Agenda Item 9A — Torrance City Council, February 24, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
204 101
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25-040

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AS PROVIDED FOR IN
DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 36 OF THE TORRANCE

MUNICIPAL CODE, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING MEDICAL

OFFICE BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 106
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 12,226 SQUARE FEET OF

MEDICAL OFFICE FLOOR AREA, ON PROPERTY LOCATED

IN THE HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CORRIDOR SPECIFIC
PLAN-DEL AMO BUSINESS DISTRICT TWO (H-DA2) ZONE
AT 3475 TORRANCE BOULEVARD.

DVP24-00004: JAMES SUHR (JONATHAN WEISS)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 18, 2025 to consider an application filed by James Suhr (Jonathan Weiss) for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Permit to allow demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12,470 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-Del Amo Business District Two (H-DA2) Zone at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110); and
WHEREAS, due and legal publication of notice was given to owners of property in the vicinity thereof and due and legal hearings have been held, all in accordance with the provisions of Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 36 of the Torrance Municipal Code (TMC); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance does hereby find and determine as follows:
a) That the project site is located at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110); b) That the project site is described as "P M 59-57 EX OF ST LOT 1" in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, State of California;
c) That the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and requirements of the HDA2 Zone, and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan and with this Planning and Land Use Code; d) That the project, as conditioned, conforms with all applicable design guidelines and design review criteria of the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan. Further, the project has been designed to minimize possibly intrusive impacts on residential projects because the project design builds on the existing character of the surrounding area by blending the commercial and residential uses;
e) That the project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the project being proposed, as conditioned, because the project site is situated within an urbanized environment and already served by all necessary utilities and public services, and will not extend any roads or other infrastructure;
n) That by virtue of a high quality design and construction, the project, as conditioned, will positively contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor and the general welfare of the City because the project is compatible with the surrounding uses;
205 102
f) That the project, as conditioned, will enhance the commercial development of the area so as to increase the taxable value of real property and sales tax return to the City, and to maintain the stability and value of the property and of the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor as a desirable commercial area because the project represents an improvement to the area. For example, the project architecture demonstrates appeal through modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines that promote visual interest; g) That traffic impacts have been mitigated, in whole or in part by the design of the on-site circulation system so as to minimize hazard and congestion, to facilitate on-site movements between adjacent properties, and to maximize opportunities for pedestrian and transit connections because the project maintains existing offsite circulation patterns along Torrance Boulevard;
h) That there are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the project, as conditioned, is not detrimental to public health and safety because the project site is situated within an urbanized environment and is already served by all necessary utilities and public services, and will not extend any roads or other infrastructure; i) That the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs of the Torrance General Plan because the project is located within the H-DA2 Zone and the Commercial Center land use designation;
j) That the project, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare because the project has been thoroughly reviewed and found to be in compliance with the development standards of the H-DA2 Zone to the extent applicable, and is consistent with the Commercial Center land use designation; k) That the project, as conditioned, meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act because the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is declared Categorically Exempt (Class 32) from further environmental review in accordance with the 2025 Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Article 19, Section 15332 - Infill Development. In addition, the project site is not included on any hazardous waste and substances sites list, also known as the Cortese List, compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by the following roll call vote APPROVED DVP24- 00004, subject to conditions:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ANNUNSON, OBEJAS, RIGGS, CHAIRMAN KARTSONIS NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BORG lALLI, TURNER, YEH
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applications filed by James Suhr (Jonathan Weiss) for approval of CUP24-00028 and DVP24-00004 to allow demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12,470 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-H-DA2 Zone, on file in the Community Development Department of the City of Torrance, is hereby APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. That use of the subject property for the mixed-use development shall be subject to all conditions imposed in DVP24-00004; and any amendments thereto or modifications thereof as may be approved from time to time pursuant to Section 92.28.1 et seq. of the Torrance Municipal Code on file in the office of the Community Development Director of the City of 206 103
Torrance; and further, that the said use shall be established or constructed and shall be maintained in conformance with such maps, plans, specifications, drawings, applications or other documents presented by the applicant to the Community Development Department and upon which the Planning Commission relied in granting approval;

2. That if DVP24-00004 is not used within one year after granting of the permit, it shall expire and become null and void unless extended by the Community Development Director for an additional period as provided for in Section 92.27.1;

3. That all Conditions and Code requirements of Conditional Use Permit 24-00028 shall be met; and

4. That all conditions of all other City departments received prior to or during the consideration of this case by the Planning Commission shall be met.

INTRODUCED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2025. son, Torrance Planning Commission
Secretary, Torrance Planning Commission
207 104

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss

CITY OF TORRANCE )
I, ROBERT GARCIA, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, approved, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance at a regular meeting of said Commission held on the 18th day of June 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ANNUNSON, OBEJAS, RIGGS, CHAIRMAN KARTSONIS NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BORGIALLI, TURNER, YEH
COMMISSIONERS:
208 105
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25-039

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AS PROVIDED FOR IN
DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 1 OF THE TORRANCE

MUNICIPAL CODE APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE

PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING

MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 106
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 12,226 SQUARE FEET OF

MEDICAL OFFICE FLOOR AREA, ON PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE DEL AMO BUSINESS DISTRICT (H-DA2) ZONE AT
3475 TORRANCE BOULEVARD.

CUP24-000028: JAMES SUHR
(JONATHAN WEISS)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 18, 2025 to consider an application filed by James Suhr (Jonathan Weiss) for approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP24-00028) and Development Permit (DVP24-00004) to allow demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12,470 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-Del Amo Business District Two (H-DA2) Zone at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110); and WHEREAS, due and legal publication of notice was given to owners of property in the vicinity thereof and due and legal hearings have been held, all in accordance with the provisions of Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 1 of the Torrance Municipal Code (TMC); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance does hereby find and determine as follows:
a) That the project site is located at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110); b) That the project site is described as up M 59-57 EX OF ST LOT 1" in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, State of California;
c) That the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is declared Categorically Exempt (Class 32) from further environmental review in accordance with the 2025 Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Article 19, Section 15332 - Infill Development. In addition, the project site is not included on any hazardous waste and substances sites list, also known as the Cortese List, compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code;
d) That the project is conditionally permitted within the H-DA2 Zone, and that the project, as conditioned, complies with the provisions of Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan to the extent applicable;
e) That the project, as conditioned, will not impair the integrity and character of the H-DA2 Zone because the project is compatible with the surrounding uses. For example, the project is situated on a lot adjacent to a commercial and multifamily residential uses. The project design builds on the existing character of the surrounding area by blending the commercial and residential uses;
209 106
f) That the project site is physically suitable for the project, as conditioned, because the project site is situated within an urbanized environment and already served by all necessary utilities and public services, and will not extend any roads or other infrastructure; g) That the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with existing and proposed future land uses within the H-DA2 Zone and the general area in which the project is to be located because the project site is surrounded by similar uses;
h) That the project, as conditioned, will encourage and be consistent with the orderly development of the City as provided for in the General Plan and the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan because the project is located within the H-DA2 Zone and the Commercial Center land use designation;
i) That the project, as conditioned, will not discourage the appropriate existing or planned future use of surrounding property and tenancies because the project represents an improvement to the area. For example, the project architecture demonstrates appeal through modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines that promote visual interest. Additional features and design enhancements include a courtyard, rooftop decks, and private balconies that promote quality experience and increased value;
j) That there will be adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the project is not detrimental to public health and safety because the project site is situated within an urbanized environment and is already served by all necessary utilities and public services, and will not extend any roads or other infrastructure. The addition of 106 apartment units or 107 persons at full occupancy represents a negligible impact on utility and public service capacity and will not result in the need to construct new or physically alter facilities. In addition, the project applicant is required to pay development impact fees and school district fees to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services; k) That there will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the project, as conditioned, because the project maintains the driveway on Torrance Boulevard that features a single 30' wide drive aisle that travels around the structure, thus allowing fire truck access on all four sides. Additionally, the project site is served by public transit stops located along Torance Boulevard;
I) That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or to the property of persons located in the area because the project has been thoroughly reviewed and found to be in compliance with the development standards of the H-DA2 Zone to the extent applicable, and is consistent with the Commercial Center land use designation; m) That the project, as conditioned, will not produce any or all of the following results:
• Damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, dust or vibration, • Hazard from explosion, contamination or fire,
• Hazard occasioned by unusual volume or character of traffic or the congregating of large numbers of people or vehicles;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by the following roll call vote APPROVED CUP24- 00028, subject to conditions:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ANNUNSON, OBEJAS, RIGGS, CHAIRMAN KARTSONIS NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BORG lALLI, TURNER, YEH
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
210 107
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that applications filed by James Suhr (Jonathan Weiss) for approval of (CUP24-00028) and (DVP24-00004) to allow the demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12,470 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-H-DA2 Zone, on file in the Community Development Department of the City of Torrance, is hereby APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. That use of the subject property for the mixed-use development shall be subject to all conditions imposed in (CUP24-00028); and any amendments thereto or modifications thereof as may be approved from time to time pursuant to Section 92.28.1 et seq. of the Torrance Municipal Code on file in the office of the Community Development Director of the City of Torrance; and further, that the said use shall be established or constructed and shall be maintained in conformance with such maps, plans, specifications, drawings, applications or other documents presented by the applicant to the Community Development Department and upon which the Planning Commission relied in granting approval;

2. That if (CUP24-00028) is not used within one year after granting of the permit, it shall expire and become null and void unless extended by the Community Development Director for an additional period as provided for in Section 92.27.1 ;

3. That all Conditions and Code requirements of (DVP24-00004) shall be met;

4. That a copy of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 25-039, 25-040 shall appear on all grading plans, building plans, construction specifications, and bid documents associated with the project to facilitate coordination and effective implementation of the conditions of approval;

5. That the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Torrance and its agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City agency or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval by the City including, without limitation, an action by an advisory commission, appeal board, or legislative body concerning this discretionary approval. The defense and indemnification shall include the payment of all legal costs incurred on behalf of the City in connection with the application, and the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding challenging the approval of CUP24-00028) and (DVP24-00004 or the project. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and agrees to cooperate to the extent required for an effective defense. In the event a legal challenge to the discretionary approval is successful, and an award of attorney fees is made to the challenger, the applicant shall be responsible to pay the full amount of such an award;

6. That the applicant shall submit, in order to ensure with compliance with Government Code Section 65915 (c)(1)(A) (or successor statue) a Density Bonus Housing Agreement or similar named agreement, complete with attachment and exhibits, as appropriate, to memorialize the approved density bonus allowance, incentives, concessions, waivers of development standards, parking allowances, development standards and uses, the City Monitoring Fee, and any other terms and conditions relative to the approved project. The applicant shall submit a draft Density Bonus Housing Agreement (DBH Agreement) no less than 90 days prior to the anticipated date for issuance of the first building permit for the project, and the DBH Agreement shall be final and executed by the applicant and the City, in recordable form, prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project. The DBH Agreement shall be presented to the Community Development Department and City Attorney's Office for review and approval, and shall be in a form approved by the Community Development Department and City Attorney's Office, prior to issuance of the first building permit. The DBH Agreement may be executed by the City Manager on behalf of the City, subject to any preference of the City Manager or legal requirement for the DBH Agreement to be approved by the City Council. 211 108
The applicant may request from the City a form to be used for the DBH Agreement, and the applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of legal review. The DBH Agreement shall be executed and recorded with the County of Los Angeles Recorder prior to occupancy of units; (Planning)

7. That the 16 affordable units reserved for (8) very low and (8) moderate income shall remain affordable for at least 55 years from the date of initial occupancy. The applicant, property manager and/or owner shall provide the Community Development Department with an annual report detailing compliance with the DBH Agreement. The report shall include income verification for all tenants in affordable units, rent rolls and confirmation of rents charged including utility allowances used for the rental project; (Planning)

8. That for purposes of defraying the monitoring activities required to ensure compliance with recorded affordability covenants governing the affordable units, the owner(s) of the project, or their successor(s) in interest, shall pay a City Monitoring Fee each year. The City shall deliver to the owner(s) of the project an invoice for the City Monitoring each year. In the event that City fails to deliver an invoice for the applicable year, then that failure shall relieve the owner( s) of the project of their obligation to pay the City Monitoring Fee for that year only. Such failure to deliver the invoice for the applicable year shall not relieve said owner(s) of their obligation to pay any future City Monitoring Fees for which City timely delivers an invoice or to provide annual monitoring reports. Upon City's written request to the applicant, the applicant shall provide the mailing and delivery information for any owner(s) of the project. The terms and requirements of the City Monitoring Fee shall be included in the DBH Agreement; (Planning)

9. That during all construction activities, the applicant or developer shall provide a toll free hotline for complaints relating to the construction of the project. The hotline shall be staffed with a live operator who is able to immediately access a construction supervisor who is present at the project site during regular construction hours. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant or developer shall post at least two highly visible signs on the perimeter of the site informing the public of the availability of the hotline; (Planning)

10. That the construction site shall be secured with decorative temporary fencing, which shall be maintained throughout construction, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

11. That within 30 days of the final public hearing, the applicant shall remove the "Public Notice" sign to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

12. That an exterior photometric lighting plan shall be submitted with the building plan set for review prior to permit issuance. The lighting plan shall be prepared in compliance with the California Green Code (CGC) and shall ensure that all parking areas and pathways are provided with adequate illumination, security lights that are non-glaring, and that all building lights are properly shaded and reflected to prevent excess lighting onto adjacent uses and public streets. Lighting values at property line shall not exceed 1 foot candle. The height of light fixtures shall be reduced to 15 feet maximum in height when adjacent to the multifamily residential use. Light fixtures in the parking areas shall be positioned in line with the parking striping so as not to prevent vehicle overhang; (Planning)

13. That a roof plan shall be submitted with the building plan set for review prior to permit issuance. The roof plan shall identify the parapet heights and setbacks to ensure that all roof appurtenances, such as ducts and vents, all mechanical equipment, electrical boxes, meters, pipes, transformers, air conditioners and all other equipment on the roof are completely screened from public view and nearby taller buildings. Equipment screening shall be compatible with the building exterior finish and color and shall be constructed in such a 212 109
manner that noise emanating from the roof appurtenances is not audible beyond the property line or from adjacent properties; (Planning)

14. That a sample of the exterior building materials, finishes, and color shall be submitted with the building plan set for review prior to permit issuance. The sample shall include the gates, perimeter fencing/walls, and outdoor furniture. The exterior building materials, finishes, and color shall have a cohesive design to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

15. That the project shall incorporate the District Color Dark Purple "Eggplant" (Pantone Matching System Reference No. 255) as an accent wherever possible including building trim, lighting fixtures, site furniture and other hardware or amenities to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

16. That a detail of the trash enclosures shall be submitted with the building plan set for review prior to permit issuance. The trash enclosures shall be bounded on three sides by a wall and shall be equipped with solid doors, concrete stress pads to reduce pavement stress, a rainwater intrusion barrier (roof) to meet the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, and shall provide receptacles for the storage and collection of trash and recyclable materials. The trash enclosures shall have a cohesive design to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

17. That the applicant shall work with staff to provide loading area/space for delivery trucks; (Planning)

18. That any parking space adjacent to any wall shall have the minimum interior clearance of ten feet; (Planning)

19. That a landscape plan shall be submitted with the building plan set for review prior to permit issuance. The landscape plan shall be prepared in compliance with the latest State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall utilize drought tolerant California friendly vegetation, shade-producing trees, and shall provide a water efficient irrigation system. Outdoor furniture and fixtures such as lighting, trellises, raised planters, benches, trash receptacles, fencing, etc., shall be included on the landscape plan. The planting arrangement shall include tree wells in the parking area at a ratio of 1 tree for every 6 parking spaces and shall provide landscaping of sufficient height and texture to provide an effective screen of all trash enclosures, transformers, utility connections, backflow devices, and vehicle headlights positioned toward adjacent uses and street frontages. All trees planted along the site perimeter and street frontage shall not be less than 24-inch box in size, and all shrubs shall not be less than 5 gallon in size. The landscape plan shall include the parkway along Torrance Boulevard and shall be planted with a street tree at the rate of 1 tree for every 50 feet or portion thereof. The location of street trees planted along Torrance Boulevard shall be reviewed for approval by the Torrance Fire Department and the Torrance Public Works Department. Additionally, the applicant shall work with staff to enhance the landscaping throughout the property; (Planning)

20. That a striping and signage plan for all drive aisles and parking areas shall be submitted with the building plan set for review prior to permit issuance. The striping and signage shall include stop and/or yield controls, directional signage, and pavement markings to assist right-of-way assignment and pedestrian safety. The plan shall note the spaces reserved for resident use only, the spaces reserved for accessible parking, electric vehicle parking, loading, and shall note the spaces shared for residential guest parking and commercial parking. The residential guest parking and the commercial parking shall be clearly labeled and shall remain unassigned to any specific unit, whether residential or commercial. All parking spaces shall 213 110
be striped with double lines (6" both sides of center) to facilitate the movement into and out of the parking space. Parking spaces adjacent to walls shall be minimum 10' wide. The onsite curbs and drive aisles shall be striped, red color and signed "NO PARKING" to facilitate fire access and to prohibit parallel parking. Signage shall be installed at the entrance of each drive aisle alerting drivers of the pedestrian walkways and that the drive aisle shall not be used for recreational activities or other non-vehicular activities. The driveways, parking spaces, turnaround areas, and walkways shall be treated with high quality finishes and decorative features, such as stamped concrete or pavers, to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager; (Planning)

21. That the location of any electrical transformer(s), backflow preventer, double detector check assembly, etc. shall be shown on the final working drawings and landscape plan, and shall be screened from public view or undergrounded, if applicable, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of Building Permits; (Planning)

22. That electrical transformers shall not be located within front setback areas and that applicants shall continue to work with Fire, Engineering, and Planning Staff for the siting and painting of all exterior equipment, including, but not limited to, electrical transformers and double-check detectors/backflow assembly equipment, and shall be shown on the final Building Plans; and that any equipment that is required to be sited aboveground shall be screened with enclosures that match the materials and finishes of the main building facades and/or vegetation, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

23. That equipment that can be stored inside the structure, such as Fire/sprinkler risers, shall be located indoors, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

24. That all electrical switchgear cabinets, fire risers, etc., shall be designed within the interior of the subject building, and shall be shown on the final Building Plans, and that any exterior doors/walls for this equipment shall be designed as an integral part of the facade, matching color and materials to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

25. That a utility management plan shall be submitted with the building plan set for review prior to permit issuance. The utility management plan shall identify the placement, design, and screening of all utility and related equipment, including but not limited to any transformer, panel, meter, backflow preventer, double detector check assembly, fire riser, etc. Screening shall comply with all utility company and emergency access requirements to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

26. That a detail of any new walls and fencing shall be provided to the Community Development Department for approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Chain-link fencing shall not be visible at the exterior of project. All forms of barbed wire and razor wire shall be prohibited; (Planning)

27. That a graffiti-proof finish shall be used on walls where applicable, including building walls, fence walls, and screen walls, and that all windows shall be provided with a protective film to prevent graffiti; (Planning)

28. That decorative paving materials, or similar, shall be provided at driveways, pedestrian walkways, and guest parking spaces, and shall be complementary with the development's design, and shall be included in the color and material sample board to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

29. That all persons associated with the use shall be required to park onsite, including residents, visitors, employees, deliveries, etc.; (Planning)
214 111

30. That each two-bedroom unit shall be assigned two parking spaces for resident use, and that priority shall be given to the one-bedroom units for assignment of additional parking spaces; (Planning)

31. That pickups and deliveries of products, material or trash and parking lot sweeping shall not be allowed prior to 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m., and that such restrictions shall be posted at the trash enclosure, the loading spaces, and the driveway entrances to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; (Planning)

32. That the commercial floor areas shall not be converted to apartment units; (Planning)

33. That each apartment unit shall be provided with 200 cubic feet of lockable storage space to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The storage space may be located above each parking space extending downward not closer than 4' 6" above the floor and not further than 3' from the rear of the parking space; (Planning)

34. That each apartment unit shall be provided with a washer and dryer appliance (laundry) as noted on the floor plans; (Planning)

35. That all open space and landscape areas located at ground level, including onsite residential amenities and outdoor furniture, shall be provided for resident use, maintained, repaired, and kept free of trash, litter, debris, graffiti and vandalism; (Planning)

36. That no vending machines, publication racks, telephones, kiosks, donation bins and similar items shall be permitted outside of the buildings; (Planning)

37. That no outdoor sound amplifying equipment, speakers, radios, paging, telephone bells, buzzers and similar noise emitting devices shall be permitted outside of the building; (Planning)

38. That exterior security bars and roll-up doors applied to windows and building entrances shall be prohibited; (Planning)

39. That any future request for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTC) shall require a separate approval and that all related equipment cabinets shall be located within the structure and screened from public view; (Planning)

40. That the business name and address shall be visible form the street; (Police/Planning)

41. That non-glare security lighting shall be installed in the guest parking lot and property driveway; (Police/Planning)

42. That 4 foot tall address numerals shall be painted on the rooftop for aerial identification; (Police/Planning)

43. That the property shall provide knox box access for secured common doors to residential buildings and/ or vehicle gates to tenant parking; (Police/Planning)

44. That a site map including residential unit numbers shall be provided at property's elevators and stairwells; (Police/Planning)

45. That surveillance cameras for vehicle access gates, common residential doorways, and subterranean parking (Police/ Planning);

46. That security cameras shall be maintained in working order at all times & footage made available to police upon request; (Police/ Planning)

47. That surveillance footage be stored for no less than 60 days; (Police/ Planning)

48. That the applicant shall plant 24' box street trees (single trunk Wilson Olive); (Public Works) 215 112

49. That the applicant coordinate with California Water Service Company for the removal of any water lines within the property; (Public Works)

50. That the existing and proposed sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveways shall be shown on the project plans. The project plans shall show the extent of offsite work and ensure that the proposed driveways conform to the City's standards. The project plans shall also show the alignment of drive aisles. If the drive aisles are straight and border the east and west of the property lines, the corresponding driveways will encroach the frontage of the neighboring parcels. Additionally, include a topographic survey that shows the existing sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveways; (Public Works)

51. That the applicant shall provide a minimum of 20 feet of full height curb between the proposed driveways and the driveways of the adjacent parcels; (Public Works)

52. That Torrance Municipal Water shall be the service provider for the proposed development.

Separate permit and approval through the Community Development Department are required for new service connection and meter installation; (Public Works)

53. That upon completion of the project, the applicant shall hire a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) to verify that project(s) are in compliance with California Building Code. All deficiencies shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Building Official; (Building and Safety)

54. That the existing driveway on Torrance Boulevard shall be reconstructed to a commercial radius type driveway, minimum 30 feet wide, with depressed back of walk and wheelchair ramps; (Engineering)

55. That the applicant replace, grinded, lifted, and cracked sidewalk along the property frontage on Torrance Boulevard per City of Torrance standards; (Engineering)

56. That all proposed and/or existing water meters larger than 2", double check detector assemblies and reduced pressure backflow assemblies shall be located above ground on private property near the public right-of-way, shall be screened from public view with approved plant material, and shall be constructed per City of Torrance standards. Final location of said facilities and landscape screening shall be incorporated into water, fire and landscape plan for review prior to BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. Landscape screening shall provide access to water and fire department at all times and be maintained diligently to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal; (Engineering)

57. That the project site shall be served by master public water meter (meter larger than 2" shall be located above ground on private property adjacent to public right-of-way) with privately owned, maintained and administered submetering system for each dwelling unit. Common areas shall be served by a separate meter; (Engineering)

58. That a new 3-port fire hydrant with break off check valve shall be installed in the public right of way along Torrance Boulevard; (Engineering)

59. That a fire meter and double check valve assembly shall be installed at each fire connection to the public main if on-site fire hydrants are installed; (Engineering)

60. That the applicant shall submit a sewer study discussing the new development's impact on the public sewer system. The study shall include flow monitoring data and be approved by the Engineering Division of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading permit. The applicant shall design and construct improvements to the public sewer system as per recommendations of the approved study prior to occupancy; (Engineering)

61. That no freestanding or A-frame signs; signs attached to light or utility poles and trees; inflatable signs; air assisted signs; temporary signs attached/mounted to the roof of the 216 113
building; persons holding signs or twirlers; electronically moveable signs; electronically changing signs; bow/flag/feather banners; or any other temporary signage that violates Torrance Municipal Code requirements for temporary signs. Permits for banners must be obtained before use. Directional signs and parking signage are allowable; (Environmental)

62. That all signs (new, modified or revised) shall be approved by the Environmental Division with appeal rights to the Planning Commission, or comply with the previously approved sign program; (Environmental)

63. That the applicant shall provide 9" (minimum) contrasting address numerals for nonresidential uses; (Environmental)

64. That the applicant shall identify where the abandoned oil well is in relation to the property. If on the property, Show proof that the abandoned well complies with all current CAL GEM standards for abandonment and/or whether or not the well will need to be abandoned; (Environmental)

65. That the applicant shall provide bike rack(s). Applicant shall install on-site bicycle racks and submit placement plan and bicycle rack detail to the satisfaction of Environmental Division; (Environmental)

66. That guest parking stalls are reserved for guests and shall remain guest parking. Guest stalls shall be clearly marked; (Environmental)

67. That the applicant shall provide a mail kiosk and unit location map; (Environmental)

68. That the applicant shall install rooftop numbers in order to assist law enforcement and other emergency personnel locate the property. The numbers should be 4' high and 2' wide, spaced 12 inches apart, be parallel to the street and be a non-reflective color that contrasts the color of the roof; (Environmental)

69. That the trash enclosure shall have a metal barrier roof covering to prevent rainwater intrusion to meet current NPDES requirements; (Environmental)

70. That the applicant shall provide bins/containers within trash enclosure for the storage and retrieval of trash and recyclable materials; (Environmental)

71. That the applicant shall comply with the California Green Building Code Tier 1 requirement; (Building and Safety) ADDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSSION

72. That all conditions of all other City departments received prior to or during the consideration of this case by the Planning Commission shall be met.

INTRODUCED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2025. c~miSSion
217 114

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ANNUNSON, OBEJAS, RIGGS, CHAIRMAN KARTSONIS NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BORGIALLI, TURNER, YEH
218 115
0 Sara Shor Planning Commission
Recording Secretary June 18, 2025
INDEX
TORRANCE PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 18, 2025

SUBJECT PAGE

OPENING CEREMONIES

1. Call to Order / Roll Call 1

2. Flag Salute 1

3. Posting of the Agenda 1

4. Withdrawn, Postponed, and / or Supplemental Items 1

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 2

6. CONSENT CALENDAR 2
6A. Approval of Minutes: None 2

7. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2
7A. EXT25-00004: BRUCE BORNEMANN ( MARISELA GARCIA) 2

8. HEARINGS 3-5
8A. CUP24-00028, DVP24-00004: JAMES SUHR (JONATHAN WEISS) 3-4 8B. CUP25-00010: MC TORRANCE LLC 5
8C. CUP25-00013: STEFANO SPATARO ( ROLLING HILLS PLAZA LLC/CITY OF TORRANCE) 5

9. RESOLUTIONS 5

10. COMMISSION ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5

11. ADJOURNMENT 5
At 8:13 p.m., Commissioner Obejas moved to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, July 2, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. in the LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chambers 3031 Torrance Boulevard 116
ATTACHMENT 6
219
Sara Shor Planning Commission
Recording Secretary June 18, 2025
1 June 18, 2025

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE

TORRANCE PLANNING COMMISSION

1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Torrance Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:33 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, in the LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chambers 3031 Torrance Boulevard

ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Anunson, Obejas, Riggs, and Chair Kartsonis.

Absent: Commissioners Borgialli, Turner, and Yeh.

Also Present: Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Planning Associate Dominique Allen, Planning Assistant Lee Garcia, Senior
Planner Leo Oorts, Community Development Director
Michelle Ramirez, and Assistant City Attorney Tatia Strader.

MOTION: Commissioner Riggs moved to excuse the absence of Commissioner Borgialli, Commissioner Turner, and Commissioner Yeh. Commissioner Obejas seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 4-0 approval (Commissioner Borgialli, Commissioner Turner, and Commissioner Yeh absent).

2. FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Obejas led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ON THE POSTING

OF THE AGENDA
Planning Manager Robert Garcia stated that the agenda was posted on the Public Notice Board at 3031 Torrance Boulevard and on the City’s Website on Thursday, June 12, 2025.

4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF WITHDRAWN, DEFERRED, AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
Planning Manager Robert Garcia reported one (1) Supplemental Item for Item 8A with additional correspondence received, a continuance of Item 8C to a date certain of July 2, 2025, and staff’s recommendation to continue Item 8B to a date certain of July 16, 2025.

MOTION: Commissioner Obejas moved to continue Item 8B to a date certain of July 16, 2025. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 4-0 approval (Commissioner Borgialli, Commissioner Turner, and Commissioner Yeh absent). 220 117
Sara Shor Planning Commission
Recording Secretary June 18, 2025
2 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public spoke.

A member of the Commission spoke for clarification.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – None.

7. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
7A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF EXT25-00004: BRUCE BORNEMANN ( MARISELA

GARCIA)
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing for consideration of a Time Extension ( EXT25- 00004) for a previously approved Division of Lot ( DIV23-00002) to allow a flag lot subdivision of one parcel into four parcels, on property located in the Single-Family Residential District (R-1) Zone at 2126 238th Street. This project is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) – Review for Exemption. (Res. No. 25-038)
Planning Assistant Lee Garcia presented Item 7A, explaining that the applicant requested a one-year time extension because the tentative parcel map required more time for processing due to changes to City and Edison easements while obtaining approval.

The map would not be recorded until after the original expiration date, necessitating the extension.

Planning Assistant Lee Garcia noted a scrivener’s error in the description of the resolution.

In response to Commissioner Obejas, Planning Manager Robert Garcia clarified that the applicant had been given the option of a two-year time extension but chose aoneyear time extension. Planning Assistant Lee Garcia added that correspondence from the applicant noted that they were close to receiving approval from the County.

Chair Kartsonis inquired about the scrivener’s error. Planning Assistant Lee Garcia explained that the project address had been accidentally omitted from the description of the resolution.

MOTION: Commissioner Obejas moved to approve EXT25-00004. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; aroll call vote reflected 4-0 approval (Commissioner Borgialli, Commissioner Turner, and Commissioner Yeh absent).

RESOLUTION: Planning Assistant Lee Garcia read the title of Resolution Number 25-038, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance, California, approving a time extension as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 29 of the Torrance Municipal Code for a previously approved division of lot to allow a flag lot subdivision on property located in the single-family residential district R-1 Zone at 2126 238th Street.

MOTION: Commissioner Obejas moved to adopt Resolution Number 25-038.

Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 4-0 approval Commissioner Borgialli, Commissioner Turner, and Commissioner Yeh absent). 221 118
Sara Shor Planning Commission
Recording Secretary June 18, 2025
3 8. HEARINGS
8A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CUP24-00028, DVP24-00004: JAMES SUHR

JONATHAN WEISS)
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit CUP24-00028) and Development Permit ( DVP24-00004) to allow the demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12,226 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located within the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-Del Amo Business District Two (H-DA2) at 3475 Torrance Boulevard. This project is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines Section 15332 – In-Fill Development. ( Res. Nos. 25-039, 25-040)
Planning Associate Dominique Allen presented Item 8A.

Mr. Jim Suhr, representative of property owner 3475 Torrance LLC, provided a slide presentation about the project, which is a mixed-use project combining 106 rental apartments with replacement medical office space. He noted that 16 units would be affordable housing units. He described the project’s proposed design and how the project would meet parking needs.

Dan Hilton stated that the project would change the nature of the area and opposed the project.

An anonymous member of the public inquired about the proposed rent for the apartments and whether homeownership opportunities would exist.

Charles Colton expressed concerns about traffic and lack of homeownership. He inquired about the income requirements and cost of rent for the affordable housing units.

An anonymous member of the public expressed their concern that renters from out of state would drive aggressively. They requested the installation of traffic cameras.

Chair Kartsonis disclosed that he visited the location and would base his decision on the presented evidence and observations.

Commissioner Riggs disclosed that he has driven by the project location and would base his decision on the presented evidence.

Commissioner Riggs inquired about the projected rate of construction. Mr. Suhr responded that the construction would take 26 to 28 months, but that it is unknown how long the initial financing and permitting processes would take.

A discussion about traffic impacts and parking availability ensued. Mr. Suhr explained that street access to the property would occur along Torrance Boulevard only and noted that parking would serve medical office visitors during work hours and residents after work hours.

Commissioner Obejas inquired about thetypes of medical professionals that would occupy the medical offices. Mr. Suhr replied that it depends on market demand and availability. Commissioner Obejas noted that some medical professionals may work after normal business hours.

Commissioner Obejas asked if electric vehicle charging would be available. Mr.

Suhr confirmed that L2 charging would likely be available. 222 119
Sara Shor Planning Commission
Recording Secretary June 18, 2025
4 Commissioner Obejas inquired why the project does not propose a lower density.

Mr. Suhr explained that Fire Department concerns regarding the fire lane resulted in increased costs, which incentivized pursuing density bonuses.

Chair Kartsonis inquired if the plan for parking complies with the law. Planning Associate Allen confirmed that it complies.

Commissioner Anunson asked for clarification on the perimeter of the design, and Mr. Suhr stated that fencing would line the property.

A discussion about affordable housing units and homeownership ensued. Mr. Suhr explained that the property owners would coordinate with the Housing Division for guidance, and that the affordable unit rental process would be separate from the market rate rental process. He noted that due to liability concerns, unit ownership would not be considered. Senior Planner Oorts stated that the project would have a minor impact in addressing the City’s housing needs.

Chair Kartsonis inquired whether the applicant has a plan to address loading space considerations. Mr. Suhr confirmed that there was a plan in place to address it.

MOTION: Commissioner Obejas moved toclose thepublic hearing. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; aroll call vote reflected 4-0 approval (Commissioner Borgialli, Commissioner Turner, and Commissioner Yeh absent).

MOTION: Commissioner Obejas moved to approve CUP24-00028 and DVP24- 00004. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 4-0 approval Commissioner Borgialli, Commissioner Turner, and Commissioner Yeh absent).

RESOLUTION: Planning Associate Allen read the title of Resolution Number 25- 039, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance, California, as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 1 of the Torrance Municipal Code approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow the demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12,226 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Del Amo Business District (H-DA2) Zone at 3475 Torrance Boulevard as amended.

Planning Associate Allen noted that a condition of approval was added to the resolution, which states that the applicant shall comply with California Green Code Tier 1 requirements. This condition was added after the agenda item was completed.

RESOLUTION: Planning Associate Allen read the title of Resolution Number 25- 040, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Torrance, California, as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 36 of the Torrance Municipal Code, approving a Development Permit to allow the demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12,226 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-Del Amo Business District Two (H-DA2) Zone at 3475 Torrance Boulevard.

MOTION: Commissioner Obejas moved to adopt Resolution Numbers 25-039 and 25-040. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 4-0 approval Commissioner Borgialli, Commissioner Turner, and Commissioner Yeh absent). 223 120
Sara Shor Planning Commission
Recording Secretary June 18, 2025
5 8B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CUP25-00010: MC TORRANCE LLC
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit CUP25-00010) to allow and restore operation of a hotel use, on property located in the General Commercial ( C-2 Zone) at 4111 Pacific Coast Highway. This project is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. (Res. No. 25-041)
Item 8B continued to a date certain of July 16, 2025.
8C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CUP25-00013: STEFANO SPATARO ( ROLLING

HILLS PLAZA LLC/CITY OF TORRANCE)
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale beer and wine service in conjunction with an existing restaurant on property located in the Planned Development (P-D) Zone at 2595 Airport Drive (APN 7377-006- 906). (Res. No. 25-042)
Item 8C continued to a date certain of July 2, 2025.

9. RESOLUTIONS – None.

10. COMMISSION ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Kartsonis spoke.

Planning Manager Robert Garcia spoke.

Commissioner Obejas requested anexcused absence for Wednesday, September 17, 2025.

11. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: At 8:13 p.m., Commissioner Obejas moved to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, July 2, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion; a roll call vote reflected 4-0 approval ( Commissioner Borgialli, Commissioner Turner, and Commissioner Yeh absent).

Approved as amended
August 6, 2025
s/Rebecca Poirier, City Clerk
ty)
224 121
122
ATTACHMENT 8
225
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE
COVER
JUNE 2025 A0
3475 TORRANCE LLC
226 123
ATTACHMENT 9
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

RENDERINGS
JUNE 2025 A00
3475 TORRANCE LLC

COURTYARD VIEW TORRANCE BLVD VIEW
227 124
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

PROJECT SUMMARY
JUNE 2025 A01
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3475 TORRANCE BLVD.,TORRANCE, CA 90503

SITE PLAN
4 STORY MULTI

FAMILY BLDG

TYPE VA OVER

TYPE IA PODIUM
6 STORY MULTI

FAMILY BLDG

TYPE IIIA OVER

TYPE IA PODIUM
5 STORY MULTI FAMILY BLDG

TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE IA
PODIUM
4 STORY MULTI

FAMILY BLDG

TYPE VA OVER

TYPE IA PODIUM
6 STORY MULTI

FAMILY BLDG

TYPE IIIA OVER

TYPE IA PODIUM
GATE
GATE
ENTRY

FIRE ACCESS ROAD
GATE

LOADING
EXIT
30' 30' FIRE ACCESS ROAD 3 0 '

FIRE ACCESS ROAD

ZONING MAP VICNITY MAP VICNITY MAP

PROJECT & SITE DATA
Scope Of Work:

NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE 106 UNIT RESIDENTIAL AND MEDICAL

OFFICE BUILDING WITH AT GRADE AND THREE LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN

PARKING

THE STRUCTURE CONSISTS OF TYPE VA (TWO FOUR STORY STRUCTURES) AND TYPE IIIA (ONE 5 STORY STRUCTURE OVER SINGLE PODIUM AND TWO 5 STORY STRUCTURES OVER DOUBLE PODIUM) CONSTRUCTION OVER TYPE IA PODIUM.

FULLY SPRINKLERED
PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES: (88) SINGLES, (16) 1-BEDROOMS, AND (2) 2-BEDROOM UNIT OVER 12,226 SQ/FT OF MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE PROJECT SITE: 3475 TORRANCE BLVD. , TORRANCE CA 90503
PARCEL NO: 7524-014-110
ZONING: C-CTR
PROJECT ZONE: HAWTHORNE BLVD. CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN -DEL AMO SUBDISTRICT TWO (H-DA2 ZONE) LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CITY OF TORRANCE AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF TORRANCE, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 5409, FILED IN BOOK 59, PAGE 58, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECIRDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM; ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS , MINERAL

RIGHTS, ALL OTHER HYDROCRABON SUBSTANCES BY WHATSOEVER NAME

KNOWN , AND WATER, CLAIMS OR RIGHTS TO WATER, TOGETHER WITH

APPURTENANT RIGHTS THERETO, WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT TO ENTER

UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND NOR ANY PORTION OF THE SUBSURFACE LYING ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, AS EXCEPTED OR RESERVESD BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1961 IN BOOK D-1365, PAGE 263, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1806, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

AREA SUMMARY
Scope Of Work:

GRAND TOTAL: 183,934 SQ/FT
TOTAL PARKING/UTILITY: 102,480 SQ/FT
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL RSF: 67,689 SQ/FT
RESIDENTIAL LOBBY/ TRASH 1,448 SQ/FT TOTAL COMMERCIAL: 12,226 SQ/FT COMMERCIAL TRASH: 91 SQ/FT

UNIT COUNT SUMMARY
SINGLE: 88 UNITS
I BEDROOM: 16 UNITS
2 BEDROOM: 2 UNITS
106 UNITS

PARKING SUMMARY
RESIDENTIAL PARKING: 126 SPACES
COMMERCIAL PARKING: 50 SPACES
GROUND LEVEL PLAN: 29 SPACES (27 STANDARD + 2 ADA)
P1 LEVEL: 42 SPACES (40 STANDARD + 2 COMPACT) (21

ALLOCATED FOR MEDICAL OFFICE PARKING REQUIREMENT)
P2 LEVEL: 55 SPACES (45 STANDARD + 4 COMPACT + 6
ADA)
P3 LEVEL: 50 SPACES (46 STANDARD + 4 COMPACT)
BICYCLE PARKING:

LONG TERM BICYCE PARKING: 77 SPACES ON P1 PARKING
LEVEL
SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING: 6 SPACES ON GRADE IN FRONT
YARD

PROJECT TEAM

SHEET INDEX
A0 COVER
A00 RENDERINGS
A01 PROJECT SUMMARY
A02 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
A03 GROUND LEVEL PLAN
A04 PODIUM LEVEL PLAN
A05 SECOND LEVEL PLAN
A06 THIRD LEVEL PLAN
A07 FOURTH LEVEL PLAN
A08 FIFTH LEVEL PLAN
A09 SIXTH LEVEL PLAN
A10 ROOF PLAN
A11 P1 LEVEL PLAN
A12 P2 LEVEL PLAN
A13 P3 LEVEL PLAN
A14 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
A14.1 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
A15 ELEVATIONS
A16 ELEVATIONS
A17 FACADE MATERIAL PALETTE
A17.1 FACADE MATERIAL PALETTE
A18 SECTIONS
A19 LANDSCAPE PLAN
A20 ALTA SURVEY
A21 ADA ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL PLAN
A22 USABLE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS

DENSITY BONUS /

AFFORDABLE UNIT COUNTS
LOT SIZE: 54,446 SQ/FT = 1.250 ACRES
BASE DENSITY: PER HBCSP SUBAREA DA-2, BASE DENSITY IS 43 UNITS/ACRE = 52.93 UNITS ROUNDED UP TO 53 UNITS
TOTAL # OF UNITS PROPOSED WITH DENSITY BONUS = 106
TOTAL # AND PERCENTAGE OF UNITS AFFORDABLE TO:
a. VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS = 8 UNITS (15% OF BASE DENSITY) b. MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS = 8 UNITS (15% OF BASE DENSITY)

PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE
Architect – Pleskow Architects
Landscape Architect – SQLA Landscape Architects
Civil Engineer – VCA Civil Engineers
Structural Engineer – KNSE Structural Engineering
228 125
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
JUNE 2025 A02
3475 TORRANCE LLC
229 126
UP
UP
DN
DN
B.1
B.1
C
C
D
D
E
E
G
G
I
I
K
K
A.1
A.1
L.1
L.1
2 2

1.1 1.1
3 3
4 4
5 5

5.1 5.1
C16 C17
1 A18
2 A18
21' - 5" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 8" 23' - 0" 28' - 2" 56' - 4" 58' - 1" 26' - 3" 0' - 9" 1' - 0" 31' - 6 7/8" 24' - 6" 30' - 0" 16' - 11"
6' - 0"
L
L
P
P

RAMP DOWN

RESIDENTIAL LOBBY
1,104 SF
ABOVE
ABOVE
ABOVE
ABOVE
ABOVE
ABOVE
ABOVE
ABOVE

ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
ABOVE
C.1
C.1

2.1 2.1
D.1
D.1
H
H
J
J
ABOVE
5' - 4"

OPERABLE GATE

W/ KNOX BOX

OPERABLE GATE

W/ KNOX BOX

FIRE LANE

TRASH CIRCULATION

RESIDENTIAL

TRASH ROOM
344 SF

LOADING ZONE

COMMERCIAL

TRASH ROOM
91 SF

MEDICAL OFFICES
12,226 SF
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15

SIDEWALK
C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29
0' - 6"
1' - 6"
0' - 4"
19' - 0" 25' - 0" 19' - 0"
4' - 0"
10' - 0"
1' - 6" 10' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0"
8' - 6"
164' - 11 7/8"

OPERABLE GATE

W/ KNOX BOX

0.1 0.1
7 7
N
N
A
A
1 1
6 6 30' - 0" 30' - 0"
B
B
20' - 0"
330' - 0"
M
M
30' - 0"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

GROUND LEVEL PLAN
JUNE 2025 A03
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1 Ground Level Plan
230 127
231 128
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN UP
DN UP
B.1
B.1
C
C
D
D
E
E
G
G
I
I
K
K
A.1
A.1
L.1
L.1
2 2

1.1 1.1
3 3
4 4
5 5

5.1 5.1
1 A18
2 A18
L
L
P
P
486 SF
SINGLE
201
795 SF
1 BDR
212
678 SF
SINGLE
216
613 SF
SINGLE
217
707 SF
1 BDR
218
577 SF
SINGLE
220
703 SF
1 BDR
221
515 SF
SINGLE
206
587 SF
SINGLE
213
853 SF
1 BDR
215
653 SF
SINGLE
214
779 SF
1 BDR
219
C.1
C.1

2.1 2.1
D.1
D.1
H
H
J
J
459 SF
SINGLE
202
683 SF
SINGLE
203
456 SF
SINGLE
204
530 SF
SINGLE
208
554 SF
SINGLE
209
546 SF
SINGLE
211
569 SF
SINGLE
210
501 SF
SINGLE
205
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
8' - 0"
0' - 7"
533 SF
SINGLE
207
DN

UNIT LEGEND
1 BDR SINGLE
58 sf
104 sf
150 sf 111 sf
60 sf
94 sf
112 sf
76 sf
58 sf
56 sf 87 sf
114 sf
85 sf
100 sf
11' - 5"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 6"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"
10' - 0"
5' - 0" 2' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0"
10' - 4"
10' - 2 1/4"
12' - 0"
10' - 7 3/4"
10' - 0"
12' - 1"
10' - 5 1/2"
10' - 7 3/8"
21' - 5" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 8" 23' - 0" 28' - 2" 56' - 4" 58' - 1" 26' - 3" 0' - 9" 1' - 0" 31' - 6 7/8" 24' - 6" 30' - 0" 16' - 11"
330' - 0"
103' - 11 7/8"

0.1 0.1
7 7
N
N
A
A
1 1
6 6
B
B M
M
30' - 0" 30' - 0"
164' - 11 7/8"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

SECOND LEVEL PLAN
JUNE 2025 A05
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1
Level 2

OVERHANG ABOVE

OVERHANG ABOVE
232 129
DN
DN UP
DN UP
DN UP
UP
B.1
B.1
C
C
D
D
E
E
G
G
I
I
K
K
A.1
A.1
L.1
L.1
2 2

1.1 1.1
3 3
4 4
5 5

5.1 5.1
1 A18
2 A18
L
L
P
P
494 SF
SINGLE
301
480 SF
SINGLE
303
510 SF
SINGLE
304
578 SF
SINGLE
307
887 SF
1 BDR
312
591 SF
SINGLE
313
879 SF
1 BDR
315 684 SF
SINGLE
316
613 SF
SINGLE
317
500 SF
SINGLE
318
710 SF
1 BDR
320
744 SF
1 BDR
322
582 SF
SINGLE
321
570 SF
SINGLE
319
648 SF
SINGLE
314
700 SF
1 BDR
302
C.1
C.1

2.1 2.1
D.1
D.1
H
H
J
J
524 SF
SINGLE
305
537 SF
SINGLE
306
543 SF
SINGLE
309
542 SF
SINGLE
311
521 SF
SINGLE
308
546 SF
SINGLE
310
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
8' - 0"
0' - 7"
0' - 7"

OVERHANG ABOVE

UNIT LEGEND
1 BDR SINGLE

OVERHANG ABOVE
496 sf
134 sf
90 sf
99 sf
111 sf 124 sf
84 sf
61 sf
118 sf 111 sf 100 sf
119 sf
85 sf
10' - 0" 10' - 0 1/8"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 6"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"10' - 0"
10' - 0"
16' - 0"
2' - 0"
5' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 7 1/2"
11' - 0"
10' - 3 1/4"
13' - 11"
10' - 0"
13' - 8"
14' - 3"
10' - 0"
16' - 3 3/8"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
6' - 0"
21' - 5" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 8" 23' - 0" 28' - 2" 56' - 4" 58' - 1" 26' - 3" 0' - 9" 1' - 0" 31' - 6 7/8" 24' - 6" 30' - 0" 16' - 11"
103' - 11 7/8"
A14
3 A14
1 0.1 0.1
7 7
N
N
A
A
1 1
6 6
B
B M
M
30' - 0" 30' - 0"
164' - 11 7/8"
300' - 0"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

THIRD LEVEL PLAN
JUNE 2025 A06
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1
Level 3
233 130
DN UP
UP
DN
DN UP
B.1
B.1
C
C
D
D
E
E
G
G
I
I
K
K
A.1
A.1
L.1
L.1
2 2

1.1 1.1
3 3
4 4
5 5

5.1 5.1
1 A18
2 A18
L
L
P
P
C.1
C.1

2.1 2.1
D.1
D.1
H
H
J
J
680 SF
SINGLE
401
574 SF
SINGLE
406
500 SF
SINGLE
407
530 SF
SINGLE
408
569 SF
SINGLE
410
720 SF
1 BDR
412
653 SF
SINGLE
414
678 SF
SINGLE
416
601 SF
SINGLE
420
935 SF
2 BDR
422
613 SF
SINGLE
417
516 SF
SINGLE
418
557 SF
SINGLE
419
526 SF
SINGLE
421
554 SF
SINGLE
409
546 SF
SINGLE
411
853 SF
1 BDR
415
587 SF
SINGLE
413
512 SF
SINGLE
404
536 SF
SINGLE
405
456 SF
SINGLE
402
501 SF
SINGLE
403
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
8' - 0" 5' - 4" 3' - 8"
8' - 0"
6' - 9"
5' - 4"
10' - 0"

UNIT LEGEND
1 BDR SINGLE 2 BDR

OUTLINE OF BLDG
BELOW
144 sf 111 sf 94 sf
96 sf
579 sf
104 sf
242 sf
76 sf
114 sf
82 sf
541 sf
57 sf
71 sf 87 sf 56 sf
10' - 8 5/8"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 6"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
11' - 0"
10' - 8"
11' - 5"
10' - 0"
14' - 3"
10' - 0"
11' - 0"
21' - 5" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 8" 23' - 0" 28' - 2" 56' - 4" 58' - 1" 26' - 3" 0' - 9" 1' - 0" 31' - 6 7/8" 24' - 6" 30' - 0" 16' - 11"
330' - 0"
103' - 11 7/8"
A14.1
1 0.1 0.1
7 7
N
N
A
A
1 1
6 6
B
B M
M
30' - 0" 30' - 0"
164' - 11 7/8"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

FOURTH LEVEL PLAN
JUNE 2025 A07
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1
Level 4
234 131
SHADE

STRUCTURE
235 132
DN
DN UP
DN
DN
B.1
B.1
C
C
D
D
E
E
G
G
I
I
K
K
A.1
A.1
L.1
L.1
2 2

1.1 1.1
3 3
4 4
5 5

5.1 5.1
1 A18
2 A18
L
L
P
P
C.1
C.1

2.1 2.1
D.1
D.1
H
H
J
J
504 SF
SINGLE
605
569 SF
SINGLE
608
598 SF
SINGLE
601 512 SF
SINGLE
602 536 SF
SINGLE
603 574 SF
SINGLE
604
529 SF
SINGLE
606
554 SF
SINGLE
607
6' - 0"
5' - 4" 3' - 8"

UNIT LEGEND
SINGLE

OUTLINE OF BLDG
BELOW

OUTLINE OF BLDG
BELOW
111 sf
96 sf
94 sf
104 sf
439 sf
602 sf
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
21' - 5" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 8" 23' - 0" 28' - 2" 56' - 4" 58' - 1" 26' - 3" 0' - 9" 1' - 0" 31' - 6 7/8" 24' - 6" 30' - 0" 16' - 11"
330' - 0"
103' - 11 7/8"

0.1 0.1
7 7
N
N
A
A
1 1
6 6
B
B M
M
30' - 0" 30' - 0"
164' - 11 7/8"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

SIXTH LEVEL PLAN
JUNE 2025 A09
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1
Level 6
236 133
DN
DN
DN
DN
B.1
B.1
C
C
D
D
E
E
G
G
I
I
K
K
A.1
A.1
L.1
L.1
2 2

1.1 1.1
3 3
4 4
5 5

5.1 5.1
1 A18
2 A18
L
L
P
P
BLDG A
BLDG D
BLDG C
BLDG E
BLDG B
C.1
C.1

2.1 2.1
D.1
D.1
H
H
J
J
78' - 3"
21' - 5" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 8" 23' - 0" 28' - 2" 56' - 4" 58' - 1" 26' - 3" 0' - 9" 1' - 0" 31' - 6 7/8" 24' - 6" 30' - 0" 16' - 11"
330' - 0"
103' - 11 7/8"

0.1 0.1
7 7
N
N
A
A
1 1
6 6
B
B M
M
30' - 0" 30' - 0"
164' - 11 7/8"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

ROOF PLAN
JUNE 2025 A10
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1 Roof Plan

GUARDRAIL

GUARDRAIL
237 134
UP
DN
DN UP
B.1
B.1
C
C
D
D
E
E
G
G
I
I
K
K
A.1
A.1
L.1
L.1
2 2

1.1 1.1
3 3
4 4
5 5

5.1 5.1
1 A18
2 A18
L
L
P
P
3 %
-13' - 6"
5 %

RAMP UP

RAMP DOWN
C.1
C.1

2.1 2.1
D.1
D.1
H
H
J
J

ELECTRICAL ROOM
309 SF

STORAGE BINS

UTILITY ROOM
151 SF

STORAGE BINS STORAGE BINS

RAMP DOWN

ELECTRICAL ROOM
469 SF

MECHANICAL ROOM
500 SF
1 8
9 25 26 33
34 44
45 61 54 53
BIKE

STORAGE

LOCKERS
69 62
77 70
9' - 11 1/2"
-11' - 0"
C45 C44 C43 C42 C41 C40 C39 C38 C37 C36 C35 C34 C33 C32 C31 C30 C46
C47
C48
C49
C50
R1
R2
R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 1' - 2"
3' - 7"
3' - 2" 19' - 0" 26' - 5"
7' - 6" 19' - 0" 29' - 0 7/8"
26' - 2" 19' - 0"
7' - 6"

COMPACT
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
7' - 6"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
21' - 5" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 8" 23' - 0" 28' - 2" 56' - 4" 58' - 1" 26' - 3" 0' - 9" 1' - 0" 31' - 6 7/8" 24' - 6" 30' - 0" 16' - 11"
330' - 0"
103' - 11 7/8"

0.1 0.1
7 7
N
N
A
A
1 1
6 6
B
B M
M
30' - 0"
164' - 11 7/8"
30' - 0"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE
P1 LEVEL PLAN
JUNE 2025 A11
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1 PI Plan
238 135
UP
DN
DN UP
B.1
B.1
C
C
D
D
E
E
G
G
I
I
K
K
A.1
A.1
L.1
L.1
2 2

1.1 1.1
3 3
4 4
5 5

5.1 5.1
L
L
P
P

RAMP DOWN
C.1
C.1

2.1 2.1
D.1
D.1
H
H
J
J

STORAGE BINS

UTILITY ROOM
151 SF

ELECTRICAL ROOM
309 SF

STORAGE BINS STORAGE BINS

RAMP UP

UTILITY ROOM
344 SF

STORAGE BINS
R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27
R28
R29
R30
R31
R32
R33
R34
R35
R50 R49 R48 R47 R46 R45 R44 R43 R42 R41 R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R51
R52
R53
R54
R55
R56
R57
R58 R59 R60 R61 R62 R63 R64 R65 R66 R67 R68 R69 R70 R71 R72 R73 R74 R75 R76 5 %
26' - 2" 19' - 0"
3' - 2" 19' - 0" 26' - 5"
8' - 0" 19' - 0" 30' - 9 7/8"
28' - 11" 19' - 0" 8' - 0"
7' - 6"
7' - 6"

COMPACT
10' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0"
10' - 0"

COMPACT

COMPACT
10' - 0"

GUARDRAIL
15' - 0"
8' - 6"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
7' - 6" 7' - 6"
15' - 0"
-23' - 3"
21' - 5" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 8" 23' - 0" 28' - 2" 56' - 4" 58' - 1" 26' - 3" 0' - 9" 1' - 0" 31' - 6 7/8" 24' - 6" 30' - 0" 16' - 11"
330' - 0"
103' - 11 7/8"

0.1 0.1
7 7
N
N
A
A
1 1
6 6
B
B M
M
164' - 11 7/8"
30' - 0" 30' - 0"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE
P2 LEVEL PLAN
JUNE 2025 A12
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1 P2 Plan
239 136
UP
DN
UP
B.1
B.1
C
C
D
D
E
E
G
G
I
I
K
K
A.1
A.1
L.1
L.1
2 2

1.1 1.1
3 3
4 4
5 5

5.1 5.1
L
L
P
P
-33' - 0"
-36' - 0"
C.1
C.1

2.1 2.1
D.1
D.1
H
H
J
J

STORAGE BINS

UTILITY ROOM
151 SF

UTILITY ROOM
309 SF

RAMP DOWN RAMP UP

STORAGE BINS

UTILITY ROOM
344 SF
R77 R78 R79 R80 R81 R82
R83
R84
R85
R86
R87
R88
R89
R90
R108 R107 R106 R105 R104 R103 R102 R101 R100 R99 R98 R97 R96 R95 R94 R93 R92 R91 R109
R110
R111
R112
R113
R114
R115
R116 R117 R118 R119 R120 R121 R122 R123 R124 R125
5 %
1' - 5"
R126
26' - 2" 19' - 0"
19' - 0" 26' - 5" 28' - 2" 19' - 0" 8' - 9"
4' - 0"
4' - 6"
8' - 0" 19' - 0" 30' - 9 7/8"
26' - 2" 19' - 0"
7' - 6"
7' - 6"

COMPACT
10' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0"
10' - 0"

COMPACT

COMPACT
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
8' - 6"
15' - 0"
7' - 6"
7' - 6"
15' - 0"
21' - 5" 28' - 2" 28' - 2" 28' - 8" 23' - 0" 28' - 2" 56' - 4" 58' - 1" 26' - 3" 0' - 9" 1' - 0" 31' - 6 7/8" 24' - 6" 30' - 0" 16' - 11"
330' - 0"
103' - 11 7/8"

0.1 0.1
7 7
N
N
A
A
1 1
6 6
B
B M
M
164' - 11 7/8"
30' - 0" 30' - 0"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE
P3 LEVEL PLAN
JUNE 2025 A13
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1 P3 Plan
240 137
542 SF
SINGLE
311
30' - 11 5/8" 6' - 8"
10' - 10 3/8" 4' - 10 1/8" 4' - 1" 11' - 2 1/8"
16' - 9 3/8"
7' - 11 3/8" 2' - 11" 5' - 11"
8' - 8 1/8" 8' - 1 1/4"
6 6
11' - 1 5/8" 6' - 1 1/2" 7' - 0 3/8"
291"
79 1/2" 93 1/4" 118 1/4"
744 SF
1 BDR
322
76" 180 5/8" 30" 177 3/8"
464"
6' - 4" 21' - 10 1/8" 10' - 5 7/8"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
JUNE 2025 A14
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/8" = 1'-0" 3 Single Unit3/8" = 1'-0" 1
1 Bedroom Unit
241 138
10' - 5 7/8" 13' - 6 1/8" 8' - 2 1/8" 6' - 5 5/8"
38' - 8"
46' - 8 7/8"
14' - 5" 11' - 2 1/4" 9' - 0 3/4" 12' - 0 7/8"
14' - 5" 16' - 7 7/8" 7' - 0"
38' - 0 7/8"
935 SF
2 BDR
422
11' - 10 3/8" 11' - 4 3/4" 15' - 4 7/8"
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
JUNE 2025 A14.1
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/8" = 1'-0" 1
2 Bedroom Unit
242 139
Ground Level
0' - 0"
Podium
14' - 4"
Level 2
24' - 7 3/8"
Level 3
34' - 10 3/4"
Level 4
45' - 2 1/8"
Level 5
55' - 5 1/2"
Level 6
65' - 8 7/8"
Roof
76' - 0 1/4"

FIRE ACCESS ROAD
30' - 0"
Firestair Parapet
87' - 6 1/4"
11' - 6" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 14' - 4" 79' - 6 1/4"
Roof Parapet
79' - 6 1/4"
Elevator
80' - 3 1/4"

SLIDING GATE
Ground Level
0' - 0"
Podium
14' - 4"
Level 2
24' - 7 3/8"
Level 3
34' - 10 3/4"
Level 4
45' - 2 1/8"
Level 5
55' - 5 1/2"
Level 6
65' - 8 7/8"
Roof
76' - 0 1/4"
10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8"

FIRE ACCESS ROAD FIRE ACCESS ROAD
14' - 4"
30' - 0" 30' - 0"
Firestair Parapet
87' - 6 1/4"
11' - 6"
Roof Parapet
79' - 6 1/4"
79' - 6 1/4"
Elevator
80' - 3 1/4"

SLIDING GATE SLIDING GATE
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

ELEVATIONS
JUNE 2025 A15
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1 East
3/32" = 1'-0" 2 North
243 140
Ground Level
0' - 0"
Podium
14' - 4"
Level 2
24' - 7 3/8"
Level 3
34' - 10 3/4"
Level 4
45' - 2 1/8"
Level 5
55' - 5 1/2"
Level 6
65' - 8 7/8"
Roof
76' - 0 1/4"

FIRE ACCESS ROAD FIRE ACCESS ROAD
30' - 0" 30' - 0"
10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 14' - 4" Firestair Parapet
87' - 6 1/4"
11' - 6"
79' - 6 1/4"
Roof Parapet
79' - 6 1/4"
Elevator
80' - 3 1/4"

SLIDING GATE SLIDING GATE
Ground Level
0' - 0"
Podium
14' - 4"
Level 2
24' - 7 3/8"
Level 3
34' - 10 3/4"
Level 4
45' - 2 1/8"
Level 5
55' - 5 1/2"
Level 6
65' - 8 7/8"
Roof
76' - 0 1/4"
30' - 0"

FIRE ACCESS ROAD
10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 14' - 4" 10' - 3 3/8" Firestair Parapet
87' - 6 1/4"
79' - 6 1/4"
11' - 6"
Roof Parapet
79' - 6 1/4"
3' - 6"3' - 6"
Elevator
80' - 3 1/4"

SLIDING GATE
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

ELEVATIONS
JUNE 2025 A16
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/32" = 1'-0" 1 South
3/32" = 1'-0" 2 West

TORRANCE BLVD
244 141
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

FACADE MATERIAL PALETTE
JUNE 2025 A17
3475 TORRANCE LLC

WHITE STUCCO - SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH

TEMPERED GLASS FRAMELESS GUARDRAIL

GRAY FIBER CEMENT RAIN SCREEN PANEL

DARK GRAY ALUMINUM FRAME WINDOWS & DOORS
245 142
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

FACADE MATERIAL PALETTE
JUNE 2025 A17.1
3475 TORRANCE LLC

WOOD FINISH

STEEL GUARDRAIL - PAINTED WHITE
246 143
Ground Level
0' - 0"
Podium
14' - 4"
Level 2
24' - 7 3/8"
Level 3
34' - 10 3/4"
Level 4
45' - 2 1/8"
Level 5
55' - 5 1/2"
P1
-11' - 0"
P2
-23' - 3"
P3
-33' - 0"
Level 6
65' - 8 7/8"
Roof
76' - 0 1/4"

5.1 5 4 3 2 1.1
20 %
10 %
10 %
Firestair Parapet
87' - 6 1/4"
Roof Parapet
79' - 6 1/4"

2.1 6' - 0"
Elevator
80' - 3 1/4"
7 6 1 0.1
Ground Level
0' - 0"
Podium
14' - 4"
Level 2
24' - 7 3/8"
Level 3
34' - 10 3/4"
Level 4
45' - 2 1/8"
Level 5
55' - 5 1/2"
P1
-11' - 0"
P2
-23' - 3"
P3
-33' - 0"
Level 6
65' - 8 7/8"
Roof
76' - 0 1/4"
L.1 K I G E D C B.1 A.1
5 %
3' - 0" 9' - 9" 12' - 3" 11' - 0" 14' - 4" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" 10' - 3 3/8" L P
X
-36' - 0"
5 %
T.O. Exits
86' - 0 1/4"
17' - 6"
17' - 2"
9' - 0"
Firestair Parapet
87' - 6 1/4"
Roof Parapet
79' - 6 1/4"
J H
12' - 10" 1' - 6"
Elevator
80' - 3 1/4"

N M B A
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

SECTIONS
JUNE 2025 A18
3475 TORRANCE LLC
3/64" = 1'-0" 1 Section Through Driveway Ramp
3/64" = 1'-0" 2 Section Through Parking Ramp
247 144
19 LANDSCAPE PLAN
248 145
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

ALTA SURVEY
JUNE 2025 A20
3475 TORRANCE LLC
249 146
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

PATH OF TRAVEL ACCESS PLANS
JUNE 2025 A21
3475 TORRANCE LLC

PODIUM LEVEL PLAN

GROUND LEVEL PLAN

ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

ACCESS PLAN

ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

ACCESS PLAN
MEDICAL OFFICES @ 12,323 SF
12,323 SF/ 250 SF = 50 PARKING SPACES REQ.

GROUND LEVEL
29 COMMERCIAL SPACES
(2 ADA + 27 STANDARD)
(21 COMMERCIAL SPACES PROVIDED ON P1: 21 STANDARD)
A @9'X18
S @8'-6"X19'

TOTAL SPACES
(GROUND FL)
2 27
29 250 147
UP
UP
DN
UP
DN
DN UP

DN DN UP
UP
UP
DN
DN UP
DN UP
DN
DN
DN
DN
0' - 7"
DN
25' - 2 1/4"
6,575 sf
1064 sf
30' - 0"
649 sf
15' - 0"
891 sf
28' - 10 1/4"
36' - 6 5/8"
16' - 1 3/4"
35' - 0 3/8"
57' - 10"
33' - 2 3/8"
39' - 2 7/8"
28' - 4"
15' - 0"15' - 0"
397 sf
22' - 10 3/8"
17' - 10 3/8"15' - 0"
15' - 0"
92 sf 100 sf
16' - 1 3/4"
6' - 1 1/2" 14' - 11 1/2"
22' - 3 5/8"
6' - 0 1/4"
13' - 5"
99 sf
177 sf
87 sf
119 sf
100 sf
61 sf
12' - 5 1/4"
14' - 4 5/8"
6' - 0 1/2"
19' - 6 1/2" 6' - 0 3/4"
6' - 0"
14' - 7"
15' - 11 5/8"
16' - 5 3/4"
6' - 1 1/2"
10' - 3 1/8"
6' - 1 1/2"

PATIO PATIO YARD
PATIO
PATIO
YARD

COURTYARD COURTYARD
PATIO

BLDG A BLDG B
BLDG C
BLDG D
BLDG E
6' - 0"
DN
10' - 10"
6' - 0"
58 sf
17' - 7"
6' - 0"
104 sf
150 sf 6' - 0"
111 sf
6' - 0"
9' - 2" 6' - 0" 60 sf
15' - 10"
6' - 0"
94 sf
17' - 11"
112 sf
12' - 10"
76 sf
10' - 11 1/8"
58 sf
10' - 0 1/2"
6' - 0" 56 sf
14' - 7"
19 87 sf ' - 3" 6' - 0"
114 sf
85 sf
16' - 11 3/8"
6' - 0"
100 sf
10' - 8 3/8"
13' - 11 5/8" 12' - 1 7/8" 8' - 4 1/2"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
6' - 0
5/8"
6' - 0"
14' - 0 3/4"

BLDG A BLDG B
BLDG C
BLDG D
BLDG E
6' - 0"
6' - 0"

OVERHANG ABOVE

OVERHANG ABOVE
496 sf
134 sf
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
90 sf
6' - 0"
15' - 2"
16' - 4" 6' - 1 1/2"
99 sf 6' - 1 1/2"
6' - 1 1/2"
111 sf
20' - 10 3/4"
6' - 0"
124 sf
13' - 10 3/8"
6' - 1 1/2"
84 sf
6' - 0" 10' - 3 1/8"
61 sf
16' - 5 3/4"
6' - 1 1/2"
100 sf
18' - 4"
6' - 1 1/2"
111 sf
6' - 0 1/2"
15' - 5 3/4"
118 sf
19' - 7"
119 sf
14' - 4 5/8"
85 sf
13' - 2 3/8"
6' - 0"
13' - 7 7/8"
11' - 1 1/8" 8' - 9"
20' - 1 3/4" 13' - 2 3/8"
18' - 6 1/2"

BLDG A BLDG B
BLDG C
BLDG D
BLDG E

OUTLINE OF BLDG BELOW
144 sf 111 sf 94 sf
96 sf
6' - 0"
12' - 1 7/8"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
579 sf
6' - 0"
14' - 7 1/4"
10' - 7 7/8"
6' - 0"
16' - 8"
104 sf
15' - 10"
6' - 0"
242 sf
21' - 2 1/2"
16' - 5 7/8"
6' - 0"
12' - 10" 76 sf
114 sf
19' - 3" 6' - 0"
13' - 7 1/8"
82 sf
38' - 8"
541 sf
10' - 11 1/8" 6' - 0" 57 sf
10' - 0 1/2"
6' - 0"
87 sf 56 sf
14' - 7"
6' - 0"
6' - 1 1/2"
10' - 11 1/4"
71 sf
10' - 8 1/2"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
23' - 11"
13' - 11 5/8"
8' - 5 1/2"
15' - 9"
33' - 3 1/2"
14' - 0 1/2"
6' - 0 3/4"

BLDG A BLDG B
BLDG C
BLDG D
BLDG E

OUTLINE OF BLDG BELOW
2126 sf 2379 sf

ROOF DECK
6' - 1 1/2"
15' - 2"
774 sf
90 sf
99 sf
111 sf 124 sf 6' - 0 3/4" 11' - 2 1/2" 8' - 8 1/4" 6' - 0 1/4" 20' - 10 3/4"
84 sf
377 sf
61 sf
16' - 4"
6' - 0 3/4"
23' - 2 1/2" 10' - 6 7/8"
6' - 9 7/8"
6' - 0" 20' - 2"
36' - 8 3/4"
13' - 3" 2' - 3 1/4"
18' - 0 1/8" 16' - 6 1/4"
2' - 4 3/8"
4' - 0 1/2"
13' - 10 3/8"
6' - 2 1/4"

BLDG A BLDG B
BLDG C
BLDG D
BLDG E
10' - 3 1/8"
6' - 0 1/4"

OUTLINE OF BLDG BELOW

OUTLINE OF BLDG BELOW
111 sf
96 sf
94 sf
104 sf
10' - 8 3/8"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
35' - 8" 439 sf 602 sf
15' - 10"
16'
6' - 0"
- 8"
6' - 0"

BLDG A BLDG B
BLDG C
PleskowArchitects
13432 Beach Ave., Suite A
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310.577.9300
Contact: Tony Pleskow, AIA
3475 TORRANCE

USABLE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS
JUNE 2025 A22
3475 TORRANCE LLC
1/32" = 1'-0" 1 Podium Level Open Space Diagram
1/32" = 1'-0" 3
Level 2 Open Space Diagram
1/32" = 1'-0" 5
Level 3 Open Space Diagram
1/32" = 1'-0" 2
Level 4 Open Space Diagram
1/32" = 1'-0" 4
Level 5 Open Space Diagram
1/32" = 1'-0" 6
Level 6 Open Space Diagram
251 148
9B
Date: August 19, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director
By: Dominique Allen, Planning Associate | [email protected] Subject: Supplemental Material to Agenda Item 9B

DISCUSSION
A scrivener's error occurred on Agenda Item 9B. Please see the revised Subject and Recommendation below to include resolutions in the plural form.

Subject
Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct Public Hearing and Consider Adoption of RESOLUTIONS FOR Denial of an Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP24-00028) and Development Permit (DVP24-00004) on property located within the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-Del Amo Business Sub District Two (H-DA2 Zone) at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110) and Determine a Categorical Exemption From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure:

None.

Recommendation
Recommendation of the Planning Commission and Community Development Director that City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing; and

2. Deny the appeal; and

3. Adopt RESOLUTIONS denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of CUP24-00028 and DVP24-00004 as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 1 and Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 36 of the Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) to allow the demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12,226 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Del Amo Business District (H-DA2 Zone); and

4. Determine a Categorical Exemption from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Article 19, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development).
2521
Name: Hayley Uno
Comment - 08/18/2025 11:14 AM: ( Against )
On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER"), please find attached appeal comments regarding the CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption prepared for the 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project (CUP24-00028; DVP24-00004) ("Project"). The Project is scheduled to be heard as Item 9B at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, August 19, 2025. A version of the attached comment letter with expert exhibits was submitted to the City via email from [email protected] on August 18, 2025. The comments with the expert exhibits could not be submitted via OneMeeting Portal, since the file size was too large. Thank you for your consideration.

Name: Hayley Uno
Comment - 08/18/2025 12:59 PM: ( No Vote )
Dear Mayor Chen, Honorable Members of the Torrance City Council, Ms. Poirier, and Ms. Allen, On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER"), please find attached appeal comments, including expert exhibits, regarding the CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption prepared for the 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project (CUP24-00028; DVP24-00004) ("Project"). The Project is scheduled to be heard as Item 9B at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, August 19, 2025.

I tried to submit the attached comments via OneMeeting Portal, but I received an error message notifying me that the file size is too large to send through OneMeeting.

If you could please confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration! Best regards,
Hayley Uno
Name: Fernand Chouinard
Comment - 08/18/2025 02:33 PM: ( No Vote )
I would like to express that the proposed building units be expressly low income housing, especially as they are desperately needed to stop the youth flight that's been happening.

I am emphatically for the adoption of more, mixed use zoning in Torrance, and would like to see further availability of such zones, especially to allow for more corner stores and and near residence activities to help build social cohesion.

9. HEARINGS
9B. Planning Commission and Community Development – Conduct Public Hearing and Consider Adoption of RESOLUTION for Denial of an Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP24- 00028) and Development Permit (DVP24-00004) on Property Located within the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-Del Amo Business Sub District Two (H-DA2 Zone) at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110) and Determine a Categorical Exemption From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None. 1 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9B
253
INDEX
TORRANCE CITY COU NC IL - AUGUST 19, 2025

SUBJECT PAGE

OPENING CEREMONIES

1. Call to Order/Roll Call 1

2. Flag Salute/Invocation 1
3~ Withdrawn, Deferred or Supplemental Items 1

4. Affidavit of Posting/Waive Further Reading 1

5. Council Committee Meetings and Announcements 2

6. COMMUNITY MATTERS
6A. RESOLUTION NO. 2025-50 honoring Police Chief Jeremiah Hart 2 6B. Proclamation honoring Torrance Centenarian Billy Slonecker 2 6C. Appoint Members of the 2025-2026 Torrance Youth Council 2 6D. Torrance Art Museum's Exhibition Opening August 23, 2025 2

7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 2

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
8A. SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3953 2-3
8B. SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE. NO. 3954 3
BC. Accept and File Fiscal Year 2024-25 Measure SST Citizens' Oversight Committee Annual Report 3
8D. Approve Second Amendment to Contract Services Agreement for Encampment Prevention Overnight Security Guard Services 3 8E. Approve Second Amendment to Contract Services Agreement for Shelf-Ready Library Materials 3
8F. Authorize Torrance Youth Council to Conduct an Annual Workshop at THE ATTIC, a Torrance Teen Center 3
8G. Approve Third Amendment to Agreement for Usage of Recycled Water at the Torrance Refinery 4
8H . Accept and Appropriate 2024 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Program Subrecipient Agreement and Associated Funding 4

81. Approve Agreement to Promote Torrance Cultural Arts Center 4

9. HEARINGS
9A. Conduct Public Hearing and Adoption of RESOLUTIONS For Denial of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permits (CUP24-00012, CUP24-00013) to Allow the Construction of Two Industrial Buildings Totaling276,300 Square Feet on a

14.02-Acre Site , in Conjunction with a Division of Lot (DIV24-00004) ,o Consolidate Three Existing Parcels into Two Parcels, and Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration(EAS24-00001) on Property Located in the Heavy Manufacturing District (M-2 Zone) at 2160 West 190thStreet APNs 7352-016-001, 7352-016-002, and 7352-016-003); and Deny the Appeal, Adopt RESOLUTIONS, Upholding the Planning Commission's Actions, and Affirming the Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 9B . Conduct Public Hearing and Consider Adoption of RESOLUTION for Denial of an Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP24-00028) and Development Permit (DVP24-00004) on Property Located within the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan-Del Amo Business Sub District Two (H-DA2 Zone) at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110) and Determine a Categorical Exemption From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 5-6 9C . Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Adoption of RESOLUTION for Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary
City Council
August19,2025
254

10. 10A.
108 .

11. 12.

13. 14.
the Denial of a Modification ( MOD23- 00010) of a Previously Approved Division of Lot ( DIV14- 00006) to Amend an Open Space Easement ( Note A) for Purposes Related to Solar Panels and Associated Equipment and Perimeter Fencing, on Property Located within the Hillside Overlay in the Open Area - Planting - Parking District ( P-1) Zone at 2550 Pacific Coast Highway and Determine a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) 6-9

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Request to Set Date for a Public Hearing on Proposed Local Amendments to the 2025 California Building Code 9
Accept and File Columbia Park Community Engagement and Concept Design Project Report 10

AGENCY AGENDAS
COUNCIL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 11
CLOSED SESSION 1, 11
ADJOURNMENT 10-11
At 11 :06 p.m., the City Council adjourned to Tuesday, September 9, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. for closed session with regular business commencing at 6:30 p.rh. in the LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chamber. Tuesday, August 26, 2025 and Tuesday, September 02, 2025 are City Council Dark Nights.

Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary
City Council
August 19, 2025
255
August 19, 2025

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE TORRANCE CITY COUNCIL

1. CALL TO ORDER
The Torrance City Council convened in a regular meeting on August 19, 2025 at 5:03 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Gerson, Kaji, Kalani, Lewis, Mattucci, Sheikh, and Mayor Chen

Absent:

Present:

None
City Manager Chaparyan, City Attorney Sullivan,
City Clerk Rebecca Poirier and
other staff representatives
Agenda item 13 was considered out of order at this time.

13. CLOSED SESSION
The City Council immediately recessed to closed session at 5:04 p.m. to confer with the City Manager and the City Attorney on agenda matters listed under 13A) Real Property - Conference With Real Property Negotiator, 138) Conference With Labor Negotiator, 13C) Public Employee Discipline/ Dismissal/ Release, 13D) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation, and 13E) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation - Litigation pursuant to California Government Code § 54956. 8, California Government Code § 54957. 6, California Government Code 54957, California Government Code § 54956. 9(d)(4) and California Government Code 54956. 9(d)(2).

The City Council reconvened in public session at 6:36 p.m. No formal action was taken on any item considered in closed session.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ INVOCATION
The flag salute was led by Councilmember Kalani and the non- sectarian invocation was given by Councilmember Lewis.

3. WITHDRAWN, DEFERRED OR SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
Item 9Awas withdrawn. Supplemental material was available for items 6A, 81, 9A, and 98 .

4. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA/ MOTION TO

WAIVE FURTHER READING
MOTION: Councilmember Lewis moved that after the City Clerk has read aloud the number and title of any resolution or ordinance on the meeting agenda, the further reading thereof shall be waived, reserving and guaranteeing to each Councilmember the right to demand the reading of any such resolution or ordinance in regular order. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Sheikh and passed by 7-0.

5. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Chen updated the public on the Project Homekey+ application. He reviewed the concerns residents and businesses had, and enumerated the work being done. He stated that Weingart Center had formally withdrawn its application for the project in Torrance.

Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 1
City Council
August 19, 2025
256
Councilmember Kaji received concurrence to direct staff to utilize city marketing support for the fundraising concert organized by World War 2 Camp Wall committee.

Councilmember Kalani received concurrence to have staff identify funding for improvements and possible expansion of bathrooms at Wilson Park.

Councilmember Gerson and City Manager Chaparyan discussed the differences in how the capital improvement plans were in contrast to bringing it as a concurrence item .

6. COMMUNITY MATTERS
6A. RESOLUTION NO. 2025-50 HONORING POLICE CHIEF JEREMIAH HART Resolution No. 2025- 50 honoring Police Chief Jeremiah Hart upon his retirement from the City of Torrance after twenty- eight years of service
MOTION: Councilmember Kalani moved to adopt Resolution No. 2025- 50.

Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.

68. PROCLAMATION HONORING TORRANCE CEN'fENARIAN BILLY SLONECKER 6C. APPOINT MEMBERS OF THE 2025-2026 TORRANCE YOUTH COUNCIL Jeanette Berga, Celine Chang, Kaylee Cho, Fabiana Hanoun, Nathan Han, Kyeongmtn Ra, Ananya Rege, Zoey Rosen, Priyanshu Sharma, Aanya Tripathi, Aidan Alzayat, Kaya Ann, Jayden Kim, Nichole Choi, Tanner Donald, Jubin Hong, Gwyneth V. Leys, and Cori Song were appointed to the 2025- 2026 Torrance Youth Council.

MOTION: Councilmember Gerson moved to adopt 6C. Councilmember Kalani seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
6D. TORRANCE ART MUSEUM'S EXHIBITION OPENING AUGUST 23, 2025: SUR

BIENNIAL
7 . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public spoke .

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
SA. SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3953
Second and Final Reading of ORDINANCE NO. 3953 amending Sections 13.1.1 (c),

13.2.1, 13.3.1, 13.4.1,13. 5.1, 13.9.1, 13.10.1, 13.11.1, 13.15.1, 13.16.1, 13.18. 1,

13.20. 010, and 13.21.020 all titled " Created, Composition , Compensation , and Qualifications" of the Torrance Municipal Code relating to Compensation of Commissioners and approval of the Ordinance Summary for publication. This item is for consideration of adoption of the ordinance only. The item was previously discussed, and action was taken at a prior council meeting.

88. SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3954
Second and Final Reading of ORDINANCE NO. 3954 amending Torrance Municipal Code Chapter 2, Article 2 of Division 9 by amending Section 92.2.1 O; and amending Chapter 2, Article 2 of Division 9 by deleting Section 92.2.11 regarding junior accessory dwelling units and approval of the Ordinance S'ummary for publication. This item is for consideration of Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 2
City Council
August 19, 2025
257
adoption of the ordinance only. The item was previously discussed, and action was taken at a prior council meeting.

BC . ACCEPT AND FILE FISCAL YEAR 2024- 25 MEASURE SST CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT
Recommendation of the Measure SST Citizens' Oversight Committee and Finance Director that City Council accept and file the fiscal year 2024- 25 Measure SST Citizens' Oversight Committee annual report. '
BD. APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR

ENCAMPMENT PREVENTION OVERNIGHT SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Recommendation of the Community Services Director that City Council approve a second amendment to the contract services agreement with Absolute International Security, Inc. of Irwindale, CA ( C2023- 124), in the amount of $200, 000, for a new not- to- exceed amount of $ 619, 912. 32, to provide encampment prevention overnight security guard services at various city parks and facilities and extend the contract term for a one- year period beginning September 12, 2025 and ending September 11, 2026.

Council member Sheikh and Senior Business Manager Crystal Coveria discussed the noninclusion of park rangers from this item and the metrics on effectiveness.

MOTION: Councilmember Sheikh moved to approve item 8D. Councilmember Lewis seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.

BE . APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR

SHELF- READY LIBRARY MATERIALS
Recommendation of the Community Services Director that City Council approve a second amendment to the contract services agreement with Ingram Library Services, LLC of La Vergne, TN ( C2020- 070), in the amount of $ 80,000, for a new not- to-exceed amount of 980, 000, to provide shelf- ready library materials.

BF . AUTHORIZE TORRANCE YOUTH COUNCIL TO CONDUCT AN ANNUAL

WORKSHOP AT THE ATTIC, A TORRANCE TEEN CENTER
Recommendation of the Community Services Director that the City Council authorize the Torrance Youth Council to conduct their annual workshop on Monday, August 25, 2025, at THE ATTIC, a Torrance Teen Center located at 2320 West Carson Street.

BG . APPROVE THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR USAG~ OF RECYCLED

WATER AT THE TORRANCE REFINERY
Recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council approve a third amendment to a tri-partyagreement ( C2021- 027) with the Torrance Refining Company, LLC ( TORC) of Torrance, CA and West BasinMunicipal Water District for an additional amount of $ 6,000, 000 in Fiscal Year 2025- 26, for a new not- to-exceed amount of 46,000, 000, for the usage of recycled water at the TORC Refinery during the contractperiod, which extends the contract term for an additional five- month period beginning September 1, 2025 andending January 31, 2026.

BH. ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE 2024 URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE ( UASI)

GRANT PROGRAM SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED FUNDING Recommendation of the Fire Chief that City Council accept and appropriate the Fiscal Year 2024 Urban Area Security Initiative ( UASI) Grant Program award in the amount of 458, 032.

Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 3
City Council
August 19, 2025
258

81. APPROVE AGREEMENT TO PROMOTE TORRANCE CULTURAL ARTS CENTER Recommendation of the General Services Director that City Council approve an agreement with the Torrance Cultural Arts Foundation of Torrance, CA, in the amount of 338, 800, to promote the Torrance Cultural Arts Center for a two- year period beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2027.

City Clerk Poirier read the number and title for Ordinance No. 3953 AN ORDINANCE OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS

13.1.1(c), 13.2.1, 13.3.1, 13.4.1, 13.5.1, 13.9.1, 13.10.1, 13.11. 1, 13. 15.1, 13.16. 1, 13. 18.1,

13.20.010, AND 13. 21. 020 ALL TITLED " CREATED, COMPOSITION, COMPENSATION, AND QUALIFICATIONS" OF THE TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF COMMISSIONERS.

City Clerk Poirier read the number and title for Ordinance No. 3954 AN ORDINANCE OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2 OF DIVISION 9 BY AMENDING SECTION 92.2.10; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2 OF DIVISION 9 BY DELETING SECTION 92.2.11 REGARDING JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

MOTION: Councilmember Kalani moved to approve the Consent Calendar with exception of item SD and approving Ordinance No. 3953 and 3954. Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
9 . HEARINGS
9A. CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS FOR DENIAL OF

AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ( CUP24- 00012, CUP24- 00013) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING276, 300 SQUARE FEET ON A 14. 02- ACRE SITE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DIVISION OF LOT ( DIV24- 00004) TO CONSOLIDATE

THREE EXISTING PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS, AND ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION( EAS24- 00001) ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HEAVY MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ( M-2 ZONE) AT 2160 WEST 190THSTREET ( APNS 7352- 016- 001, 7352- 016- 002, AND 7352- 016- 003); AND DENY THE APPEAL, ADOPT

RESOLUTIONS, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S ACTIONS, AND AFFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ( EAS24- 00001)
Item 9A was withdrawn .
9B. CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION FOR

DENIAL OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ( CUP24- 00028) AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ( DVP24- 00004) ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN- DEL AMO BUSINESS SUB DISTRICT TWO ( H-DA2 ZONE) AT 3475 TORRANCE BOULEVARD ( APN 7524- 014- 110) AND DETERMINE A

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ACT ( CEQA)
Recommendation of the Planning Commission and Community Development Director that City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing; and

2. Deny the appeal; and
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 4
City Council
August19, 2025
259

3. Adopt a RESOLUTION denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission' s approval of CUP24- 00028 and DVP24- 00004 as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 1 and Division 9, Chapter 2 , Article 36 of the Torrance Municipal Code ( TMC) to allow the demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed- use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12, 226 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Del Amo Business District ( H-DA2 Zone); and
4 . Determine a Categorical Exemption from California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA); Article 19, Section 15332 ( In-Fill Development.

Planning Manager Robert Garcia introduced the item to the City Council using slides. He overviewed the location, background, appeal, CEQA, site plan, massing diagram and recommendation .

Councilmembers Kalani, Sheikh, Kaji, Lewis and Mayor Chen disclosed that they visited the site and met with the developer and stated that they would make their decision based on information provided.

The appellant Hayley Uno spoke on behalf of SAFER. She stated that the City Council should require a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report before project approval. She continued that the project will have negative adverse impacts and argued how CEQA exemption does not apply. She detailed the noise and vibration impacts that would exceed the 80 decibel limit and that ambient noise thresholds would be exceeded. She continued that the air quality analysis was inaccurate and that there would be negative air quality impacts. She also cited that there would be negative health impacts from the formaldehyde issues.

The proponent Jim Sur, partner with the property owner, stated his goals. He stated that they worked with staff to meet all tests that conform with the law. He used slides to depict that there were no negative impacts in health and other factors. He showed how sunlight and air were made better and detailed the circulation. He listed the modifications made to secure the property and improve from the original property uses. Megan Keemer, representing the applicant, added information about the various assessments that were done to approve the project. She stated there was no evidence of negative impacts and that SAFER has not provided any.

Members of the public were allowed to speak at this time.

A member of the public stated that the Planning Commission should have voted against the project given the prob lem s, an d th at the project should have fo llowed thJe pre vious projects.

He lis ted how the dev elo per was try ing to cut corn ers on the proj ect. He continu ed th at these types of properties do not fit Torrance.

The appellant Ms. Uno stated that they have provided all sources and qualifications for each study. She added that SAFER wants to make sure that the project is safe to be built.

Councilmember Sheikh and Planning Manager Robert Garcia discussed what evidence SAFER has provided.

MOTION: Councilmember Kalani moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Kaji seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.

City Clerk Poirier read the number and title for Resolution No. 2025- 51 - A Resolution of the City of the City Council of the City of Torrance, California, denying an appeal and approving a conditional use permit as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 1 of the Torrance Aleksander Alderete City Council
Minutes Secretary 5 August 19, 2025
260
Municipal Code approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow the demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed- use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12, 226 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Del Amo Business District ( H-DA2) zone at 3475 Torrance Boulevard.

City Clerk Poirier read the number and title for Resolution No. 2025- 52 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Torrance, California , denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval of a development permit as provided for in Division 9, Chapter 9, Chapter 2, Article 36 of the Torrance Municipal Code, approving a development permit to allow the demolition of the existing medical office building and the construction of a new mixed- use development consisting of 106 residential units and 12,226 square feet of medical office floor area, on property located in the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan - Del Amo Business District Two ( H-DA2) zone at 3475 Torrance Boulevard.

MOTION: Councilmember Mattucci moved to deny the appeal and adopt Resolution No . 2025- 51 and 2025- 52 and determine the project is categorically exempt from CEQA .

Councilmember Kaji seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. 9C. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDE. RADOPTION OF RESOLUTION FOR THE DENIAL OF A MODIFICATION { MOD23- 00010) OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVEDDIVISION OF LOT { DIV14- 00006) TO AMEND AN OPEN SPACE

EASEMENT ( NOTE A) FOR PURPOSES RELATED TOSOLAR PANELS AND

ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND PERIMETER FENCING, ON PROPERTY LOCATED

WITHIN THEHILLSIDE OVERLAY IN THE OPEN AREA - PLANTING - PARKING DISTRICT { P-1) ZONE AT 2550 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAY AND DETERMINE A

STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT { CEQA)
party .

Recommendation of the Planning Commission and Community Development Director that City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing; and

2. Adopt a RESOLUTION for the denial of MOD23- 00010 of previously approved DIV14- 00006 to amend an open space easement ( Note A) for purposes related to solar panels and associated equipment and perimeter fencing, on property located within the Hillside Overlay in the P-1 Zone at 2550 Pacific Coast Highway; and

3. Determine a Statutory Exemption for denial of MOD23- 00010 in accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA); Article 18, Section 15270 ( Projects Which Are Disapproved.)
Councilmember Lewis disclosed that she toured the site and spoke ~ ith both parties.

Councilmember Kalani disclosed that she toured the site and spoke with the requesting Councilmember Kaji disclosed that he visited the site and spoke with the ownership.

Councilmember Sheikh disclosed that he visited the site but did not meet with the developers.

Councilmember Mattucci disclosed that he visited the site and spoke with the proponent.

Councilmember Gerson stated that the project was in his district but he had not done any conversations with any party recently.

Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 6
City Council
August 19, 2025
261
Mayor Chen disclosed that he visited the site and spoke with the party that wanted the solar panels.

Senior Planner Leo Oorts introduced the item to the City Council and used slides to overview the project location, land use designation, zoning designation, open space easement, proposed modification, and recommendation.

The proponent Mike Misera with Skyline reviewed Ordinance 3944 and amounted tt-rat the power generated from the solar panels fits the law and that this is privately funded. He continued that the Geotech reports have been submitted to the City Council and some of the misinformation from the leaked report. He stated that they reduced the height of the panels and addressed the concern over the glare and solar radiation. He stated that this power system would help Torrance save energy.

Greg Powers, special counsel to the proponent, reviewed the legal parameters to how a solar system can be installed. He listed the ways in which this project is approved under the laws and regulations. He stated that the only way to deny it was through health and safety that cannot be mitigated and that it was not in the Planning Commission' s decision and not in the draft resolution. He addressed the open space easement is~.\Je that was a reason for denial. He requested the City Council honor the solar ordinance.

Members of the public were allowed to speak at this time.

John Paulson, nearby homeowner, stated that the plan should be keep the open space easement and for use of the community and not for profit.

The owner of the property that Mr. Misera was referring to stated that an exemption on the appeal should not be granted and stated that this was not for the community but rather for profit.

City Attorney Sullivan disclosed that the previous speaker and him had known each other 5 years ago.

Councilmember Mattucci disclosed that Attorney Paulson was a longtime friend of his family but that it would not affect his decision.

Mika, a homeowner next to the project, voiced concern over the easements . She was not in favor of the size of the arrays and the heat.

Ed Stroble, a nearby resident, stated that this solar farm would be poor for the community aesthetic. He added that the state has plenty of solar power and that it has been wasteful.

Jane Salic, a nearby resident, voiced her concerns about the open space should this project go in. She added that the authority control would be outside of Torrance and that this would be an eyesore for the community. She criticized the company for how they do maintenance.

Marily Carter, a nearby resident, was opposed to the solar farm which would obstruct her view .

Mr. Misera clarified that this would not be touching anyone' s backyard. He added that they would have authority over the park and that it was not true that they would not have control over maintenance and issues. He stated that their other properties have shown appropriate control and maintenance. Mr. Powers reiterated that the City Council should follow the Solar Rights Act.

Aleksander Alderete City Council
Minutes Secretary 7 August 19, 2025
262
Councilmember Gerson agreed that the Skyline group has not operated properly but that he would need to follow the law in his decision. He stated that the 2014 EIR would be the important factor.

Councilmember Sheikh and Mr. Misera discussed the frequency of meetings there were with residents, and the plans of usage on the panels and power. The billing of the master metered systems, and SoCal Edison holds the master meter. Mr. Misera stated that SoCal Edison' rates were what would be used.

Councilmember Sheikh and Senior Planner Oorts discussed other locations where this many panels were being used, and what the health impacts could be.

Councilmember Kaji and City Attorney Sullivan discussed the legal parameters of the boundaries between Rolling Hills Estates and Torrance, and how the easements were affected.

They overviewed the definition of open space and the legal framework of that. He questioned the inconsistency from the two easement agreements, and voiced concern over the liability of approving the solar array. Mr. Misera responded that he would have to get more information and legal advice.

Councilmember Lewis and Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez discussed the consequences of granting the appeal or not, and the indemnification.

Councilmember Mattucci stated that there were not much legal avenues to deny the project, and the power increase from the panels would have benefits.

Councilmember Kalani and Senior Planner Oorts reviewed the slides to get a clearer picture of the project. Councilmember Kalani and Senior Planner Oorts discussed other ways to relieve Torrance of liability. Mr. Powers did not agree at the time for an environmental review when they have already been approved under the law.

Councilmember Gerson, Assistant City Manager Santana, Senior Planner Oorts, and Community Development Director Ramirez discussed the extent of the involvement of Rolling Hills Estates and the contract and EIR. They discussed the involvement of the Chandler family.

Councilmember Gerson agreed that there was a legal issue and that every party has a good claim . He continued that a new EIR should be made so that a neutral source could be developed.

Councilmember Kaji and City Attorn ey Sullivan discussed the Sola r Rjghts Act and CEQA review in terms of the project. They overvi ewed the issue at hand was the ope n space, and if there was an administrative review. Councilmember Kaji stated that he wanted to avoid liability.

MOTION : Councilmember Gerson moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.

MOTION: Councilmember Sheikh moved for continuance in order to appear for a review in environmental analysis as described in the Chandler- Rolling Hills Estates- Country Club project EIR and through an amendment to EIR to consider modifying original project and clarify open space and include indemnification in favor of the City of Torrance. Councilmember Gerson seconded the motion.

Councilmember Lewis and Community Development Director Ramirez discussed the amendments in the motion and timeframe of the studies. Councilmember Lewis stated that was enough studies regarding this.

Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 8
City Council
August19, 2025
263
Councilmember Mattucci reiterated that these types of projects are exempted from CEQA, and Torrance may be creating more liability by denying the project. He understood protecting the city but that this project has no restrictions, especially given the modifications. He supported upholding the appeal and bring back a resolution to approve the project.

Councilmember Mattucci and Councilmember Gerson disagreed with the role of direction of the City Council on denying the appeal. ,
Councilmember Kalani stated that she would vote in the manner of what was presented legally .

The motion failed by a vote of 2-5 with Councilmembers Mattucci, Kaji, Kalani, Lewis, and Mayor Chen voting no .

MOTION: Councilmember Mattucci moved to uphold the appeal, bring back resolution approving the project and determining the project exempt from CEQA. Councilmember Kaji seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-2 with Councilmembers Gerson and Sheikh voting no.

The City Council went to recess at 9:37 p.m. The City Council returned from recess at 9:46 p.m.

10. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
10A. REQUEST TO SET DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
Recommendation of the Community Development Director that City Council set the date of September 9, 2025 for a public hearing to consider a proposed Urgency Ordinance and regular Ordinance adopting the 2025 California Building Code with Local Amendments.

No members of the public spoke.

MOTION: Councilmember Gerson moved to approve item 10A. Councilmember Kaji seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. 10B. ACCEPT AND FILE COLUMBIA PARK COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONCEPT

DESIGN PROJECT REPORT
Recommendation of the Community Services Director that City Counoil accept and file the Columbia Park Community Engagement and Concept Design Project Report.

Senior Business Manager Krystle Covarrubias introduced the item to the City Council.

Adriana Carias- Sison, Senior Design Associate with Kounkuey Design Initiative, used slides to overview the plan.

Councilmember Gerson and Ms. Carias- Sison discussed the methodology of the collection of data from the community survey .

Councilmember Kaji and Assistant City Manager Santana discussed SoCal Edison and the easement and the future of it, as well as with respect to the AES.

Councilmember Kalani and Ms. Carias- Sison overviewed the usage of zones and the priority. Councilmember Kalani inquired' about the $ 15M and what the amount represents and Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary 9
City Council
August19, 2025
264
what was included. Senior Business Manager Covarrubias confirmed that the monument was excluded from the amount but that it includes the new amenities. She detailed more of the listed items. They discussed the additional maintenance costs .

Councilmember Sheikh and Senior Business Manager Covarrubias discussed the possible increased foot traffic with the new amenities.

MOTION: Councilmember Gerson moved to accept and file item 1OB. Councilmember Sheikh seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.

11. AGENCY AGENDAS - None Scheduled.

12. CITY COUNCIL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - No members of the public spoke .

Councilmember Gerson, Councilmember Kaji , Councilmember Kalani, Councilmember Lewis, Councilmember Mattucci, Councilmember Sheikh and Mayor Chen spoke.

13. CLOSED SESSION
Considered earlier, see page 1. The City Council returned to closed session at 10:29 p.m . to confer on matters listed earlier. The City Council returned from closed session at 11 :02 p.m.

Councilmember Mattucci left the City Council meeting at 11 :01 p.m.

City Attorney Sullivan reported that the City Council voted to uphold the suspension by a vote of 4-1 with Councilmember Mattucci voting no and Councilmembers Lewis and Sheikh abstaining.

14. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Councilmember Gerson moved to adjourn the City Council meeting at 11 :06 p.m. to Tuesday, September 9, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. for closed session with regular business commencing at 6:30 p.m. in the LeRoy J . Jackson Council Chamber . Tuesday, August 26, 2025 and Tuesday, September 02, 2025 are City Council Dark Nights. Council member Lewis seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-1 with Councilmember Mattucci absent and Councilmember Sheikh voting no.

Attest .

Rebec~ 1/]
City Clerk of the City of Torrance
Aleksander Alderete
Minutes Secretary
l ·~
Approved on October 7, 2025
10 City Council
August19, 2025
265
Via Email and OneMeeting Public Portal
August 18, 2025
George K. Chen, Mayor Rebecca Poirier, City Clerk
Jon Kaji, Councilmember Torrance City Clerk’s Office
Bridgett Lewis, Councilmember 3031 Torrance Boulevard
Asam Sheikh, Councilmember Torrance, CA 90503
Sharon Kalani, Councilmember [email protected]
Aurelio Mattucci, Councilmember
Dr. Jeremy Gerson, Councilmember Dominique Allen, Planning Associate Torrance City Council Community Development Department
3031 Torrance Boulevard City of Torrance
Torrance, CA 90503 3031 Torrance Boulevard
[email protected] Torrance, CA 90503
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Comment for the California Environmental Quality Act Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project (CUP24-00028; DVP24-00004)
Dear Mayor Chen, Honorable Members of the Torrance City Council, Ms. Poirier, and Ms.

Allen:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in the City of Torrance (“City”), in support of SAFER’s appeal of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 32 Categorical Exemption, or Infill Exemption (“Exemption”), for the 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Used Project (CUP24-00028; DVP24-00004) (“Project”). The Project involves the construction of a new 171,642-square-foot, mixed-use residential and medical office building, located at 3475 Torrance Boulevard in the City of Torrance, California. The Torrance Planning Commission approved the Project based on an Infill Exemption at its hearing on June 18, 2025.

After careful review of Project documents, SAFER concludes that the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption because, as discussed below, substantial evidence shows that the ATTACHMENT 5
266
SAFER Appeal Comment Re: 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project August 18, 2025

Page 2 of 9 ends

Project will have significant adverse impacts related to noise, air quality, and indoor air quality.

The City therefore cannot rely on the Exemption because (1) the Exemption does not apply on its face, and (2) the Unusual Circumstances Exception to the Exemption applies.

SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by noise experts Cuauhtémoc Méndez Suárez and Jack Meighan, from the acoustical consulting firm Wilson Ihrig; air quality experts Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., from the environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”); and indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann, P.E., C.I.H. Wilson Ihrig’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. SWAPE’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit B and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Mr. Offermann’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit C and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

For the reasons discussed below, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption and instead requires an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review before approval, whether a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or an environmental impact report (“EIR”). SAFER thus respectfully requests that the City Council grant SAFER’s appeal and find that the Project does not qualify for the Exemption under CEQA.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project involves the demolition and removal of all existing medical facility uses from the Project site and the construction of a new, 171,642-square-foot, 90-foot-tall, mixed-use residential and medical office building, with 106 multi-family residential dwelling units, including eight units for Very Low Income households and eight units for Moderate Income households, as well as 12,470-square-feet of ground-floor medical office space and three levels of subterranean parking. The Project site is located on a 1.23-acre parcel, located at 3475 Torrance Boulevard, in the City of Torrance. The site is bounded by Torrance Boulevard to the south, a hotel to the west, residential uses to the north, and a commercial building to the east. The greater Project site area is developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and civic uses. The site is zoned Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan, Subdistrict DA-2 (H-DA2), with a general land use designation of Commercial Center (C-CTR).

LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. (Pub. Res. Code § 21001(d) [“PRC”].) A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (PRC § 21065; 14 Cal.

Code Regs. § 15378(a) [“CCR”].) CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum,” (Bozung v. Loc.

Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 284), “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.” (Sundstrom v. Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.)
267
SAFER Appeal Comment Re: 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project August 18, 2025

Page 3 of 9 ends

To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 [“Hollywoodland”].) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or if it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further evaluation is required under CEQA. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(1).) Second, if the project is not exempt, and there is a possibility the project will have a significant environmental effect, then the agency must perform an initial threshold study. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(2).) Third, if the initial study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect (id.), then a MND is required, but if the initial study shows that the project may have a significant environmental effect, then an EIR is required. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(3).) Here, because the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies.

CEQA identifies certain classes of projects as exempt from CEQA’s provisions. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’ [Citations].” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 [“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. [Citations.] Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’”].) Here, the City has recommended that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA’s requirements pursuant to the Class 32 Exemption, or “Infill Exemption.” (14 CCR § 15332.) Under CEQA’s Infill Exemption, a project is exempt from CEQA’s requirements if the project meets the following five conditions:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. (14 CCR § 15332 [emph. added].) Importantly, mitigated categorical exemptions are not allowed. (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. Cnty. of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1102 [“SPAWN”]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1200 [“Azusa”].) Agencies may not rely 268
SAFER Appeal Comment Re: 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project August 18, 2025

Page 4 of 9 ends

on mitigation measures as a basis for concluding that a project is categorically exempt, or as a basis for determining that one of the significant effects exceptions does not apply.

DISCUSSION
I. CEQA’s Infill Exemption does not apply on its face to the Project, thus a full CEQA analysis is required.

The City relies on the CEQA Infill Exemption for the Project. One of the Exemption’s key limitations is that it does not apply if a project will have any significant effects related to noise or air quality. (14 CCR § 15332(d).) Here, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption because the Project will have significant environmental impacts related to noise, air quality, and indoor air quality. Therefore, the City must prepare an Initial Study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review before approval, whether an EIR or an MND.

A. There is substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse noise and vibration impacts, thereby precluding reliance on the Infill Exemption.

Noise experts Cuauhtémoc Méndez Suárez and Jack Meighan from the acoustical consulting firm Wilson Ihrig have reviewed the Project, the Categorical Exemption Memo (“CE Memo”), the Noise Study prepared by DKA Planning (“DKA”), the City’s noise consultant, and other relevant documents regarding the Project’s noise impacts. Wilson Ihrig concluded that DKA’s noise and vibration analyses were inaccurate and unsubstantiated, and that the Project would generate significant noise and vibration impacts warranting the preparation of an EIR to mitigate these impacts. (Ex. A at 1, 3.)
First, Wilson Ihrig found that the Project may have significant construction noise impacts. (Id. at 1.) CEQA requires project applicants to assess whether there would be a substantial increase in ambient noise levels resulting from the project. (Id.) However, here, neither the CE Memo nor the Noise Study directly evaluated the Project’s construction noise impacts against established thresholds, such as the City’s own statutory threshold deeming noise level increases as significant when they exceed existing ambient noise levels by 5 dBA, or the daytime construction noise limit of 80 dBA set by the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual of the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”). (Id.) Based on the Noise Study’s short-term ambient noise measurements and using the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model, Wilson Ihrig calculated that the Project’s construction noise would reach the FTA’s 80 dBA limit at 85 feet from the Project site. (Id. at 2.) These noise levels would exceed the 80 dBA limit at sensitive receptors located less than 85 feet from the site at 3525 Torrance Boulevard and 3430 Maricopa Street. (Id.) Additionally, current ambient noise levels are 73 dBA at 3525 Torrance Boulevard and 58 dBA at 3430 Maricopa Street, so the Project’s construction noise levels would exceed the existing ambient noise levels at these receptors by more than the City’s 5 dBA threshold. (Id.) Thus, Wilson Ihrig concluded that the Project would generate significant noise impacts that must 269
SAFER Appeal Comment Re: 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project August 18, 2025

Page 5 of 9 ends

be mitigated in an EIR. (Id.)
Second, Wilson Ihrig found that DKA underestimated the Project’s construction vibration impacts. CEQA requires that all reasonably foreseeable activities associated with a project be evaluated for their potential to cause significant impacts. (Id.) The FTA and other agencies identify pile drivers as one of the most significant sources of construction vibration, with the potential to cause structural damage to nearby buildings. (Id.) However, the Noise Study omitted the impacts of a pile driver from its construction vibration analysis. (Id.) The closest sensitive receptor is just 35 feet from the site, and according to the Noise Study, a pile driver produces a PPV of about 0.44 inches per second at 35 feet from the site, exceeding the Noise Study’s PPV threshold of 0.2 inches per second. (Id.) Wilson Ihrig therefore recommended that “. . . use of a pile driver should be prohibited as an explicit project design feature, or alternatively, studied with potential mitigation options in an Environmental Impact Report.” (Id.) Third, Wilson Ihrig found that the Project’s operational noise impacts from mechanical equipment were underestimated. (Id. at 3.) For example, Wilson Ihrig noted that DKA’s operational noise analysis needed to specify the number of HVAC units involved in the Project, since the noise from all the units would add up. (Id.) Wilson Ihrig also explained that the analysis needed to detail the specific types of mechanical equipment models expected to be used for the Project and evaluate the equipment to verify compliance with noise significance thresholds. (Id.) Additionally, whereas the Noise Study stated that the “presence of the Project’s roof edge creates an effective noise barrier that further reduces noise levels from rooftop units by 8 dBA or more,” Wilson Ihrig found that, with a double-barrier effect, it is unlikely that this level of noise reduction would occur. (Id.) Therefore, “. . . an operational noise exceedance is possible and should be studied in an Environmental Impact Report.” (Id.) Wilson Ihrig’s findings thus constitute substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to noise and vibration, disqualifying the Project from an Infill Exemption.

B. There is substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse air quality impacts, thereby precluding reliance on the Infill Exemption.

Air quality experts Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., from the environmental consulting firm SWAPE have reviewed the Project, the CE Memo, the Air Quality Report (“AQ Report”), and other relevant documents regarding the Project’s air quality impacts. SWAPE concluded that the City failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts, and that the Project does not qualify for an Infill Exemption. (Ex. B at 1.) SWAPE thus recommended that “. . . a full CEQA analysis . . . be prepared to adequately address and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the environment.” (Id.) First, after reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, SWAPE identified several model inputs related to Project construction and operation that were inconsistent with the information provided in the CE Memo. (Id. at 2.) These included unsubstantiated changes to land use size, individual construction phase lengths, off-road construction equipment parameters, 270
SAFER Appeal Comment Re: 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project August 18, 2025

Page 6 of 9 ends

construction vehicle trips, and construction hauling trip length. (See id. at 2-8.) SWAPE explained that these changes resulted in underestimations of the Project’s construction and operational emissions. (See id. at 3, 5, 6-8.) SWAPE therefore concluded that the AQ Report’s emissions calculations “should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.” (Id. at 3.) Instead, a complete CEQA analysis should be prepared to “include an updated air quality analysis that provides a more detailed evaluation of the impact that construction and operation of the Project may have on local and regional air quality.” (Id. at 2.) Second, to more accurately measure the Project’s construction and operational emissions, SWAPE prepared a CalEEMod model using information provided by the CE Memo and correcting the unsupported changes to various parameters noted above, including land use size, construction duration, and hauling trip length. (Id. at 8.) SWAPE’s updated analysis calculates that the Project’s construction would emit 159 pounds of nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) per day over the 25-month construction period. (Id. at 8-9.) This far exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) significance threshold of 100 pounds per day, indicating “a potentially significant air quality impact that the Exemption did not identify or address.” (Id. at

9.) SWAPE thus holds that a full CEQA analysis should be prepared to provide a more substantial evaluation of the Project’s potential air quality impacts and include mitigation measures to reduce Project-related NOx emissions. (Id. at 9-10.) SWAPE’s findings thus constitute substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on air quality, disqualifying the Project from an Infill Exemption.

C. There is substantial evidence that the Project will pose significant adverse health risks related to indoor air quality impacts, precluding reliance on the Infill Exemption.

Certified industrial hygienist, Francis Offermann, P.E., C.I.H., reviewed the Project, the CE Memo, and other relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. These documents provide no analysis of the Project’s indoor air quality impacts. Mr. Offermann concluded that the Project will expose its future residents to significant health impacts related to indoor air quality, particularly emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr.

Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic.

Mr. Offermann explained that many composite wood products used in building materials commonly found in residences contain formaldehyde-based glues which release formaldehyde gas over a very long period of time. He stated, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential, office, and retail building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. C at 2.) Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen, classified by the State as a Toxic Air Contaminant. The SCAQMD has established a CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Mr. Offermann found that future Project occupants may be exposed to a 271
SAFER Appeal Comment Re: 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project August 18, 2025

Page 7 of 9 ends

cancer risk from formaldehyde emissions of about 120 per million for residents and 17.7 per million for commercial employees, even assuming that all materials comply with the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id. at 4-5.) This exceeds the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk. (Id. at 2.) Mr. Offermann concluded that the Project will have significant environmental impacts that must be analyzed in an EIR or MND and mitigation measures must be imposed to reduce the raised cancer risk. (Id. at 12-13.) Mr. Offermann prescribed a methodology for estimating the Project’s formaldehyde emissions for a more project-specific health risk assessment. (Id. at 6-

10.) He also identified feasible several mitigation measures to decrease the significant health risks, like installing air ventilation systems and requiring the use of composite wood materials only for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB-approved no-added formaldehyde (“NAF”) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (“ULEF”) resins. (Id. at 12-14.) When a project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g.

Schenck v. Cnty. of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-11 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].) The California Supreme Court has shown the importance an air district significance threshold has in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities for a Better Environment v.

South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [estimated emissions in excess of air district’s significance thresholds “constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”].) Since expert evidence shows the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. (See Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.) The City’s failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Cal. Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). The Court held in CBIA that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. (Id. at 800-01.) However, to the extent that a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those effects would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801 [“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”].) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language requires lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800.)
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions Mr. Offermann has identified are not an 272
SAFER Appeal Comment Re: 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project August 18, 2025

Page 8 of 9 ends

existing environmental condition. Those emissions will be from the Project. Residential tenants will be the Project’s users. Currently, there is presumably little to no formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once built, the Project will start emitting formaldehyde at levels posing significant direct and cumulative health risks to the Project’s users. The California Supreme Court in CBIA expressly found that this air emission and health impact from the Project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed under CEQA.

The California Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emphasis in original].) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment— that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d).) It goes without saying that the Project’s future residents are human beings, and their health and safety must be subjected to CEQA’s safeguards.

The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts. (See Cnty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cnty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–

98. [“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.”].) The Project will have significant effects on indoor air quality and health risks by emitting formaldehyde that will expose future residents to cancer risks exceeding SCAQMD’s significance threshold for cancer risk of 10 per million. In light of this impact and the City’s lack of any evidence to the contrary, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption and must undergo CEQA review before approval.

II. The Project does not qualify for CEQA’s Infill Exemption due to the Unusual Circumstances Exception.

The Unusual Circumstances Exception (“Exception”) prohibits categorical exemptions where there is a “reasonable possibility” that a project will significantly impact the environment “due to unusual circumstances.” (14 CCR § 15300.2(c).) To determine whether the Exception applies, agencies examine (1) whether the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location, and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect due to that unusual circumstance. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1098; IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 132.) The California Supreme Court has held that “a party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect.” (Id. at 1105 [emph. added].) That evidence, if convincing, necessarily also establishes a reasonable possibility that the project will significantly affect the environment due to those unusual circumstances. (Id.) The close proximity of a project site to sensitive receptors is an unusual circumstance. 273
SAFER Appeal Comment Re: 3475 Torrance Boulevard Mixed-Use Project August 18, 2025

Page 9 of 9 ends

Here, there are residences less than 85 feet from the Project site, with the closest sensitive receptor located only 35 feet away. (Ex. A at 2.) As a result of this unusual circumstance, the Project poses a dramatically higher risk of adverse noise and air quality impacts to neighboring sensitive receptors. This is very similar to the case of Lewis v. Seventeenth Dist. Agric. Assn. (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 823, 831, where the close proximity of residences to a proposed automobile racetrack was held to be an “unusual circumstance” precluding reliance on a CEQA exemption because the proximity created heightened noise impacts.

Additionally, as discussed above, we have submitted substantial evidence that the Project will have significant impacts related to noise and air quality. The fact that these impacts will occur constitutes an unusual circumstance, thereby precluding the City’s reliance on the Exemption.

CONCLUSION
The City cannot rely on a CEQA Infill Exemption because SAFER has provided substantial evidence showing that the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to noise, air quality, and indoor air quality. Therefore, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council find that the Project does not qualify for the Exemption. The City instead must prepare an MND or EIR before Project approval.

Sincerely,
Hayley Uno

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
274

EXHIBIT A
275
WI #25-002.09
August 14, 2025
Hayley Uno
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
SUBJECT: 3475 Torrance Boulevard, Comments on Categorical Exemption Dear Ms. Uno,
Per your request, we have reviewed the information regarding the 3475 Torrance Boulevard Project Categorical Exemption (CatEx) in the City of Torrance, California, with emphasis on the noise and vibration analyses prepared by DKA Planning. The project involves the implementation of a master plan involving the construction, demolition and replacement of approximately 56, 620 square feet of existing medical facilities with a 171,642 square foot mixed-use building. The proposal includes multi-family residential dwelling units, 12,470 square feet of medical use, and three levels of subterranean parking.

Wilson Ihrig, Acoustical Consultants, has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966.

During our 59 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CADNA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.

Impact Analyses are Incorrect and Unsupported.

Construction Noise May be Significant
Neither the Noise Study nor the CatEx directly evaluate or disclose construction-related noise or compare levels to established thresholds. The Noise Study recognizes that the City of Torrance considers noise level increases to be significant when existing ambient levels are exceeded by 5 dBA.

The Noise Study also notes that the City prohibits construction activities involving the creation of noise beyond 50 decibels during nights and weekends.

This document’s interpretation of the statute implies that there are no thresholds of significance for daytime construction noise, and any increase in noise is considered insignificant so long as the construction activities are conducted during daytime hours. Hypothetically, under the logic of this document, there is no noise level—no matter how extreme—at which daytime construction noise would be considered an impact. CEQA requires project applicants to assess if there would be a substantial increase in ambient levels.

Other applicable standards exist for daytime construction noise impacts, such as the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, which sets a daytime construction noise threshold at 80 dBA. It is also unclear why construction noise from mobile sources 276

WILSON IHRIG
3475 Torrance Boulevard Project CatEx
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 2 ends

has a 5 dBA daytime noise increase limit, while the louder and more intrusive stationary construction noise has no such limit. As such, we believe both a 5 dBA increase over ambient levels and a set numerical limit are appropriate thresholds of significance for this project, and that these thresholds were not evaluated.

Based on the short-term ambient noise measurements taken at 3525 Torrance Blvd., 3538 Torrance Blvd., and 3475 Torrance Blvd., the Project’s construction noise could potentially have a significant impact. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the hourly average noise levels for each phase of construction, based on modeling noise-generating equipment at the construction site. As shown in Figure 1, construction noise will reach the 80 dBA threshold at a distance of 85 feet. The sensitive receivers at 3525 Torrance Blvd and 3430 Maricopa St are closer than this 85-foot distance that could generate an exceedance. They also currently experience ambient levels (73 dBA and 58 dBA, respectively) that are more than 5 dBA below modeled ambient levels. As a result, we believe that daytime construction noise levels are likely to generate an exceedance and should be studied in an Environmental Impact Report.

Figure 1 Demolition phase at 85 ft
Construction Vibration May be Underestimated
The closest sensitive receiver identified in the Noise Study is approximately 35 feet away. The document identifies and studies vibration from a large bulldozer, the most severe vibration source used in the analysis, which has a vibration source level at 35 feet of 0.054 in/s Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). However, there is no pile driver included in the construction analysis. According to the Noise Study, a pile driver generates a PPV of approximately 0.644 in/s, corresponding to a level of 0.44 at 35 feet, which would exceed the 0.20 in/s PPV threshold set by the document.

Pile drivers are recognized by the Federal Transit Administration and other agencies as one of the most significant construction-related vibration sources, capable of causing not only substantial annoyance to occupants but also potential cosmetic or structural damage to nearby buildings. CEQA requires that all reasonably foreseeable activities associated with a project be evaluated for their potential to cause significant impacts.

Therefore, we believe that the use of a pile driver should be prohibited as an explicit project design feature, or alternatively, studied with potential mitigation options in an Environmental Impact Report.

Operational Noise May Be Underestimated
Mechanical Equipment Demolition
Equipment Lmax Util% No. Distance Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 89.6 20% 1 85 ft 85.0 78.0
Excavator 80.7 40% 1 85 ft 76.1 72.1
Dozer 81.7 40% 1 85 ft 77.1 73.1
Total Max: 85.0 80.0
RCNM Ref Values @ 50 ft Noise Level @ Receptor
277

WILSON IHRIG
3475 Torrance Boulevard Project CatEx
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 3 ends

The document details approximate source levels and assumptions for the air conditioning units and states that HVAC units generate “sound rating up to 60 decibels, equivalent to normal human conversation, while other HVAC units could have sound power of up to 76 dBA.” However, since noise would combine from all units, it is necessary to specify the number of units and the approximate equipment model types for the designed project. It is not uncommon to find HVAC equipment that exceeds 100 dBA, and since the project will require multiple HVAC units, the project should formally evaluate the designed mechanical equipment to verify compliance with levels below the threshold of significance.

Additionally, the Noise Study states that “there would be no line-of-sight from these rooftop units to the adjacent sensitive receptors to the north, east, and west, as these structures are one- to three stories in height, approximately 50 to 70 feet lower than the roof of the Proposed Project” and “blocking the line of sight to a noise source generally results in a 5 decibel reduction.” The Noise Study continues to state that the “presence of the Project’s roof edge creates an effective noise barrier that further reduces noise levels from rooftop units by 8 dBA or more.” However, with a double-barrier effect, it is unlikely that this level of noise attenuation would occur for both the rooftop edge and the parapet, since line-of-sight is already blocked by one of these features before the sound path travels to the other.

Given the short distance between the project site and the closest sensitive receivers (cited as 35 feet in the vibration report), the potential underestimation of source levels, and the double-counting of full line-of-sight blockage in the rough calculation methods, we believe an operational noise exceedance is possible and should be studied in an Environmental Impact Report.

Conclusions
The noise analysis for CatEx contains substantial omissions and errors. Correcting these issues would identify that the Project would generate additional significant noise impacts and warrant preparing an EIR to manage and mitigate other significant impacts.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
Cuauhtémoc Méndez Suárez Jack Meighan
Associate Associate
278

EXHIBIT B
279
2 quality, or water quality effects. Application of this exemption, as all categorical exemptions, is limited by certain exceptions identified in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines” (p. 4).

As demonstrated above, a project can only qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption if approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

However, the Exemption’s air quality analysis is insufficient. We find that the Project results in a significant air quality impact that has not been addressed by the Exemption and, consequently, the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption.

Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Technical Report (“AQ Report”) as Appendix C to the Exemption, we identified several model inputs related to Project construction and operation that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the Exemption. The impacts of these changes are quantified in the section of this letter titled “Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact." A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that provides a more detailed evaluation of the impact that construction and operation of the Project may have on local and regional air quality.

Changes to Land Use Size
The Exemption proposes to construct a 171,642-SF mixed-use building, stating:
“The Project includes demolition and removal of all existing uses from the Project Site and development of the site with a 171,642-square-foot mixed-use building, including 106 multifamily residential dwelling units, 12,470 square feet of medical office use, and three levels of subterranean parking” (p. 1).

Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “3475 Torrance Boulevard (Project)” model only includes 66,620-SF of “Apartments Mid Rise” space and 12,558-SF of “Medical Office Building” space (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 69-70).

The proposed mixed-used space is therefore underestimated by 92,464-SF.1 This underestimation presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that affect the model’s calculations. The square footage of each land use is 1 Calculated: (171,642-SF proposed mixed-use space) – (66,620-SF modeled Apartments Mid Rise space) – (12,558- SF modeled Medical Office Building) = 92,464-SF of underestimated floor area. 280
3 used for certain calculations such as architectural coatings and energy use.2 By underestimating the size of the proposed mixed-use space, the model underestimates the Project’s construction and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “3475 Torrance Boulevard (Project)” model includes changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 108).

As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix C, pp. 94):

The Exemption provides the following construction schedule, citing “DKA Planning, 2025” as the source (see screenshot below) (p. 2, Table 2):
2 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 30. 281
4 Furthermore, the AQ Report, prepared by DKA Planning, includes the same construction schedule assumptions and source (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, p. 52, Table 6):

Although the Exemption justifies the total construction duration of 25 months, the provided table and source do not adequately substantiate the individual construction phase lengths. DKA Planning is the environmental consulting firm that prepared the AQ Report and associated air modeling in CalEEMod.

The construction schedule—and any changes in the CalEEMod model—should be provided the Project Applicant. The AQ Report, which reflects what is in the air modeling, or the CalEEMod output files themselves are insufficient justification. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
282
5 “CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 3

Without a verifiable source, construction emissions may be unevenly distributed, with some phases extended over longer periods. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).4 By modifying the individual construction phase lengths, the model assumes there are more days to complete the construction activities required by the certain phases. The model therefore assumes fewer activities would be required per day for those phases and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day.

Until the construction phases are verified, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with certain construction activities. The model should have instead proportionately altered all phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 25 months.

Changes to Construction Off-Road Equipment Parameters
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “3475 Torrance Boulevard (Project)” model includes changes to the default off-road equipment parameters (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 108).
3 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 10. 4 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 34, Table 3. 283
6 The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.5 As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, there is no justification provided for these changes.

The Exemption and associated documents also fail to mention the changes to the equipment parameters or provide an updated construction equipment list. As the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires changes to be supported by substantial evidence, we cannot verify these changes. 6 CalEEMod uses the off-road equipment unit amounts, horsepower, and hours of use per day values to calculate the emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.7 By including unsupported changes to the default off-road construction equipment values, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Construction Vehicle Trips
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “3475 Torrance Boulevard (Project)” model includes changes to the default construction vehicle trips (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 108).

As stated previously, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.8 As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, there is no justification provided for these changes. The Exemption fails to provide the daily construction vehicle trips or elaborate on these changes. As the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires changes to be supported by substantial evidence, we cannot verify these changes.9
These unsupported changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the vendor and worker trip numbers to estimate the construction-related emissions associated with on-road vehicles.10 By including unsupported changes to the default construction trips, the model may underestimate the Project’s 5 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 1, 11. 6 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 1, 10. 7 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 35. 8 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 1, 11. 9 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 1, 10. 10 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 37. 284
7 mobile-source construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Construction Hauling Trip Length
Regarding the truck haul route for construction, the Exemption states:
“Approximately 90,000 cubic yards of soil hauled 20 miles to landfill in 12-cubic yard capacity trucks” (p. 2).

Accordingly, the “3475 Torrance Boulevard (Project)” CalEEMod model includes a 20-mile hauling trip length (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 95,96).

However, a review of Google Maps reveals that the Savage Canyon Landfill is located approximately 29 miles from the Project site (see screenshot below).
285
8 Additionally, the Exemption states:
“The closest Los Angeles County landfill to the Project Site is the Savage Canyon Landfill located approximately 29 miles northeast of the Project Site” (p. 34).

The 20-mile hauling trip route is therefore underestimated by 9 miles. CalEEMod uses the hauling trips lengths to estimate the construction-related emissions associated with on-road vehicles.11 By including an underestimated hauling trip length, the model underestimates the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact To more accurately estimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, we prepared a CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the Exemption. We included the correct land use sizes, 25-month construction duration, and hauling trip length, as well as excluded the unsupported changes to the construction off-road equipment parameters and construction vehicle trips.

All other inputs remain consistent with the Exemption’s model.

Our updated analysis estimates that the Project’s construction-related NOx emissions exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds of 100 pounds per day (“lbs/day”) (see table below)12. 11 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 38. 12 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, March 2023, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. 286
9 SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates
Construction NOx
(lbs/day)
Addendum 29.3
SWAPE 159
SCAQMD Threshold 100
Exceeds? Yes
According to our analysis, the potential Project’s construction-related NOx estimated emissions are approximately 159 lbs/day, exceeding SCAQMD’s significance threshold. This finding indicates a potentially significant air quality impact that the Exemption did not identify or address. In our opinion, a full CEQA analysis should be conducted to provide a more substantial evaluation of the potential air quality impacts from the Project on the environment.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
The Exemption is consequently required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project would result in potentially significant air quality impact that should be mitigated further.

The EPA explains that NOx emissions originate from “motor vehicle internal combustion engines and fossil fuel-fired electric utility and industrial boilers.”13 In order to reduce the NOx emissions associated with Project construction, we recommend the Exemption consider incorporating several mitigation measures (see list below).

The Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”)’s 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) recommends the followingAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures that are applicable to the Project: 14
13 “Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide.” EPA, July 2009, available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-15/pdf/E9-15944.pdf. 14 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.
287
10 • Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. • Minimize idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements — saves fuel and reduces emissions.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts as a result of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts. • Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain onsite for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible.
• Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.
• Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available, low-emission heavy-duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles.

Provided above are several mitigation measures that would reduce Project-related NOx. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction.

A full CEQA analysis should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as an updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The full CEQA analysis should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. 288
11 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Construction Schedule Calculations
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul Rosenfeld CV
289
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
1 / 52
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Attachment A
290
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
2 / 52

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.13. Trenching (2027) - Unmitigated

3.15. Trenching (2028) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
291
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
3 / 52

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings
292
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
4 / 52

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
293
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
5 / 52

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
294
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
6 / 52

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
295
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
7 / 52

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 3475 Torrance Boulevard
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.50
Precipitation (days) 17.4
Location 3475 Torrance Blvd, Torrance, CA 90503, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Torrance
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4673
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
106 Dwelling Unit 1.05 159,084 3,141 — 275 —
296
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
8 / 52
Medical Office
Building

12.6 1000sqft 0.16 12,558 0.00 — — —
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
176 Space 0.00 70,400 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.73 1.44 9.85 17.5 0.03 0.30 1.65 1.95 0.27 0.40 0.67 — 4,067 4,067 0.17 0.18 7.14 4,131 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 50.8 50.7 159 67.4 0.85 2.18 41.6 43.8 2.13 12.8 14.9 — 124,967 124,967 6.55 19.6 7.19 130,968 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.12 3.94 11.5 13.0 0.04 0.29 2.25 2.54 0.27 0.61 0.88 — 5,881 5,881 0.28 0.62 4.90 6,078 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.75 0.72 2.10 2.38 0.01 0.05 0.41 0.46 0.05 0.11 0.16 — 974 974 0.05 0.10 0.81 1,006

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 297
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
9 / 52
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.73 1.44 9.85 17.5 0.03 0.30 1.65 1.95 0.27 0.40 0.67 — 4,067 4,067 0.17 0.18 7.14 4,131 2027 1.66 1.38 9.45 16.9 0.03 0.27 1.65 1.92 0.25 0.40 0.64 — 4,024 4,024 0.17 0.17 6.54 4,086 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 9.76 2.98 159 67.4 0.85 2.18 41.6 43.8 2.13 12.8 14.9 — 124,967 124,967 6.55 19.6 7.19 130,968 2027 50.8 50.7 9.58 15.9 0.03 0.27 1.65 1.92 0.25 0.40 0.64 — 3,948 3,948 0.12 0.17 0.17 4,003 2028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.44 1.06 11.5 13.0 0.04 0.29 2.25 2.54 0.27 0.61 0.88 — 5,881 5,881 0.28 0.62 4.90 6,078 2027 4.12 3.94 6.19 10.5 0.02 0.17 1.06 1.23 0.16 0.25 0.41 — 2,564 2,564 0.08 0.11 1.83 2,601 2028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.26 0.19 2.10 2.38 0.01 0.05 0.41 0.46 0.05 0.11 0.16 — 974 974 0.05 0.10 0.81 1,006 2027 0.75 0.72 1.13 1.91 < 0.005 0.03 0.19 0.23 0.03 0.05 0.08 — 425 425 0.01 0.02 0.30 431 2028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.47 8.10 2.45 33.1 0.06 0.07 5.35 5.43 0.07 1.36 1.43 121 7,594 7,715 12.5 0.27 17.3 8,125 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
298
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
10 / 52
Unmit. 7.25 6.95 2.54 21.8 0.06 0.06 5.35 5.42 0.06 1.36 1.42 121 7,326 7,447 12.5 0.28 1.87 7,846 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.61 7.30 2.32 25.9 0.05 0.07 4.57 4.64 0.06 1.16 1.22 121 6,647 6,768 12.5 0.25 7.38 7,161 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.39 1.33 0.42 4.73 0.01 0.01 0.83 0.85 0.01 0.21 0.22 20.0 1,101 1,121 2.07 0.04 1.22 1,186

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.26 2.98 1.98 23.2 0.06 0.03 5.35 5.39 0.03 1.36 1.39 — 5,757 5,757 0.28 0.23 15.9 5,849 Area 5.17 5.09 0.09 9.63 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.0 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.20 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,751 1,751 0.12 0.01 — 1,757 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 55.3 65.9 1.09 0.03 — 101 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 110 0.00 110 11.0 0.00 — 386 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.46 1.46
Total 8.47 8.10 2.45 33.1 0.06 0.07 5.35 5.43 0.07 1.36 1.43 121 7,594 7,715 12.5 0.27 17.3 8,125 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.23 2.95 2.16 21.6 0.05 0.03 5.35 5.39 0.03 1.36 1.39 — 5,520 5,520 0.29 0.24 0.41 5,600 Area 3.98 3.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.20 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,751 1,751 0.12 0.01 — 1,757 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 55.3 65.9 1.09 0.03 — 101 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 110 0.00 110 11.0 0.00 — 386 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.46 1.46
299
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
11 / 52
Total 7.25 6.95 2.54 21.8 0.06 0.06 5.35 5.42 0.06 1.36 1.42 121 7,326 7,447 12.5 0.28 1.87 7,846 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.77 2.53 1.88 19.1 0.05 0.03 4.57 4.60 0.03 1.16 1.19 — 4,820 4,820 0.25 0.21 5.92 4,895 Area 4.80 4.74 0.06 6.60 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 21.2 21.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.3 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.20 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,751 1,751 0.12 0.01 — 1,757 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 55.3 65.9 1.09 0.03 — 101 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 110 0.00 110 11.0 0.00 — 386 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.46 1.46
Total 7.61 7.30 2.32 25.9 0.05 0.07 4.57 4.64 0.06 1.16 1.22 121 6,647 6,768 12.5 0.25 7.38 7,161 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.51 0.46 0.34 3.49 0.01 0.01 0.83 0.84 < 0.005 0.21 0.22 — 798 798 0.04 0.03 0.98 810 Area 0.88 0.87 0.01 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.51 3.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.52 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 290 290 0.02 < 0.005 — 291 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.76 9.16 10.9 0.18 < 0.005 — 16.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 18.3 0.00 18.3 1.83 0.00 — 63.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.24 0.24
Total 1.39 1.33 0.42 4.73 0.01 0.01 0.83 0.85 0.01 0.21 0.22 20.0 1,101 1,121 2.07 0.04 1.22 1,186

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
300
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
12 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.66 1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 1.44 1.44 — 0.22 0.22 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.20 0.17 1.56 1.76 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 301 301 0.01 < 0.005 — 302 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.17 0.17 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.28 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.9 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
301
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
13 / 52
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 161 161 0.01 0.01 0.01 163 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.10 0.02 1.88 0.68 0.01 0.02 0.43 0.45 0.02 0.12 0.14 — 1,575 1,575 0.08 0.25 0.09 1,653 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.6 19.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.23 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 190 190 0.01 0.03 0.18 199 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.25 3.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.30 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.4 31.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 33.0

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.47 1.24 11.0 11.7 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 6.29 6.29 — 3.01 3.01 — — — — — — —
302
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
14 / 52
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.75 3.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.76 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 96.3 96.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.22 0.04 4.06 1.47 0.02 0.04 0.93 0.98 0.04 0.26 0.30 — 3,402 3,402 0.18 0.54 0.20 3,569 303
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
15 / 52
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.07 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.3 37.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 39.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.17 6.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.48

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.70 1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.90 7.90 — 3.55 3.55 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
304
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
16 / 52
Off-Roa 0.04 0.04 0.32 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 60.5 60.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.7 d
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.19 0.19 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.0 10.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 8.02 1.52 146 52.8 0.83 1.60 33.6 35.2 1.60 9.20 10.8 — 122,383 122,383 6.45 19.5 7.18 128,374 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.21 3.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.20 0.04 3.65 1.30 0.02 0.04 0.82 0.86 0.04 0.23 0.26 — 3,017 3,017 0.16 0.48 2.93 3,168 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
305
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
17 / 52
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.67 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 500 500 0.03 0.08 0.49 524

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.68 0.56 4.76 5.53 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,001 1,001 0.04 0.01 — 1,004 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 306
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
18 / 52
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.87 1.01 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 166 166 0.01 < 0.005 — 166 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.46 0.40 0.43 7.10 0.00 0.00 1.44 1.44 0.00 0.34 0.34 — 1,489 1,489 0.06 0.05 5.04 1,511 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.86 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 777 777 0.03 0.11 2.10 813 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.46 0.40 0.48 6.06 0.00 0.00 1.44 1.44 0.00 0.34 0.34 — 1,412 1,412 0.06 0.05 0.13 1,429 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.90 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 778 778 0.03 0.11 0.05 811 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.22 0.29 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 796 796 0.04 0.03 1.21 807 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.50 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 — 432 432 0.02 0.06 0.50 451 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 132 132 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 134 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 71.5 71.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 74.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
307
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
19 / 52
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.17 0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.17 0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.75 0.62 5.28 6.34 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,152 1,152 0.05 0.01 — 1,156 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.96 1.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 191 191 0.01 < 0.005 — 191 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 308
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
20 / 52
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.44 0.39 0.38 6.60 0.00 0.00 1.44 1.44 0.00 0.34 0.34 — 1,461 1,461 0.06 0.05 4.55 1,482 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.82 0.39 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 762 762 0.03 0.11 1.99 796 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.44 0.38 0.47 5.59 0.00 0.00 1.44 1.44 0.00 0.34 0.34 — 1,385 1,385 0.02 0.05 0.12 1,401 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.85 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 763 763 0.03 0.11 0.05 795 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.24 0.30 3.76 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 899 899 0.01 0.03 1.26 911 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 488 488 0.02 0.07 0.55 509 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 149 149 < 0.005 0.01 0.21 151 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 80.8 80.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 84.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
309
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
21 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

50.6 50.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.05 8.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.07 Architect
ural
Coating
s

3.05 3.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.33 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.34 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.56 0.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
310
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
22 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.09 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 277 277 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 280 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.9 16.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 17.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.80 2.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.84 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Trenching (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 311
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
23 / 52
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Trenching (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
312
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
24 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 313
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
25 / 52
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

1.84 1.68 1.10 12.9 0.03 0.02 2.95 2.97 0.02 0.75 0.77 — 3,180 3,180 0.16 0.13 8.76 3,231 Medical
Office
Building

1.42 1.30 0.88 10.3 0.03 0.02 2.40 2.41 0.01 0.61 0.62 — 2,578 2,578 0.12 0.10 7.12 2,618 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.26 2.98 1.98 23.2 0.06 0.03 5.35 5.39 0.03 1.36 1.39 — 5,757 5,757 0.28 0.23 15.9 5,849 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

1.82 1.67 1.20 12.0 0.03 0.02 2.95 2.97 0.02 0.75 0.77 — 3,049 3,049 0.16 0.13 0.23 3,093 Medical
Office
Building

1.41 1.28 0.96 9.59 0.02 0.02 2.40 2.41 0.01 0.61 0.62 — 2,471 2,471 0.13 0.11 0.18 2,507 314
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
26 / 52
Enclose 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d
Total 3.23 2.95 2.16 21.6 0.05 0.03 5.35 5.39 0.03 1.36 1.39 — 5,520 5,520 0.29 0.24 0.41 5,600 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.31 0.29 0.21 2.14 0.01 < 0.005 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 485 485 0.03 0.02 0.60 493 Medical
Office
Building

0.19 0.18 0.13 1.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.08 0.09 — 313 313 0.02 0.01 0.38 317 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.51 0.46 0.34 3.49 0.01 0.01 0.83 0.84 < 0.005 0.21 0.22 — 798 798 0.04 0.03 0.98 810

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 566 566 0.04 < 0.005 — 568
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 326 326 0.02 < 0.005 — 327
315
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
27 / 52
Enclose — — — — — — — — — — — — 379 379 0.02 < 0.005 — 380 d
Parking
with
Elevator
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,271 1,271 0.08 0.01 — 1,276 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 566 566 0.04 < 0.005 — 568
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 326 326 0.02 < 0.005 — 327
Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 379 379 0.02 < 0.005 — 380
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,271 1,271 0.08 0.01 — 1,276 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 93.8 93.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 94.1
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 54.0 54.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.2 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 62.7 62.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 62.9 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 210 210 0.01 < 0.005 — 211

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
316
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
28 / 52
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.03 0.02 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 377 377 0.03 < 0.005 — 378 Medical
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 102 102 0.01 < 0.005 — 102 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.20 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 479 479 0.04 < 0.005 — 481 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.03 0.02 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 377 377 0.03 < 0.005 — 378 Medical
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 102 102 0.01 < 0.005 — 102 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.20 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 479 479 0.04 < 0.005 — 481 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 62.5 62.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 62.6 317
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
29 / 52
Medical
Office
Building
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.9 16.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.9 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.4 79.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 79.6

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

3.67 3.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.30 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

1.20 1.12 0.09 9.63 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.0 Total 5.17 5.09 0.09 9.63 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
318
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
30 / 52
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

3.67 3.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.30 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.98 3.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

0.67 0.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.06 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.14 0.01 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.51 3.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.52 Total 0.88 0.87 0.01 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.51 3.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.52

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
319
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
31 / 52
Apartme
Mid Rise
——————————— 7.57 39.6 47.2 0.78 0.02— 72.2
Medical
Office
Building
——————————— 3.03 15.7 18.7 0.31 0.01— 28.7
Enclose d
Parking
with
Elevator
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 10.6 55.3 65.9 1.09 0.03— 101
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 7.57 39.6 47.2 0.78 0.02— 72.2
Medical
Office
Building
——————————— 3.03 15.7 18.7 0.31 0.01— 28.7
Enclose d
Parking
with
Elevator
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 10.6 55.3 65.9 1.09 0.03— 101
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 1.25 6.56 7.81 0.13 < 0.005— 12.0
Medical
Office
Building
——————————— 0.50 2.60 3.10 0.05 < 0.005— 4.76
Enclose d
Parking
with
Elevator
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
320
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
32 / 52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.76 9.16 10.9 0.18 < 0.005 — 16.7

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 0.00 37.0 3.70 0.00 — 130
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 257
Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 110 0.00 110 11.0 0.00 — 386 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 37.0 0.00 37.0 3.70 0.00 — 130
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 257
321
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
33 / 52
Enclose — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 d
Parking
with
Elevator
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 110 0.00 110 11.0 0.00 — 386 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 0.00 6.13 0.61 0.00 — 21.4
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5
Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 18.3 0.00 18.3 1.83 0.00 — 63.9

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.14 1.14
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.32
322
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
34 / 52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.46 1.46
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.14 1.14
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.32
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.46 1.46
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.19
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.24 0.24

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
323
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
35 / 52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
324
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
36 / 52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
325
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
37 / 52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
326
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
38 / 52
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 3/3/2026 5.00 44.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/4/2026 3/9/2026 5.00 4.00 — Grading Grading 3/10/2026 3/20/2026 5.00 9.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/23/2026 11/23/2027 5.00 437 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/24/2027 12/23/2027 5.00 22.0 — Trenching Trenching 12/24/2027 1/24/2028 5.00 22.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
327
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
39 / 52
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 16.1 29.0 HHDT
328
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
40 / 52
Demolition Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Preparation————
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 34.8 29.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 1,250 29.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction————
Building Construction Worker 110 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 24.9 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 29.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 22.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 29.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck—— HHDT
Trenching————
Trenching Worker 0.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 29.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck—— HHDT

5.4. Vehicles
329
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
41 / 52

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 322,145 107,382 18,837 6,279 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,831 —
Site Preparation — 1,111 7.50 0.00 —
Grading — 90,000 8.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Medical Office Building 0.00 0%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
330
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
42 / 52
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid
Rise
577 520 434 200,083 4,165 3,759 3,132 1,445,276
Medical Office
Building
438 108 17.9 120,881 3,383 833 138 932,675
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 106
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
331
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
43 / 52
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
322145.1 107,382 18,837 6,279 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 388,578 532 0.0330 0.0040 1,177,325 Medical Office Building 223,787 532 0.0330 0.0040 318,301 Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
259,877 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 3,951,023 53,840
Medical Office Building 1,581,055 0.00
332
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
44 / 52
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 68.7 —
Medical Office Building 136 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Medical Office
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
Medical Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 333
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
45 / 52

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 334
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
46 / 52

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 4.89 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
335
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
47 / 52
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 24.9
336
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
48 / 52
AQ-PM 74.0
AQ-DPM 85.5
Drinking Water 35.6
Lead Risk Housing 46.6
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 97.1
Traffic 75.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 4.12
Groundwater 71.2
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.5
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 35.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 21.1
Cardio-vascular 36.9
Low Birth Weights 40.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 35.2
Housing 67.3
Linguistic 93.7
Poverty 53.5
Unemployment 18.3

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
337
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
49 / 52
Above Poverty 42.91030412
Employed 71.55139228
Median HI 37.03323495
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 66.11061209
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 77.91607853
Transportation —
Auto Access 20.85204671
Active commuting 74.59258309
Social —
2-parent households 22.23790581
Voting 47.76081098
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 21.95560118
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 68.68984987
Supermarket access 56.15295778
Tree canopy 25.21493648
Housing —
Homeownership 1.193378673
Housing habitability 13.15282946
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 14.65417683 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 67.21416656
Uncrowded housing 41.84524573
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 45.81034262
Arthritis 81.7
338
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
50 / 52
Asthma ER Admissions 77.8
High Blood Pressure 71.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 55.0
Asthma 91.1
Coronary Heart Disease 77.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 79.3
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 87.9
Cognitively Disabled 80.8
Physically Disabled 73.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 70.3
Mental Health Not Good 71.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 85.5
Obesity 84.3
Pedestrian Injuries 47.1
Physical Health Not Good 69.2
Stroke 70.4
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 77.5
Current Smoker 65.4
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 58.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 68.4
Elderly 46.6
English Speaking 20.6
Foreign-born 79.3
339
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
51 / 52
Outdoor Workers 54.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 2.5
Traffic Density 52.5
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 36.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 22.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 53.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 50.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
340
3475 Torrance Boulevard Detailed Report, 8/7/2025
52 / 52
Screen Justification
Land Use See comment on: "Changes to Land Use Type".

Construction: Construction Phases See comment on: "Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Consistent with Exemption's model.

Construction: Trips and VMT See comment on "Incorrect Construction Truck Haul Route".

Operations: Hearths Consistent with Exemption's model.
341
Phase
Default Phase
Length

Construction
Duration %
Construction
Duration
Revised Phase
Length
Demolition 20 348 0.0575 761 44
Site Preparation 2 348 0.0057 761 4
Grading 4 348 0.0115 761 9
Construction 200 348 0.5747 761 437
Architectural Coating 10 348 0.0287 761 22
Trenching 10 348 0.0287 761 22
Total Default
Construction
Duration
Revised
Construction
Duration
Start Date 1/1/2026 1/1/2026
End Date 12/15/2026 2/1/2028
Total Days 348 761
Construction Schedule Calculations
Attachment B
342
1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
MatthewF. Hagemann,P.G., C.Hg.
• Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies • Industrial Stormwater Compliance
• CEQAReview
• Expert Testimony
Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist, P.G.

California Certified Hydrogeologist, C.Hg.

Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where I identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, I served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, I developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions held include:

Government:

Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); Attachment C
343
2 Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998).

Educational:

Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995).

Private Sector:

Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLAcompliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony 344
3 against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in LosAngeles that met strict Sate of California regulatory requirements. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. 345
4 With the National Park Service, directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexicoand advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential forthe gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributingto guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water:

Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for thecity of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large RCRA hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. 346
5 Duties included the following:
• Supervising year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifertests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Summary of Testimony Experience Over Past Four Years
In Re New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-14766-RMB-JBC. Deposition in 2025.

Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater, wastewater, soil, and air with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

In Re Edmond Asher, et al., vs. RTX Corporation (f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.) in the County of Huntington Superior Court, Indiana, Cause number 35D01-2006-CT-000338. Deposition in 2024. Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and soil vapor with trichlorethylene.

In Re Wright vs Consolidated Rail Corporation In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No: 21L3966.

Deposition in 2023, Representing Plaintiff in matters involving groundwater and drinking water contamination of perchloroethylene, trichlorethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.

In Re Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Dayton, Case No: 08-cv-326. Deposition in 2022. Representing Plaintiff in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and indoor air with perchloroethylene and trichloethelene.

Orange County Water District vs. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, et al. In the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California, Case No: D070553. Deposition in 2020. Representing Plaintiff in matters involving compliance with The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 347
6 Los Angeles Waterkeeper vs. AAA Plating and Inspection, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No: No. CV 18-5916 PA (GJSx). Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Compton, California.

Californians for Alternatives to Toxics vs. Schneider Dock and Intermodal Facility. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No: 3:17-cv-05287-JST. Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Eureka, California.

Bells et al. vs. The 3M Company et al. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No: 1:16-CV02531-RBJ. Deposition in 2018. Expert witness representing Plaintiff on matters regarding the general hydrogeological conditions present in an area impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.

Ungar vs. Foundation for Affordable Housing. In the Superior Court, State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.

BC628890 Deposition in 2017. Expert witness representing defendant on matters involving alleged drinking water contamination.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making andPublic Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National GroundwaterAssociation.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin 348
7 Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to ameeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking WaterSupplies.

Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting ofthe National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to AddressImpacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA andState Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublishedreport.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground StorageTanks.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. 349
8 Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal WatercraftUsage.

Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George WrightSociety Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Airand Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Basesin California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,2009‐2011. 350

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment D
351

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 17 March 2025
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Spaeth, K.R., McCarthy, S.J. et al. Camp Lejeune Marine Cancer Risk Assessment for Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water From 1955 to 1987. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06863-y.

Rosenfeld P.E., Spaeth K.R., Remy L.L., Byers V., Muerth S.A., Hallman R,C., Summers-Evans J., Barker S. (2023) Perfluoroalkyl substances exposure in firefighters: Sources and implications, Environmental Research, Volume 220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115164.

Rosenfeld P.E. and Spaeth K.R., (2023) Authors’ Response to Letter to the Editor from Bullock and Ramacciotti, Water Air Soil Pollution Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06165-3 Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
352

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 17 March 2025
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E., (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E. Davletshin, A.R. (2008). Responsible Care. Gulf Publishing. Texas.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy of Odour Wheels for Odours of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme for The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated with Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49(9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. 353

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affects on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook for Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation on St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Master’s thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
354

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted at University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus on Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
355

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model for PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting for Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
356

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. The course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate the effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. 357

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 17 March 2025
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate the effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the District Court of Harris County Texas
Mt Davis Interest, Inc v Sesco Cement Corp
Cause No 2023-26512
Trial 6-6-2-25
In the United States Southern District of New York
Gallo vs Avon Products Inc., et al
Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-2023
Deposition 4-24-2025
In Vanderburgh Superior Court 5, County of Vanderburgh, Indiana Markello v CSX
Civil Action No 82D05-2011-CT-004962
Deposition 3-26-25
Iin the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jarosiewicz v Northeast Regional Railroad
Case No 2023 L 002290
Deposition 2-27-25
In the District Court 191st Judicial District Dallas County Acklin v Poly America International
Cause No DC-22-08610
Deposition 1-8-2025
United States District Court, Norther District of California Asustin Vs Monsanto
Case No 2:23-cv-272
Deposition 12-20-25
In Jefferson Circuit Court Division One, Louisville, Kentucky Stafford vs, CSX
Case No. 18-CI-001790
358

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 17 March 2025
Deposition: 8-27-24
In the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of St. Louis. State of Missouri Patricia Godfrey vs, Amtrak
Case No. 2122-CC-00525
Deposition: 7-17-24
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda Early Vs. CSX
Case number CV-2021-00241
Deposition 6-24-24
In the Court of Common Please Lucas County, Ohio
Brenda Conkright vs. CSX
Case No. G-4801-CI-0202102664-000
Deposition: 6-4-24
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Greenup Circuit Court
Patsy Sue Napier vs. CSX
Case No. 19-CI-0012
Deposition: 5-8-2-24
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Trial 3-29-24 and 4-5-24
In the District Court of Hood County State of Texas
Artie Gray vs. Exxon Mobil
Case No. C-2018047
Rosenfeld Deposition:4-22-2024
In the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana
Estate of Clark Stacy vs. Penn Central Corporation
Cause No 2D01-2001-CT-00007
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-25-2024 and 3-7-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Michael J. Sylla et al. vs. High-Crush Whitehall LLC
Case No. 2019-CV-63, 2019-CV-64, 2019-CV-65, 2019-CV-66 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Leland Drangstveit vs. High-Crush Blair LLC
Case No. 19-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Donald Lee Ashworth vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No CV-2021-901261
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-23-2024
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-19-2024
359

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 17 March 2025
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Ricky Bush v. Clean Harbors Colfax LLC
Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-18-2023 and 1-15-2024
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-29-2023
In the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois Timothy Gray vs. Rural King et al.

Case No 2022-LA-355
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-26-2023
In United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L. Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Fox vs. BNSF
Case No. 2021 L12
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-12-2023
In the Court of Common Please Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Thomas Schleich vs. Penn Central Corporation
Lead Case No. CV-20-939184
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-27-2023
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri at Kansas City Timothy Dalsing vs. BNSF
Case No. No. 2216-cv06539
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-28-2023
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division International Terminals Company LLC Deer Park Fire Litigation Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-01460
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-25-2023
In the Circuit Court of Livingston County Missouri
Shirley Ralls vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Lind Railroad Case No. 28LV-CV0020
Rosenfeld Daubert Hearing 7-18-2023 Trial Testimony 7-19-2023 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Brenda Wright vs. Penn Central and Conrail
Case No. No. 2032L003966
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-13-2023
In the Circuit Court Common Please Philadelphia of Jefferson County Alabama Frank Belle vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company et al.

Case No. 01-cv-2021-900901.00
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-6-2023
360

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 17 March 2025
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda De Gregorio vs. Penn Central
Case No. 002278
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-27-20203
In the United States District Court Eastern District of New York Rosalie Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-16-2023
In the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County
Judy Cundy vs. BNSF
Case No. 21-2-03718-32
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-9-2023
In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA Civil Trial Division Feaster v Conrail
Case No. 001075
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-1-2023
In United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Sherman vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:17-cv-01192
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Gonzales vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01690
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-17-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Abeyta vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01689-KMT
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-3-2023
In United States District Court For The Easter District of Louisiana Nathaniel Smith vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-01235
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-30-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division 361

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 17 March 2025
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022, Trial 1-10-2023
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022

In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
362

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 13 of 17 March 2025
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al. vs Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois 363

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 14 of 17 March 2025
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants 364

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 15 of 17 March 2025
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintifs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. vs. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. 365

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 16 of 17 March 2025
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the County of Kern, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Rose Propagation Services vs. Heppe Enterprises
Case No. S-1500-CV-278190, LHB
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
In the Court of Galveston County, Texas 56th Judicial District MDL Litigation Regarding Texas City Refinery Ultracracker Emission Event Litigation Cause No. 10-UC-0001
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: September 2013
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the United States District court of Southern District of California United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 2,560 Acres of Land, more or less, located in Imperial County, State of California; and Donald L. Crawford, et. al.

Civil No. 3:11-cv-02258-IEG-RBB
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2012, January 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. 366

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 17 of 17 March 2025
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
367

EXHIBIT C
368

IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: July 16, 2025
To: Hayley Uno
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: 3475 Torrance Boulevard Project, Torrance, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4888)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a wellrecognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 369
2 of 19
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD, 2021).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. 370
3 of 19
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019) and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentration of 22.4 µg/m3(18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products.

This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the 3475 Torrance Boulevard Project, Torrance, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces.

The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks 371
4 of 19
resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3(Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.

This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3(Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per workday at the offices is 161 µg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years 372
5 of 19
(start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 491 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not ensure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with 373
6 of 19
no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum 374
7 of 19
outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2of material/m2floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of 375
8 of 19
the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rate estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum 376
9 of 19
outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

𝐶𝑖𝑛 =
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑄𝑜𝑎
(Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or NonCancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde

377
10 of 19
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.

Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively 378
11 of 19
tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The 3475 Torrance Boulevard Project, Torrance, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Torrance Boulevard, Madrone Avenue, Amie Avenue, Maricopa Avenue, etc.). Thus, the Project is located in a sound impacted area.

The Categorical Exemption - 3475 Torrance Boulevard Project, Torrance, CA (City of Torrance, 2025) has only three (3) short term 15-minute noise measurements. The ambient noise level ranged from 36.4 to 70.8 dBA CNEL. In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site long-term measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a minimum of a one-week period and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be required. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Categorical Exemption - 3475 Torrance Boulevard Project, Torrance, CA (City of Torrance, 2025), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 491 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic. 379
12 of 19
An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. at least MERV 13, or possibly MERV 14 or 15 depending on the results of the Project ambient PM2.5 concentrations) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not ensure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
380
13 of 19
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation 381
14 of 19
system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. 382
15 of 19
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.

City of Torrance (2025). Categorical Exemption - 3475 Torrance Boulevard Project, Torrance, CA.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental 383
16 of 19
Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
384
17 of 19

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Singer et. al., 2020 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.3 µg/m3(18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the StandardMethod fortheTestingandEvaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical EmissionsforIndoor Sources UsingEnvironmental Chambers,Version1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health, 385
18 of 19
Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate, I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates, I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2(0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2(1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2(2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2(2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels, the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 386
19 of 19
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to ensure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 387
10E
Date: September 23, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Aram Chaprayan, City Manager
Patrick Q. Sullivan, City Attorney
By: Carlos Huizar, Management Associate | [email protected] Subject: City Manager and City Attorney – Reconsideration of a Council Action to Deny an Appeal and Uphold a Planning Commission's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP24-00028) and Development Permit (DVP24-00004) on Property Located within the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan - Del Amo Business Sub District Two (H-DA2 Zone) at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110).

Expenditure: None.

RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the City Manager and the City Attorney that the City Council consider a motion to reconsider a Council Action to Deny an Appeal and Uphold a Planning Commission’s Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP24-00028) and Development Permit (DVP24-00004) on property located within the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan – Del Amo Business Sub-District Two (H-DA2 Zone) at 3475 Torrance Boulevard (APN 7524-014-110).

It is further recommended that in the event the City Council decides to reconsider their prior Council action, that the matter be brought back to the City Council at a future date.

FUNDING
None required.

DISCUSSION
On August 19, 2025, the City Council voted to deny an appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP24-00028 and DVP24-00004 by a vote 7-0. On September 16, 2025, Councilmember Aurelio Mattucci received concurrence from the City Council to direct staff to bring forth an agenda item for the City Council to consider a motion to reconsider their prior council action. After the City Council meeting on August 19, 2025, it came to the attention of the City of Torrance that a letter and attachments from the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) was inadvertently excluded during the preparation of the agenda and did not become part of the record. In order to protect the due process rights of SAFER to have their letter included in the record and considered by the City Council as well as the due process rights of the applicant to respond to the letter, the City Council concurred in the request to bring this item for reconsideration.

ATTACHMENT 6
388
City Council
September 23, 2025

Page 2 ends

Torrance City CouncilFebruary 24, 2026

Torrance City Council
February 24, 2026