodation of stormwater storage improvements. The site includes a USACE easement across the Property to "overflow, flood and submerge" all or a portion of the Property in connection with the easement. As the applicant proceeded with the project, the site plan required revisions. In particular, the site plan has now been designed to accommodate two soccer fields, parking, and landscaping requirements. A trapezoid channel will traverse the park in a south-north manner between the soccer fields to relay the stormwater from the warehouse to the ultimate discharge point, a 90-inch storm pipe north of the park.
A new development agreement between the City and MVP is forthcoming and will supersede the existing agreement.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. Resolution No. 25-036
B. MVP South El Monte - MOU for 825 Lexington-Gallatin
C. Original Site Plan
D. Revised Site Plan
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 25-036
A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A REVISION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND MVP SOUTH
EL MONTE I, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DEDICATION
OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 825 LEXINGTON-GALLATIN
ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of South El Monte (“City”) and MVP South El Monte I, LLC (“Owner”) have been in discussions about the property located at 835 Lexington-Gallatin Road (“Property”) and development related to the same; and
WHEREAS, the Owner owns the Property and desires to construct an industrial building (approximately 210,00 square feet) on 10.3 acres of the Property and dedicate the remaining 11 acres to the City for use as public open space; and
WHEREAS, the Property is subject to a flowage easement specific to regulations and oversight by the Army Corp of Engineers, among other state and federal standards, regulations and restrictions (collectively the “Stormwater Flowage Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has revised the site plan in order to better accommodate the Stormwater Flowage Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to memorialize the intention of the parties in a First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding that updates and revises the site plan of the previously approved MOU.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South El Monte as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the proposed First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (“First Amendment”), in substantially the form attached hereto and as approved as to form by the City Attorney’s office.
Section 2. The City Council further directs the City Manager or designee to take all actions necessary to effectuate the agreement.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 2025.
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
Adrian Garcia, MMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Adrian Garcia, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 25-036, was duly passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of April 2025, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Adrian Garcia, MMC, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO, 23-7
A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND MVP
SOUTH EL MONTE I, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT AND
DEDICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 825
LEXINGTON- GALLATIN ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of South El Monte (" City") and MVP South El Monte I, LLC Owner") have been in discussions about the property located at 835 Lexington - Gallatin Road Property") and development related to the same; and
WHEREAS, the Owner owns the Property and desires to construct an industrial building approximately 223, 000 square feet) on 10. 3 acres of the Property and dedicate the reaming 11 acres to the City for use as public open space; and
WHEREAS, the Property is subject to aflowage easement specific to regulations and oversight by the Army Corp of Engineers, among other state and federal standards, regulations and restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to memorialize the intention parties in an memorandum of understanding (" MOU").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of South El Monte as follows:
Section I. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (" MOU"), in substantially the form attached here to and as approved as to form by the City Attorney' soffice.
Section 2. The City Council further directs the City Manager or designee to take all actions necessary to execute the agreement.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2023.
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
ATTACHMENT B
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
SS:
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 23-7, was duly passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the 28th day of March 2023, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember( s): Acosta, Bojorquez, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos NOES: Councilmember( s): None
ABSENT: Councilmember( s): Delgado ri;
chwartz, City Cler
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE AND MVP SOUTH EL MONTE I, LLC
REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT
825 LEXINGTON- GALLATIN ROAD, SOUTH EL MON FE, CA 91733 This Memorandum of Understanding (" Agreement") regarding the proposed development of the property located at 825 Lexington - Gallatin Road (" Property"), zoned Commercial ( C), is entered into on this 26th day of June 2023, by and between the City of South El Monte (" City"), a municipal organization located at 1415 Santa Anita Avenue, South El Monte CA 91733, and MVP South El Monte I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (" Owner"). The City and Owner may be referred to, individually or collectively, as " Party" or " Parties."
RECITALS
A. The City Council approved the form ofthis Agreement on March 28, 2023 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 23- 17, which authorizes the City Manager to execute this Agreement in substantially the form approved by the City Council and as approved as to form by the City Attorney' s office. This Agreement is in substantially the form approved by the City Council and as approved as to form by the City Attorney' s office.
B. Owner is the sole owner of the Property, which is more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
C. Rather than developing the entirety of the Property, Owner proposes to provide over half of the Property for community use and enjoyment.
D. Owner proposes to develop the Property with ( i) an approximately eleven ( 11) acre public open space area, to be transferred by Owner to City upon completion of limited site preparation ( further described below) and thereafter developed, owned, and managed and operated by City (" Public Open Space") and ( ii) an approximately 223, 000 square foot industrial building on approximately ten ( 10) acres fronting Lexington - Gallatin Road (" Industrial Building"), as schematically depicted on Exhibit " B" attached hereto.
E. The Public Open Space will provide community benefits to the City, in part because of its size and proximity to existing public parks and recreational facilities, and the Industrial Building will provide community benefits to the City, in part because of newly created i) employment opportunities during construction and occupancy and ( ii) property and sales and use tax revenues.
F. The Industrial Building and Public Open Space will be designed to accommodate Detention Basin Improvements ( defined below at paragraph 3.A. i). The Industrial Building, Public Open Space, and Detention Basin Improvements are collectively referred to herein as the Project."
G. Among other easements, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (" USACE") has an easement across the Property to " overflow, flood and submerge" all or a portion of the Property in connection with the Whittier Flood Control Basin project (" USACE Easement") 01257.005! 866780. 10
pursuant to the covenants and conditions provided in an order and judgement entered on September 8, 1955 in an action by the United States of America in Case No. 9103, recorded October 9, 1958 in Book M131, Page 58, Official Records (" Order"). The Order requires written consent from the USACE for the " the type and location of any structure and/ or appurtenance thereto" in the USACE Easement.
H. The USACE has determined that approval of the Project will be required pursuant to the USACE Section 408 Program (" Section 408 Permit"). The purpose of the Section 408 Program, which is codified at 33 U. S. C. § 408, is to verify that changes to an authorized USACE Civil Works project will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of the USACE project.
I. Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, as amended ( 33 U. S. C. § 2352), authorizes the USACE to accept funds from non- federal public entities to provide priority review of Section 408 Permit applications pursuant to a Section 214 Agreement.
J. City desires to facilitate Owner' s efforts to obtain a Section 408 Permit and Section 214 Agreement.
K. The Project will necessitate environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Act (" CEQA Project Environmental Review"), for which the City will act as the Lead CEQA Agency, and the National Environmental Protection Act (" NEPA Project Environmental Review"), for which the USACE is anticipated to act as the Lead NEPA Agency together, " Project Environmental Review").
L. The Project will necessitate the following City approvals, subject to CEQA Project Environmental Review: ( i) adoption or certification, as applicable, of the CEQA Project Environmental Review document; ( ii) General Plan Land Use Map amendments; (iii) Zoning Map amendments; ( iv) Site Permit review and approval; ( v) Conditional Use Permit approval; and vi) if City desires to accept dedication of the Public Open Space to City by Owner, City approval of all required documentation and agreement( s) for City satisfaction of the Public Open Space Dedication Requirements ( defined below) (vii) any other applicable City approval ( collectively, City Project Approvals"). The Parties desire to consolidate the City Project Approvals at the City Council level after a recommendation from the City Planning Commission, as applicable, at the City Council' s discretion.
M. The Project could also necessitate approval from third parties including ( i) the Los Angeles County (" County") Flood Control District, for a gravity storm drain connection to an existing County Flood Control District facility along the northern Property line; (ii) the El Monte Union High School District, for an easement across the South El Monte High School property if required for secondary emergency access in the event of flooding at the intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and Lexington - Gallatin Road; and ( iii) other local, state or regional government entities collectively, " Other Local/ Stte Project Approvals").
2-
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Definitions. The definitions in the Recitals above are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the following definitions apply for purposes of this Agreement:
A. " Federal Project Approvals" means, subject to completion ofNEPA Project Environmental Review: ( i) adoption or issuance, as applicable, of the NEPA Project Environmental Review document; ( ii) the USACE Section 408 Permit approval, which allows another party, such as a local government, company, or individual, to alter a USACE Civil Works project; and ( iii) any other approvals required by other federal government agencies in connection with the Project.
B. " Project Approvals" means City Project Approvals, Other LocallState Project Approvals and Federal Project Approvals.
C. " Final Project Approvals" means the later of (i) the expiration of the time periods for filing an administrative appeal or other administrative challenge to the City Project Approvals; (ii) the favorable resolution of any administrative appeal( s) or other challenge( s) to the City Project Approvals, meaning that the City Project Approvals are upheld; (iii) the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations periods for the filing of a lawsuit related to the City Project Approvals and Other Local/ Stte Project Approvals; ( iv) the expiration of the voter referendum period for the applicable City Project Approvals; and ( v) the favorable resolution of any lawsuit( s) or voter referendum related to the City Project Approvals and Other Local/ Stte Project Approvals, meaning that the City Project Approvals and Other Local/ Stte Project Approvals are upheld.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, " Final Project Approvals" shall not be deemed to have occurred if any lawsuit( s) related to the Federal Project Approvals is filed prior to the otherwise applicable Final Project Approvals" date under this Section 1. 0 unless and until there is a favorable resolution of any such lawsuit( s).
2. Purpose.
A. This Agreement sets forth the responsibilities of the Parties for processing the Project Approvals.
B. The Parties acknowledge that the City will not issue any City Project Approvals until after the City has completed the City' s obligations with respect to the CEQA Project Environmental Review.
C. The Parties acknowledge that the City' s actions in connection with the issuance of the Section 408 Permit by the USACE are not, and shall not be deemed, to commit the City to issuing any City Project Approvals, to constrain in any manner the City' s discretion in conducting the CEQA Project Environmental Review, or to accept the dedication of the Public Open Space.
3-
3. Owner Responsibilities.
A. Project Design and. Construction.
i. Detention Basin Improvements. Owner shall, at its sole cost and expense, design and construct storage and drainage for the required volume of potential flood waters from the Whittier Flood Control Basin, as determined by the USACE as part of the Section 408 Permit process. Among other requirements and conditions to be determined by USACE, it is currently anticipated that the " Detention Basin Improvements" will include a) installation of a new detention basin approximately five ( 5) to eight ( 8) feet deep along Santa Anita Avenue and ( b) installation of a new gravity storm drain connection for the detention basin, which will connect to an existing County Flood Control District facility along the northern Property line. In the event Owner learns of or anticipates any change in the Detention Basin Improvements, as described herein, Owner shall promptly notify the City. ii. Industrial Building. The Parties acknowledge that the Industrial Building will be located in an area currently susceptible to flood waters from the Whittier Flood Control Basin and, therefore, the design of the Industrial Building will also be subject to review and approval by the USACE as part of the Section 408 Permit process. Owner shall, at its sole cost and expense, design and construct the Industrial Building on the Property and any related, surface parking.
iii. Public Open Space. The Parties acknowledge that the Detention Basin Improvements will be located in and under the Public Open Space and, therefore, the design of the Public Open Space will also be subject to review and approval by the USACE as part of the Section 408 Permit process. Pursuant to subsection ( i) above, Owner shall, at its sole cost and expense, be responsible for designing the Detention Basin Improvements in the Public Open Space pursuant to USACE requirements. Owner shall also conduct limited site preparation ( e.g. rough grading) for the Public Open Space. However, pursuant to Section 4(D)( i) below, City shall be responsible for designing and constructing any further improvements to the Public Open Space.
B. Public Open Space Dedication. Owner shall transfer the Public Open Space to City, subject to Final Project Approvals and City satisfaction of the Public Open Space Dedication Requirements ( defined below).
C. Section 408 Permit. Owner shall prepare all required Section 408 Permit application materials and supplemental materials required by the USACE for the Section 408 Permit.
D. Section 214 Agreement. If authorized by the USACE, Owner shall prepare the Section 214 Agreement, which allows the Corps to accept funds from non- federal public entities, natural gas companies, or public -utility companies to provide priority review of their permit applications, with the USACE in coordination with City and the USACE. 4-
4. City Responsibilities.
A. Application Review. City shall conduct preliminary review and provide any comments on Owner' s
applications for City Project Approvals within forty-ive (45) sixty ( 60) calendar days ofreceipt of completed applications.
B. Section 408 Permit. City shall act as the Non -Federal Sponsor for purposes of seeking issuance of a Section 408 Permit from the USACE to authorize the construction ofthe Project, including but not limited to the Detention Basin Improvements. Owner shall reimburse City for costs and expenditures related to the USACE Section 408 Permit process, pursuant to Section 5, below.
C. Section 214 Agreement. If authorized by the USACE, City shall enter into a Section 214 Agreement with the USACE to expedite the Section 408 Permit approval process.
Owner shall reimburse City for related costs and expenditures, pursuant to Section 5, below.
D. Public Open Space.
i, Design. City shall, at its sole cost and expense, design any proposed above -ground improvements to the Public Open Space and coordinate with Owner and the USACE on the design to ensure that Section 408 Permit requirements will be met with respect thereto, including but not limited to any restrictions on the installation of impervious surfaces in the Public Open Space.
ii. Timing. City shall use best efforts to provide all plans and specifications required by the USACE for any proposed above -ground improvements to the Public Open Space within thirty ( 30) calendar days of Owner submittal of an otherwise complete Section 408 Permit application to City.
iii. Transfer. Prior to the transfer of the Public Open Space to City by Owner, City shall ( a) cooperate with Owner on a tax efficient transfer of the Public Open Space; b) if authorized by the USACE, enter into an assignment and assumption agreement with Owner for the satisfaction ofall conditions of Section 408 Permit approval that apply to the Public Open Space, including but not limited to operation and maintenance requirements for Detention Basin Improvements in the Public Open Space; and ( c) complete all required documentation for transfer of the Public Open Space to City by Owner, including but not limited to a community benefits agreement ( or similar) by and between Owner and City for the transfer of the Public Open Space to City by Owner, if deemed by the Parties to be necessary and/ or desirable ( together, the " Public Open Space Dedication Requirements").
iv. Construction and Operation and Maintenance. City shall, at its sole cost and expense, be responsible for constructing or installing, as applicable, any and all proposed above - ground improvements to the Public Open Space and, thereafter, for operation and maintenance of the Public Open Space, in all instances in compliance with USACE conditions of Section 408 Permit approval, other USACE requirements, and all applicable laws. 5-
E. Project Environmental Review. City shall be the Lead Agency for purposes of the CEQA Project Environmental Review and shall use best efforts to provide any related requested documentation to the USACE for purposes of NEPA Project Environmental Review.
F. Timing of Consideration of City Project Approvals. The City shall use best efforts to process the applications for City Project Approvals concurrent with CEQA Project Environmental Review to allow for concurrent consideration of all such approvals by the City Planning Commission and City Council, as applicable (" City Hearings"). The City shall use best efforts to ( i) provide required public notice for and hold the City Hearings within ninety ( 90) calendar days of publication ofthe CEQA Project Environmental Review document and ( ii) if any of the City Hearings are continued, to hold the applicable City Hearing( s) within sixty ( 60) calendar days thereafter. The City Hearings shall be held prior to issuance of the Section 408 Permit for the Project, ifapproved by the USACE, which the Parties acknowledge will, as currently proposed by the USACE, occur after City Project Approvals, if any.
5. Reimbursement.
A. Invoices. Each month, City shall furnish to Owner an original invoice for all work performed and costs and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City' s
Director of Finance. The invoice shall contain all information specified herein and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: ( i) the USACE Section 408 Permit application fees; ( ii) financial contributions pursuant to the Section 214 Agreement with the USACE; ( iii) the USACE staff time and materials related to the Section 408 Permit and Section 214 Agreement, if billed to City; and ( v) City staff time and materials related to the Section 408 Permit and Section 214 Agreement. ( Staff time shall include time spent by the City Attorney' soffice.)
B. Owner Review of Invoices. Owner shall independently review each invoice submitted by City to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by Owner, the original invoice shall be returned by Owner to City for correction and resubmission.
C. Payment of Invoices. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by City which are disputed by Owner, Owner shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cause City to be paid within thirty ( 30) calendar days of receipt of City' scorrect and undisputed invoice. Review and payment by Owner of any invoice provided by City shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.
D. Survival. This section 5 shall be binding on successors and assigns of Owner and shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement and applies even ifthe Project Milestone under section 9 below is not met or the Project is otherwise discontinued.
6. Indemnification.
A. To the full extent permitted by law, Owner agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (" Indemnified Parties") against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, 6-
administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, fines, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened ( herein claims or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity ( including but not limited to the USACE) which the City may suffer or incur as a consequence of Owner' sProject including but not limited to any CEQA challenges, other than an administrative appeal, and/ or arising out of or in connection with any negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Owner, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, invitees, or any individual or entity for which Owner is legally liable (" Indemnitors"), or arising from Owner' s or Indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Owner' s or Indemnitors' negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, except claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City' s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions. For purposes of this Section 6(A), the Public Open Space component of Owner' s Project means Owner' s
design of the Public Open Space to accommodate Detention Basin Improvements and limited site preparation ( e.g., rough grading) of the Public Open Space, pursuant to Section 3(A)( iii) above, prior to transfer of the Public Open Space by Owner to City.
Pursuant to Section 4( D)( i) above, City shall be responsible for designing and constructing any further improvements to the Public Open Space.
B. In the event that the Owner ( MVP South El Monte I, LLC) is unable to satisfy its indemnity obligations required herein, then its Sole Member, MVP South El Monte Lexington, LLC, shall be responsible for satisfaction of the indemnity obligations. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Owner and shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
7. Cooperation. The Parties agree to cooperate with each other in the preparation and submission of all permits and approvals required by federal, state, regional, or local governmental agencies for the construction ofthe Project and to provide preliminary designs and specifications sufficient for permitting and Project Environmental Review purposes.
8. Effective Date. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution of this Agreement by both Parties (" Effective Date"). This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until all Final Project Approvals are obtained, if any, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 9, below.
9. Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement ( i) upon the finding by such Party of a material deviation from the terms hereof, which deviation would, in such Party' s reasonable discretion, result in the imposition of a substantial additional burden or the deprivation of a substantial benefit with regard to such Party' s performance hereunder, or ( ii) if Owner determines in good faith that the Project will not proceed to the point of obtaining all Final Project Approvals within forty- eight (48) months of the Effective Date (" Project Milestone"); or ( iii) the City can terminate this Agreement if a lawsuit ( including but not limited to a petition for writ of mandate, a complaint for damages or both) is filed in any court naming the City as a party concerning the Project, for which indemnity and defenses by Owner is required under Section 6 Indemnification) above, and the Owner declines to defend and indemnify the City in that lawsuit, as provided in Section 6 above.
7-
10. Interpretation; Headings. In the event of a dispute between the Parties hereto over the meaning of this Agreement, both Parties shall be deemed to have been the drafter hereof, and any applicable law that states that contracts are construed against the drafter shall not apply. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience purposes only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.
11. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is or shall be deemed illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and this Agreement shall be interpreted as if such legal, invalid or unenforceable provision did not exist herein.
12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
13. Miscellaneous Provisions.
A. No change, amendment, alteration, or revision of this Agreement shall be valid unless evidenced by a written agreement approved and executed by both City and Owner.
B. Owner represents that as of the Effective Date hereof, it is the sole owner ofthe Property and that it has the authority to enter into this Agreement and that as of the Effective Date hereof, this Agreement is a binding valid obligation of Owner.
C. City represents that as of the Effective Date hereof, it has the authority to enter into this Agreement and that, once authorized and in effect, this Agreement is a binding valid obligation of City.
D. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the Parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the Parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement.
E. The exhibits attached hereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
F. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which in the aggregate shall constitute one and the same instrument, and the Parties agree that signatures on this Agreement shall be sufficient to bind the Parties.
14. Notices. All notices and other communications given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly served if delivered in person to the party to whom it is addressed or three ( 3) days after mailing, if mailed by first class mail. For purposes of notice, the address of the Parties shall be as follows:
City: City of South El Monte, Attn: City Manager, 1415 Santa Anita Avenue, South El Monte CA, 91733
8-
Copy to: Aleshire & Wynder, LLP, Attn: South El Monte City Attorney, at the address on file with the City.
Owner: Magellan Value Partners, Attn: Rick Martinez, Managing Director, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2470, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Copy to: Allen Matkins, Attn: Caroline Chase and Barry Epstein, Three Embarcadero Center, 13th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 Copy to: Allen Matkins, Attn: Stephen Etheredge, 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Type text here
Exhibit A
Legal Description of Property
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the City of South El Monte, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is described as follows:
A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING PORTIONS OF LOTS 110 AND 120 OF TRACT NO. 621, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 15, PAGE 182 OF MAPS, A PORTION OF THE RANCHO POTRERO GRANDE AS DESCRIBED IN THE PATENT RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 3 OF PATENTS AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK " K" OF SUBDIVISIONS OF
THE RANCHO POTRERO DE FELIPE LUGO AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 43, PAGE 43 ET SEQ. OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, ALL IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT D4 THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 IN BLOCK K" THAT IS DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 45° 02' 49" WEST 1080. 64 FEET FROM THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 25° 33' 24" WEST 710 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 64° 26' 36" WEST 1200 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 120 THAT IS DISTANT SOUTH 0° 17' 11" EAST 1180. 57 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT NO 621; THENCE SOUTH 250 33' 24" EAST 710 FEET; THENCE NORTH 64° 26' 36" EAST 454. 17 FEET TO A LINE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 IN BLOCK " K" WHICH PASSES THROUGH A POINT IN SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE THAT IS DISTANT SOUTH 450 02' 49" WEST 703. 50 FEET FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT ANGLE LINE SOUTH 440 57' 11" EAST 247. 69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 2 AND 1 IN SAID BLOCK " K" NORTH 450 02' 49" EAST TO THE INTERSECTION OF THAT CERTAIN LINE
IN THE SIDELINE OF THE POMONA FREEWAY AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT DOCUMENT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED ON AUGUST 27, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1546 IN BOOK D2159, PAGE 922 ET SEQ. OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CERTAIN LINE DESCRIBED THEREON AS HAVING A BEARING AND LENGTH OF " NORTH 80° 22' 48" WEST 692. 44 FEET"; THENCE ALONG SAID CERTAIN LINE NORTH 800 22' 48" WEST TO THE NORTHWESTERLY
TERMINUS OF SAID LINE AND THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE THEREIN CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 250. 00 FEET; THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG SAID TANGENT CURVE TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT I; THENCE SOUTHWEST ALONG SAID NORTHWEST LINE TO SAID LINE HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 25° 33' 24" WEST AND WHICH PASSES THROUGH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 25° 33' 24" WEST 14. 55 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING-.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THAT CERTAIN
LINE AND ITS NORTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATIONS THEREOF DESCRIBED ABOVE AS " NORTH 25' 33' 24" EAST 710 FEET".
Exhibit A
1-
ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHWESTERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY LINE OF THE 80 FOOT STRIP OF LAND KNOWN AS SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 16-- 4 OF FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 908. 498, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED IN BOOK D3995, PAGE 73 ON MAY 07, 1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 3953 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY,
ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCELS 16 -4D -I, 164S. AND 164S. 2 OF FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 908. 498, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED IN BOOK D3995, PAGE 73 ON MAY 07, 1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 3953 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PORTION OF SAID LOT 120 OF TRACT NO. 621
INCLUDED N THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, ONE- IALF OF ALL OIL RIGHTS IN AND
UNDER SAID LAND, AS RESERVED BY JOE CAGLIERO AND WIFE AND GEORGE VISSIO AND HIS WIFE IN THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 18263, PAGE 169 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PORTION OF SAID LAND WHICH WAS FORMERLY
REGISTERED LAND, ONE- HALF OF ALL THE OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN OR THEREUNDER, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM THOMAS W.
BELL, FILED APRIL 08, 1942, IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF LAND TITLES AS INSTRUMENT NO. 5621- K.
Exhibit A
2- .
Exhibit B
Schematic Depiction of Project Development
41 fe
444, 44, 44,,,, w• +
1 ` NIP
L xNjaa' l t i/ oA'' y231"
Exhibit 8
1-
Site Plan ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 9.b.
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rene Salas, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Danilo Batson, Interim Director of Public Works SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 25- 037, APPROVING AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TO PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. FOR
SYSTEMIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS, HSIPL-5352(025), CITY PROJECT NO. 607
SUMMARY: On January 29, 2025, the Engineering Department solicited bids for the Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections Project. The work involves installation of raised pavement markers, striping, pedestrian crosswalks, and traffic signal adjustments (implementation of leading pedestrian interval (LPI)) at twenty one (21) signalized intersections citywide. The lowest responsive bid was submitted by PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. in the total bid amount of $327,027.00.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council:
1. Adopt and approve the plans and specifications for the Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections Project;
2. Approve Resolution No. 25-037, awarding the Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections Project contract to the lowest responsible bidder in an amount of $327,027.00 to PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract;
3. Authorize fifteen percent (15%) of the total contract amount as contingency allowance to be used if necessary for unforeseen conditions at the City Manager’s discretion.
FISCAL/FINANCIAL IMPACT: The established budget is as follows:
Contract Award Amount $327,027.00
Construction Contingency (15% of contract amount) $49,054.05 Total Construction Budget $376,081.05
The Project will be funded by the following sources.
HSIP Cycle 11 (State Funds) $338,472.94
Measure R Local (Required Local Match) $37,608.11
Total Budget $376,081.05
DISCUSSION: The work involves installation of raised pavement markers, striping, pedestrian crosswalks, and traffic signal adjustments (implementation of leading pedestrian interval (LPI)) at twenty one (21) signalized intersections citywide. The construction is anticipated to start in Summer 2025 and will be completed within 160 working days.
The construction portion of the project was initially advertised on November 13, 2024.
The City only received one bid at the Bid Opening held on December 11, 2024, at 11:00 AM. Staff reviewed the received bid, and identified a discrepancy on the submitted bid.
On January 28, 2025, the City Council rejected the bid due to the reported discrepancy, and authorized staff to re-advertise the project.
On January 29, 2025, the project was re-advertised. The following four (4) bids were received by the City and opened at the Bid Opening held on March 5, 2025, at 11:00 AM.
Below is the list of Bidders and Bid Amounts:
Bidder Name (from low to high) Total Bid Amount
PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. $327,027.00
Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc. $344,888.00
Alfaro Communications Construction, Inc. $347,777.00
Servitek Electric, Inc. $461,580.00
The lowest bid was submitted by PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. for the total bid amount of $327,027.00.
Staff conducted a bid analysis and verified the contractor’s licensing, Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) registration, state and federal debarment files and references for PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. Per the bid analysis, the Bid submitted by PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive bid. The Bid submitted by PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. and the bid analysis completed by staff is attached as reference.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. Resolution No. 25-037
B. Submitted Bid
C. Bid Analysis
D. Contract
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 25-037
A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL
AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PTM GENERAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. FOR SYSTEMIC SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS, HSIPL5352(025), CITY PROJECT NO. 607 WHEREAS, the City of South El Monte desires to construct raised pavement markers, striping, pedestrian crosswalks, and traffic signal adjustments (implementation of leading pedestrian interval (LPI)) at twenty-one (21) signalized intersections citywide; and WHEREAS, the City solicited bids for the Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections Project (“Project”) on November 13, 2024 and the City received one (1) bid for the Project on December 11, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council rejected the bid due to the reported discrepancy on the bid and authorized staff to re-advertise the Project on January 28, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City re-advertised bids for the Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections Project on January 29, 2025, and the City received four (4) bids for the Project on March 5, 2025; and
WHEREAS, City staff evaluated all bids and determined PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. has submitted the lowest responsive bid for the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council of South El Monte (“City”) hereby adopts and approves the plans and specifications for the Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections Project, with respect to design and criteria. Copies of the plans and specifications are on file in the City’s Engineering Department.
SECTION 3. Upon reviewing the bids submitted for the work to be performed pursuant to contract and the plans and specifications, the City Council hereby finds that PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. has submitted the lowest responsive bid for the Project, in the amount of $327,027.00.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute a construction agreement with PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. for the project, subject to review and approval as to form by the City Attorney. The Council further directs the City Manager to take all actions necessary to effectuate the agreement.
SECTION 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of April 2025. _____________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Adrian Garcia, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Adrian Garcia, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 25-037, was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a Regular meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of April 2025, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Adrian Garcia, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT B
Qty Unit Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization 1 LS $20,327.00 $20,327.00 $22,545.00 $22,545.00 $51,451.00 $51,451.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $28,830.75 $28,830.75 $20,327.00 $51,451.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $32,545.00 $32,545.00 $27,924.00 $27,924.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $26,367.25 $26,367.25 $21,000.00 $32,545.00 3 Temporary Traffic and Electrical Systems 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $18,300.00 $18,300.00 $21,294.00 $21,294.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $16,523.50 $16,523.50 $2,500.00 $24,000.00 4 Signal Turn On 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $14,196.00 $14,196.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,799.00 $12,799.00 $4,000.00 $21,000.00 5 Remove and salvage existing controller from existing controller cabinet. Furnish and install new 2070 controller with latest D4 software or City approved equal in existing controller cabinet 12 EA $13,000.00 $156,000.00 $9,532.00 $114,384.00 $11,192.25 $134,307.00 $11,000.00 $132,000.00 $11,181.06 $134,172.75 $9,532.00 $13,000.00 6 Install LPI Timing Sheets 21 EA $2,000.00 $42,000.00 $400.00 $8,400.00 $650.00 $13,650.00 $2,000.00 $42,000.00 $1,262.50 $26,512.50 $400.00 $2,000.00 7 Install White Ladder Xwalk 6,500 SF $5.00 $32,500.00 $5.65 $36,725.00 $5.20 $33,800.00 $14.00 $91,000.00 $7.46 $48,506.25 $5.00 $14.00 8 Install Yellow Ladder Xwalk 900 SF $5.00 $4,500.00 $5.65 $5,085.00 $5.20 $4,680.00 $14.00 $12,600.00 $7.46 $6,716.25 $5.00 $14.00 9 Remove existing striping 12 PER
INT. $2,500.00 $30,000.00 $5,992.00 $71,904.00 $2,925.00 $35,100.00 $4,165.00 $49,980.00 $3,895.50 $46,746.00 $2,500.00 $5,992.00 10 Install Detail 40 200 LF $3.20 $640.00 $4.00 $800.00 $3.25 $650.00 $16.00 $3,200.00 $6.61 $1,322.50 $3.20 $16.00 11 Install Detail 41 3,300 LF $3.20 $10,560.00 $4.00 $13,200.00 $3.25 $10,725.00 $16.00 $52,800.00 $6.61 $21,821.25 $3.20 $16.00 Apparent Low
Bidder 1
Apparent Low
Bidder 2
Apparent Low
Bidder 3
Apparent Low
Bidder 4
$327,027.00 $344,888.00 $347,777.00 $461,580.00
$327,027.00 $344,888.00 $347,777.00 $461,580.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
23.00% 42.00% 18.80% 31.13%
Cal Stripe 23.00% Superior Pavement
Markings 42.00% Cal Stripe 18.80% Chrisp Company 31.13% TOTAL 23.00% TOTAL 42.00% TOTAL 18.80% TOTAL 31.13%
1. BID TABULATION
Bid Item and Description
BID TABULATION
Apparent Low Bidder 1
PTM General Engineering
Services, Inc.
PROJECT NAME:SYSTEMIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS, CITY PROJECT NO.: 607, CALTRANS PROJECT NO.: HSIPL-5352(025)
SUBCONTRACTORS
TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT CALCULATED BASED ON UNIT PRICES
IS THE BIDDER QUALIFIED BASED ON REFERENCE PROJECTS
CALCULATION CORRECTIONS TO BASE BID AMOUNT SUBMITTED BY CONTRACTOR BASED
ON CALCULATED BID AMOUNT
BID RANKING
SUBCONTRACTOR % AND AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BID
TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT INDICATED BY BIDDER
HIGHEST
UNIT BID
PRICE
AVERAGE BID VALUES LOWEST
UNIT BID
PRICE
Apparent Low Bidder 4
Servitek Elektrik, Inc.
Apparent Low Bidder 2
Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc.
Apparent Low Bidder 3
Alfaro Communications
Construction, Inc.
D:\Dropbox (Transtech Engineers)\JOBRECRD\2023\230435 SEM HSIP CYCLE 11 IMPROVEMENTS PE PHASE\WIP\0.CIP\40 Bidding\40.11 Bid Analysis (Rebid)\250317\01 Bid Analysis, SEM, HSIP Cycle 11 ImprovementsBID TABULATION 1 of 2 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 1 of 20 ATTACHMENT C
APPARENT LOW BID AMOUNT: $327,027.00
REVIEW RESULT BY DATE
YES CITY CLERK 3/5/25
YES OD 3/5/25
N/A OD 3/5/25
NO OD 3/5/25
YES OD 3/5/25
23.00% OD 3/5/25
51.00% OD 3/5/25
77.00% OD 3/5/25
YES OD 3/5/25
49.00% OD 3/5/25
23.00% OD 3/5/25
YES OD 3/5/25
PRIME CONTRACTOR LICENSE STATUS: PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. 891265 OD 3/5/25 PRIME CONTRACTOR DIR REGISTRATION STATUS: PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. 1000004133 OD 3/5/25 SUB CONTRACTOR LICENSE STATUS: Cal Stripe 685387 OD 3/5/25 SUB CONTRACTOR DIR REGISTRATION STATUS: Cal Stripe 1000001100 OD 3/5/25
PRIME CONTRACTOR DEBARMENT STATUS FROM STATE
CONTRACTS: PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. NOT ON STATE DEBARRED LIST OD 3/5/25
PRIME CONTRACTOR DEBARMENT STATUS FROM
FEDERAL CONTRACTS: PTM General Engineering Services, Inc. NOT ON FEDERAL DEBARRED LIST OD 3/5/25
SUB CONTRACTOR DEBARMENT STATUS FROM STATE
CONTRACTS: Cal Stripe NOT ON STATE DEBARRED LIST OD 3/5/25
SUB CONTRACTOR DEBARMENT STATUS FROM FEDERAL
CONTRACTS: Cal Stripe NOT ON FEDERAL DEBARRED LIST OD 3/5/25 REFERENCE CHECK ACCEPTABLE: See Reference Check
Print-out from DIR Web Page attached (http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/debar.html) Print-out from SAM Web Page attached (https://www.sam.gov/SAM/) Print-out from DIR Web Page attached (http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/debar.html) Print-out from SAM Web Page attached (https://www.sam.gov/SAM/)
2. REVIEW OF APPARENT LOW BID
APPARENT LOW BID SUBMITTED BY: PTM General Engineering Services, Inc.
ITEM REVIEWED/CHECKED REMARKS
BID STAMPED AS RECEIVED PRIOR BID TIME:
BID BOND IN PROPER AMOUNT:
ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
SUB CONTRACTOR % CALCULATED PER BID SUBMITTAL
(THIS % MUST BE EQUAL OR LESS THAN ABOVE %):
PRIME CONTRACTOR % CALCULATED PER BID SUBMITTAL
(THIS % MUST BE EQUAL OR MORE THAN ABOVE %):
Print-out from DIR Web Page attached
(https://cadir.my.salesforce-sites.com/ContractorSearch?) BIDDER COMPLIES WITH MAX. SUB CONTRACTOR % REQUIREMENT:
Print-out from CLSB Web Page attached (http://www.cslb.ca.gov/) Print-out from DIR Web Page attached
(https://cadir.my.salesforce-sites.com/ContractorSearch?) Print-out from CLSB Web Page attached (http://www.cslb.ca.gov/) BIDDER COMPLIES WITH MIN PRIME CONTRACTOR % REQUIREMENT:
MAX ALLOWABLE SUBCONTRACTOR PERCENT PER SPECIFICATIONS:
ANY APPARENT DISCREPANCY IN THE SUBMITTAL:
TOTAL BID PRICES CALCULATED CORRECTLY:
SUBCONTRACTOR AMOUNT:
MIN PRIME CONTRACTOR % REQUIREMENT FOR WORK PER SPECIFICATIONS:
D:\Dropbox (Transtech Engineers)\JOBRECRD\2023\230435 SEM HSIP CYCLE 11 IMPROVEMENTS PE PHASE\WIP\0.CIP\40 Bidding\40.11 Bid Analysis (Rebid)\250317\01 Bid Analysis, SEM, HSIP Cycle 11 ImprovementsREVIEW OF APPARENT LOW BID 2 of 2 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 2 of 20
Data current as of 3/5/2025 8:54:35 PM
Home | Online Services | License Details
Contractor's License Detail for License #
891265
DISCLAIMER: A license status check provides information taken from the CSLB license database. Before relying on this information, you should be aware of the following limitations.
Business Information
P T M GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC
5942 ACORN ST
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
Business Phone Number:(951) 710-1000
Entity Corporation
Issue Date 02/20/2007
Expire Date 02/28/2027
License Status
This license is current and active.
All information below should be reviewed.
Classifications
Certifications
CSLB complaint disclosure is restricted by law (B&P 7124.6) If this entity is subject to public complaint disclosure click on link that will appear below for more information. Click here for a definition of disclosable actions.
Only construction related civil judgments reported to CSLB are disclosed (B&P 7071.17). Arbitrations are not listed unless the contractor fails to comply with the terms. Due to workload, there may be relevant information that has not yet been entered into the board's license database. A - GENERAL ENGINEERING
C10 - ELECTRICAL
C31 - CONSTRUCTION ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL
C27 - LANDSCAPING
C32 - PARKING AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
B - GENERAL BUILDING
C-61 / D42 - NON-ELECTRICAL SIGN INSTALLATION
C-7 - LOW VOLTAGE SYSTEMS
C13 - FENCING
C-61 / D09 - DRILLING, BLASTING AND OIL FIELD WORK
C-8 - CONCRETE
HAZ - HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REMOVAL
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 3 of 20
Copyright © 2025 State of California
Bonding Information
Contractor's Bond
This license filed a Contractor's Bond with HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
Bond Number: 0568087
Bond Amount: $25,000
Effective Date: 01/01/2023
Contractor's Bond History
Bond of Qualifying Individual
Workers' Compensation
An employee service group holds the workers compensation insurance.
Policy Number:C58817569
Effective Date: 08/01/2024
Expire Date: 08/01/2025
Workers' Compensation History
Workers' compensation classification code(s):
5140 - Electrical Wiring-high wage
8810 - Clerical Office Employees
5606 - Contractors-executive level supervisors
For a description of the workers' compensation classification code(s) listed for this licensee, contact the licensee’s insurance carrier. Contact information for the licensee's insurer is available by clicking the insurer link above. Classification codes are also available on the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau's classification search page.
The board does not verify or investigate the accuracy of classification codes displayed.
Other
The qualifying individual ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ MENDOZA certified that he/she owns 10 percent or more of the voting stock/membership interest of this company; therefore, the Bond of Qualifying Individual is not required.
Effective Date: 08/01/2011
BQI's Bond History
The qualifying individual BRIAN HERNANDEZ MENDOZA certified that he/she owns 10 percent or more of the voting stock/membership interest of this company; therefore, the Bond of Qualifying Individual is not required.
Effective Date: 09/20/2017
BQI's Bond History
Personnel listed on this license (current or disassociated) are listed on other licenses.
Back to Top Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy Accessibility
Accessibility Certification
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 4 of 20
Data current as of 3/5/2025 8:55:21 PM
Home | Online Services | License Details
Contractor's License Detail for License #
685387
DISCLAIMER: A license status check provides information taken from the CSLB license database. Before relying on this information, you should be aware of the following limitations.
Business Information
CAL STRIPE INC
2040 EAST STEEL ROAD
COLTON, CA 92324
Business Phone Number:(909) 884-7170
Entity Corporation
Issue Date 03/16/1994
Reissue Date 01/02/2008
Expire Date 01/31/2026
License Status
This license is current and active.
All information below should be reviewed.
Classifications
A - GENERAL ENGINEERING
Bonding Information
Contractor's Bond
This license filed a Contractor's Bond with SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA.
Bond Number: 24042335
Bond Amount: $25,000
Effective Date: 01/01/2023
Contractor's Bond History
Bond of Qualifying Individual
The qualifying individual RUDOLPH CHRISTOPHER ZAVALANI certified that he/she owns 10 percent or more of the voting stock/membership interest of this company; therefore, the Bond of Qualifying Individual is not required.
Effective Date: 01/02/2008
Workers' Compensation
This license has workers compensation insurance with the FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Policy Number:54309727
Effective Date: 07/01/2018
Expire Date: 07/01/2025
Workers' Compensation History
Miscellaneous Information
CSLB complaint disclosure is restricted by law (B&P 7124.6) If this entity is subject to public complaint disclosure click on link that will appear below for more information. Click here for a definition of disclosable actions.
Only construction related civil judgments reported to CSLB are disclosed (B&P 7071.17). Arbitrations are not listed unless the contractor fails to comply with the terms. Due to workload, there may be relevant information that has not yet been entered into the board's license database. 01/02/2008 - LICENSE REISSUED TO ANOTHER ENTITY
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 5 of 20
Copyright © 2025 State of California
Other
Personnel listed on this license (current or disassociated) are listed on other licenses.
Back to Top Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy Accessibility
Accessibility Certification
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 6 of 20
eCPR Public Search
Public Works Support
Contractors
Projects
Register
Log in
Home Customer Account Lookup PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.
PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.
Customer Account Lookup
Name
PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.
Customer Account
Type
PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.
Contractor
Website
(empty)
3/5/25, 8:56 PM PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.
https://services.dir.ca.gov/gsp?id=dir_public_form&table=x_cdoi2_csm_portal_customer_account_lookup&sys_id=6cbe5b1dc30782506d519fee05013… 1/4 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 7 of 20
Email
[email protected]
Address 1
5942 Acorn St
Address_2
City
Riverside
State
California
Zip
92504
Contractor Status
CSLB
891265
Legal Name
PTM General Engineering Services, Inc
Business Structure
Business Phone
951-710-1000
Registration Number
DIR Approved
Corporation - S corp
3/5/25, 8:56 PM PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.
https://services.dir.ca.gov/gsp?id=dir_public_form&table=x_cdoi2_csm_portal_customer_account_lookup&sys_id=6cbe5b1dc30782506d519fee05013… 2/4 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 8 of 20
Related Lists
Historical Registration Dates 1
President
Elizabeth H Mendoza
PWCR
1000001433
Registration Start Date
2024-07-01
Registration End Date
2026-06-30
Doing Business As (DBA)
PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC
Crafts
Legacy Registration Date
2023-07-01
Legacy Registration Expiration
2024-06-30
Operating Engineer Laborer and Related Classifications Electrician Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Disclaimer
Nondiscrimination Notice
Accessibility
Copyright 2024 State of California
3/5/25, 8:56 PM PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.
https://services.dir.ca.gov/gsp?id=dir_public_form&table=x_cdoi2_csm_portal_customer_account_lookup&sys_id=6cbe5b1dc30782506d519fee05013… 3/4 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 9 of 20
dir.ca.gov
3/5/25, 8:56 PM PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC.
https://services.dir.ca.gov/gsp?id=dir_public_form&table=x_cdoi2_csm_portal_customer_account_lookup&sys_id=6cbe5b1dc30782506d519fee05013… 4/4 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 10 of 20
eCPR Public Search
Public Works Support
Contractors
Projects
Register
Log in
Home Customer Account Lookup Cal Stripe, Inc.
Cal Stripe, Inc.
Customer Account Lookup
Name
Cal Stripe, Inc.
Customer Account
Type
Cal Stripe, Inc.
Contractor
Website
(empty)
Email
[email protected]
Address 1
2040 E. Steel Rd
Address_2
City
COLTON
State
CA
Zip
92324-4008
Contractor Status
CSLB
Legal Name
Cal Stripe, Inc.
Business Structure
Business Phone
909-8847170
Registration Number
DIR Approved
-- None --
3/17/25, 9:36 AM Cal Stripe, Inc.
https://services.dir.ca.gov/gsp?id=dir_public_form&table=x_cdoi2_csm_portal_customer_account_lookup&sys_id=c8f9aa01c3078250f079d9ec050131… 1/2 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 11 of 20
Related Lists
Historical Registration Dates 1
President
Rudy Zavalani
PWCR
1000001100
Registration Start Date
2023-07-01
Registration End Date
2025-06-30
Doing Business As (DBA)
CAL STRIPE, INC.
Crafts
Legacy Registration Date
2023-07-01
Legacy Registration Expiration
2025-06-30
Parking/Highway/Improvement
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Disclaimer
Nondiscrimination Notice
Accessibility
dir.ca.gov
Copyright 2024 State of California
3/17/25, 9:36 AM Cal Stripe, Inc.
https://services.dir.ca.gov/gsp?id=dir_public_form&table=x_cdoi2_csm_portal_customer_account_lookup&sys_id=c8f9aa01c3078250f079d9ec050131… 2/2 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 12 of 20
DLSE Debarments
The following is a list of contractors barred from bidding on, accepting, or performing any public works contracts, either as a contractor or subcontractor. Please refer to the “Period of Debarment” for status of debarment period as noted below:
As part of your due diligence, we suggest that you also check:
Contractor status at the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) The Federal debarment list at the Excluded Parties List System Name of contractor Period of debarment
MICHAEL FLOORING, INC.;
BENNY MICHAEL
CSLB License Number: 874947
9/13/24 through 9/13/27
Decision SC 7278
The debarment order is currently stayed by order of the Kern County Superior Court
TOBO CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
JIMI WAN CHAE; MONICA SHIUN OH;
KYUNG JIN YOON,
CSLB License Number: 758012
5/10/2023 through 5/10/2026
Decision SC 7250
G M Climate Control, Inc.
CSLB License Number: 967267
3/2/2023 through 9/2/2024
Decision 40-71536-603
MINAKO AMERICA CORPORATION DBA MINCO CONSTRUCTION;
AND REFAAT HILMAY MINA,
CSLB License Number: 612429
9/27/2021 through 9/26/2022
Decision LB 6333
GRFCO, INC. DBA ONSITE KRUSHING;
GARCIA JUAREZ CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
GEORGE ROBERT FROST; AND JAMES CRAIG JACKSON
CSLB License Number: 291013 and 84801
5/21/2021 through 5/20/2024
Decision LB 6629
ECS CONTRACTORS, INC. dba ECS ELECTRIC, INC.; UMAR KHALID RANA, an indvidual and CEO/RMO of ECS CONTRACTORS, INC.; and KANWAL SAJJAD RANA, an indvidual and RMO of ECS CONTRACTORS, INC.
CSLB License Number: 975222
3/1/2020 through 3/1/2023
Decision LB 5590
Avi Shechter, Individually
DBA Avi Shechter
CSLB Number: 908891 and 1018353
5/6/2019 through 5/5/2022
Decision LB 6328
Patrick Kim, Individually
DBA Ritecon Plumbing
CSLB Number: 991018
8/21/2018 through 8/20/2019
Decision LB 6762
Bighorn Construction, Inc.
CSLB Number: 597866
5/5/2018 through 5/4/2021
Decision LB 6658
Doug Parks, Individually dba
Doug Parks and Son Plumbing
CSLB Number: 411825
10/11/2017 through 10/10/2019
Decision SC 5807
Worthington Construction, Inc.;
Dale Worthington, an individual and CEO/RMO of
Worthington Construction, Inc.; and,
Holi Jeanne Worthington, an individual and Officer of Worthington Construction CSLB Number: 714836
6/15/2018 through 9/16/2019
Decision LB 5267
3/25/25, 9:11 PM Public Works
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/debar.html 1/6
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 13 of 20
RMV Construction, Inc., A California Corporation; and Robert Michael Vasil II a.k.a. Robert Michael Vasil a.k.a.
Mike Vasil, an Individual and CEO/RMO President of RMV
Construction, Inc.
CSLB Number: 892389
4/1/2017 through 8/18/2018
Decision LB 5266
Gewargis Youkhanis Narso, an individual dba
GEHVAC and Technologies, a sole proprietorship,
And GEHVAC Co., a sole proprietorship
CSLB Number: 899312 and 1013848
2/1/2017 through 1/31/2020
Decision 40-48480-516
Joseph Brothers Enterprise, Inc.; Ken Joseph Individually and as CEO CSLB Number: 849169
4/3/2018 through 10/3/2019
Decision SC 6390
Dave Cook Concrete Construction, Inc., and David William Cook 34231 Camino Capistrano #102
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624-1189
CSLB Number: 461897
3/1/2017 through 2/29/2020
Decision LB 6207
Bannaoun Engineers Constructors Corporation; Omar Maloof, An Individual P.O. Box 16599
Beverly Hills, CA 90209-2599
CSLB Number: 827829
05/12/17 through 05/11/20
Decision SC 5517
Evans Roofing Co., Inc.
2020 South Yale Street
Santa Ana, CA 92706
CSLB Number: 610549
10/31/16 through 10/30/19
Decision LB 6270
Guillermo Ibaibarriaga dba Sierra Nevada Stucco and 2K Roofing Sierra Nevada Stucco
P.O. Box 8472
Reno, NV 89502
CSLB Number: 915812
2K Roofing
820 Kuenzli Street
Reno, NV 89502
CSLB Number: 954551
05/14/17 through 05/13/20
Decision SC 6037
Del Norte Construction, And Trinidad Manuel Canales, an Individual PO Box 5101
Oxnard, CA 93030
5020 Wooley Rd.
Oxnard, CA 93030
CSLB Number: #945723
6/01/16 through 5/31/17
Decision LB 5533
Diversified Building & Electric Company, Inc.
409 Tennant Station
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Denis Andrew Maris, Individually and Doing Business as Diversified Electric Company CSLB Number: #765312
2/15/16 through 8/15/17
Decision SC 5714
Fast Demolition, Inc.
601-C East Palomar Street #123
Chula Vista, CA 91911
CSLB Number: #792729
Rogelio Medina Vazquez., an individual and in his capacity as Responsible Managing Officer of FAST DEMOLITION, INC.
4/1/44 through 3/31/47
Decision LB5742
4/1/41 through 3/31/44
Decision LB5665
4/1/36 through 3/31/39
Decision LB5740
4/1/33 through 3/31/37
Decision LB5651
4/1/33 through 3/31/37
Decision LB5739
3/25/25, 9:11 PM Public Works
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/debar.html 2/6
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 14 of 20
4/1/24 through 3/31/27
Decision LB5741
4/1/30 through 3/31/33
Decision LB5743
4/1/27 through 3/31/30
Decision LB5666
4/1/21 through 3/31/24
Decision LB5667
4/1/18 through 3/31/21
Decision LB5668
4/01/15 through 3/31/18
Decision LB5345
Amerivet Plumbing, Inc.; Walter Edward Jacob Kuhlmann III, Individually And dba Amerivet Plumbing Services CSLB Number: #969048 and #919761
8/6/15 through 8/5/18
Decision SC 5756
Ultimate Inc., And, Enrique Vera, an Individual
PO Box 571117
Tarzana, CA 91356-1117
CSLB Number: #949229
12/1/15 through 11/30/18
Decision LB 5655 & LBS659
Travioli Construction, Inc.
PO Box 231
Visalia, CA 93274
CSLB Number: #936832
9/11/15 through 3/10/17
Decision SC 5800
Integrity Sheet Metal, Inc.
319 McArthur Way
Upland, CA 91786
CSLB #726770
William Ben Hicks, an individual;
Margaret Mary Hicks, an individual
2/01/15 through 1/31/18
Decision LB 5596
L A Builders, Inc., a California Corporation
15635 Saticoy Street, #H
Van Nuys, CA 91406
CSLB #748591
Alon Gamliel, an individual
2/01/15 through 1/31/18
Decision LB5 171
USA Wall Systems, Inc.
8309 Sunshine Lane
Riverside, CA 92508
CSLB #929610
Edward Eugene Brammer, an individual
and in his capacity as President/CEO/RMO
4/01/15 through 3/31/18
Decision LB 5323
Daughter Construction
formerly dba Hy Carpentry Construction
15407 Thornlake Avenue
Norwalk, CA 90650
CSLB #979297
Sharon Jin Yoo, an individual;
Dae Hyun Yoo, an individual
and in his capacity as manager/supervisor for Sharon Jin Yoo and in his capacity as General Partner for HY Construction, a General Partnership.
4/01/15 through 3/31/18
Decision LB 5466, LB5467, LB5468 & LB5520
RDA Construction, Inc.
1692 W. Bullard Ave.,
Fresno, CA 93711
CSLB# 383306
12/15/14 through 12/14/16
Decision 40-40508-522 & 44-40509-522
Titan Electrical Construction, Inc.
Lucas Oliver Stickney, an individual
Jamie Noel Furr, an individual
630 Natoma Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
CSLB# 919516
11/3/14 through 11/2/17
Decision SC 5539
3/25/25, 9:11 PM Public Works
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/debar.html 3/6
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 15 of 20
Ramos Painting
Carlos Ray Ramos, an individual
P.O. Box 3871
Paso Robles, CA 93447
CSLB# 753575
11/3/14 through 11/2/15
Decision SC 5518
Dick Emard Electric.
dba Emard Electric Luke Richard Emard, an individual and RMO 5930 Key Court, Suite A
Loomis, CA 95650
CSLB# 794007
11/3/14 thorough 11/2/17
Decision SC 5521
Nixon Electric
Gordon Fulton Nixon, an individual
5624 Faust Ave.
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
CSLB# 796802
8/1/14 through 7/31/17
Decision LB 4495
Neris General Contractors, a California Corporation
Efren Neri, an individual
Servando Neri, an individual
Rebeca Neri, an individual
Luis Abelardo Castro, an individual
6087 California Ave.
Long Beach, CA 90805
CSLB# 797967
2/28/14 through 2/27/17
Decision LB 4511, LB4512 & LB4521
Southland Construction
Reza Mohammedi, an individual
3943 Irvine Blvd., #405, Irvine, CA 92602
CSLB# 663784 (expired)
10/14/14 through 10/13/17
Decision SAC 5492
National Drywall Corporation,
A Dissolved California Corporation
603 S. Milliken Avenue, Suite F
Ontario, CA 91761
CSLB #834335
Miguel Contreras, an Individual and
Responsible Managing Officer/CEO/President
Dora Maria Contreras, an Individual and
Agent/Officer of the Corporation
8/4/14 through 8/3/17
Decision SAC 5506
Tadros & Youssef Construction, Inc.
Kamel Shaker Tadros & Makram Youssef Youssef, Individually 1221 E 8th Street, Unit A, Upland, CA 91786
CSLB# 698182 (expired)
5/10/14 through 5/9/17
Decision SAC 5308
Serenity Fire Protection
417 S. Associated Road, Brea, CA 92821
CSLB# 902927
5/1/14 through 4/30/17
Decision LB 4202
Don Kelly Construction , Inc.
Don Kelly, Individual and Lisa Kelly, Individual
171 Northview Ridge Lane, P.O. Box 10760, Bozeman, MT 59719 3/25/14 through 3/24/17
Decision LB 4484
Aldan, Inc.
P.O. Box 9428, Brea, CA 92822
CSLB #949229
2/28/14 through 2/27/17
Decision LB5175
Russell/Thompson, Inc.
James Jean Russell & Valery Alena Thompson, Individually 4684 Oak Glen Dr., Redding, CA 96001
CSLB# 915036 (revoked)
10/31/13 through 10/31/16
Decision SC 5309
Ayodejia A. Ogundare, Individual
Dba Pacific Engineering Company
6310 Stewart Way, Bakersfield, CA 93308
5/15/2013 through 5/15/2014
Decision SAC 1039
3/25/25, 9:11 PM Public Works
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/debar.html 4/6
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 16 of 20
CLSB#710322
Wallcrete Industries, Inc.; Garit David
Wallace and Amber Anderson, Individuals
400 Kansas, Redlands, CA 92373
CSLB#834220
7/29/12 through 7/28/15
Decision SAC 5175
FEI Enterprises, Inc
Gabriel Fedida, Individual
5749 Venice Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90019
CSLB#659252
6/14/12 through 6/13/15
Decision SC 5198
Jeffrey Alan Mott and Michelle Mott, individuals
Dda Integrity Landscape
3756 Independence Avenue
Sanger, CA 93637
CSLB#774222
3/29/12 through 3/28/15
Decision SC 5160
Jensen Drywall & Stucco
Jeffrey E. Jensen
3714 Lynda Place
National City, CA 91950-8121
CSB # 664168 Exp. 2/18/11 (expired)
3/31/11 through 3/30/13
Decision SC 5095
All West Construction, Inc.
Donald Kent Russell
495 N. Marks Ave.
Fresno, CA 93706
CSB # 592321 Exp. 4/3/12 (suspended)
3/31/11 through 3/30/13
Decision se 5013
Country Builders, Inc.
Weldon Offill, individually
5915 Graham Ct.
Livermore, CA 94550
CSB # 699574 Exp. 11/30/12 (active)
3/1/11 through 2/28/14
Decision SC 5053
Addendum SC 5053
Sutter Foam & Coating, Inc.
909 A. George Washington
Yuba City, CA 95993
CSB # 732014 Exp. 1/31/09 (inactive)
David Alvin Trexler, an individual
909 A. George Washington
Yuba City, CA 95993
Kenneth A. Trexler, an individual
2603 Lago Lane
Marysville, CA 95901
7/1/10 through 6/30/13
Decision SAC 5012
Soo Dong Kim, an individual,
dba Soo Kim Electric Company
16224 Ridgeview Lane
La Mirada, CA 90638
CSB # 568103 Exp. 8/1/09 (inactive)
Hyo Nam Jung, an individual,
dba Lucid Electric
18621 Well Street
Rowland Heights, CA 91748
CSB # 914692 Exp. 4/3/10
4/19/10 through 4/18/13
Decision SAC 1064
Southwest Grading,
dba Southwest Grading Services, Inc.,
22031 Waite Street
Wildomar, CA 92595
David Walter Cholewinski, an individual
22031 Waite Street
Wildomar, A 92595
29970 Technology Drive, Ste. 205
Murrieta, CA 92563
CSB #840416 Exp. 6/30/10
3/18/10 through 3/17/13
Decision SAC 1058
3/25/25, 9:11 PM Public Works
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/debar.html 5/6
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 17 of 20
S.J. Cimino Electric, Inc., a California corporation,
3267 Dutton Ave.
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Salvatore Joseph Cimino, RMO, CEO and President of S.J. Cimino Electric, Inc. and sole owner of S.J. Cimino Electric, an individual
5825 Heights Rd.
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
CSB #343802 Exp. 2/28/10
CSB #294141 Exp. 9/30/13 (inactive)
10/15/09 through 10/14/12
Decision SAC 1052
Cedar Development Corporation
Serghon Gabriel Afram, individually
12477 Feather Dr
Mira Loma, CA 91752
CSB # 839898 Exp. 6/30/10 (suspended)
8/5/09 through 8/4/12
Decision SAC 1042
All Floors Commercial and Residential Flooring, Inc.
Salvador Elias Perea, individually
750 E. McGlincy Lane, #103
Campbell, CA 95008
CSB #430969 Exp. 7/31/09
5/14/09 through 5/13/12
Decision SAC 1040
1-AMD Construction, Inc.
Alberto Mordoki, individually
Mirella Mordoki, individually
5300 Beach Blvd., Suite 110-416
Buena Park, CA 90621
CSB #787533, revoked
3/16/09 through 3/15/12
Decision SAC1037
Updated: November 2024
3/25/25, 9:11 PM Public Works
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/debar.html 6/6
Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 18 of 20
An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know Subaward Reporting is live on SAM.gov Show Details Mar 8, 2025 Scheduled SAM Maintenance Show Details Mar 18, 2025
See All Alerts
Home Search Data Bank Data Services Help
Search All Words e.g. 1606N020Q02
Filter By
Keyword Search
For more information on how to use our keyword search, visit our help guide Simple Search Search Editor
e.g. 123456789, Smith Corp
Classification
Excluded Individual
Excluded Entity
Federal Organizations
Exclusion Type
Exclusion Program
Location
Dates
Any Words
All Words
Exact Phrase
ptm
calstripe
Reset
Entity Information All Entity Information Entities Disaster Response Registry Responsibility / Qualification Exclusions No matches found
We couldn’t find a match for your search criteria.
Please try another search or go back to previous results.
Go Back
3/25/25, 9:13 PM SAM.gov | Search
https://sam.gov/search/?index=ex&page=1&pageSize=25&sort=-relevance&sfm%5BsimpleSearch%5D%5BkeywordRadio%5D=ALL&sfm%5BsimpleS… 1/2 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 19 of 20
WARNING
SAM.gov
An official website of the U.S. General Services Administration Our Website
About This Site
Our Community
Release Notes
System Alerts
Our Partners
Acquisition.gov
USASpending.gov
Grants.gov
More Partners
Policies
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Restricted Data Use
Freedom of Information Act
Accessibility
Customer Service
Help
Check Entity Status
Federal Service Desk
External Resources
Contact
This is a U.S. General Services Administration Federal Government computer system that is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." This system is subject to monitoring. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution.
This system contains Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). All individuals viewing, reproducing or disposing of this information are required to protect it in accordance with 32 CFR Part 2002 and GSA Order CIO 2103.2 CUI Policy. 3/25/25, 9:13 PM SAM.gov | Search
https://sam.gov/search/?index=ex&page=1&pageSize=25&sort=-relevance&sfm%5BsimpleSearch%5D%5BkeywordRadio%5D=ALL&sfm%5BsimpleS… 2/2 Bid Analysis, Systemic Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, City Project No: 607 Document Control Page 20 of 20
01257.0006/903844.2
ATTACHMENT D
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
and
PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
-1-
01257.0006/903844.2
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE AND
PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 15th day of April 2025 by and between the CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, a municipal corporation (“City”) and PTM GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation (“Contractor”). City and Contractor may be referred to, individually or collectively, as “Party” or “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Following submission of the lowest responsible and responsive bid for the performance of the services, Contractor was selected by the City to perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the South El Monte Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Contractor for performance of the services and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. WORK OF CONTRACTOR
1.1 Scope of Work.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Work” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Contractor represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the work required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein.
Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Contractor covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this
-2-
01257.0006/903844.2
Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.
1.2 Bid Documents.
The Scope of Work shall include the “General Provisions” and “Special Provisions” in the bid documents for the project entitled, including any documents or exhibits referenced therein (collectively, “bid documents”), all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the bid documents and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Contractor shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered.
1.4 Compliance with California Labor Law.
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that the work to be performed under this Agreement is a “public work” as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to the extent required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post a copy of the same at each job site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor. (d) Payroll Records. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified
-3-
01257.0006/903844.2
in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records. (e) Apprentices. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.
Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program.
Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of its subcontractors shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Contractor acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one and one-half (1½) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers’ Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Contractor certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.”
Contractor’s Authorized Initials ________
(i) Contractor’s Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor who will perform work under this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for such subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to take all
-4-
01257.0006/903844.2
actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Contractor shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits, registrations, and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Contractor shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Contractor’s performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
(a) By executing this Agreement, Contractor warrants that Contractor (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of work to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Contractor warrants that Contractor has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder.
(b) Contractor shall promptly, and before the following conditions are disturbed, notify the City, in writing, of any: (i) material Contractor believes may be hazardous waste as defined in Section 25117 of the Health & Safety Code required to be removed to a Class I, II, or III disposal site in accordance with existing law; (ii) subsurface, unknown or latent conditions, materially different from those indicated; or (iii) unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Agreement, and will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder.
(c) City shall promptly investigate the conditions, and if it finds that the conditions do materially differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and cause a decrease or increase in Contractor's cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work, shall issue a change order per Section 1.10 of this Agreement.
(d) In the event that a dispute arises between City and Contractor whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or increase in Contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date set, but shall proceed with all work to be performed under the Agreement. Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided