HomeMy WebLinkAbout02. Exhibit B - Resolution No. 24-4022RESOLUTION NO. 24-4022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DOWNEY (1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, (2) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND (3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROLOGIS STEWART & GRAY
WAREHOUSE PROJECT, PLN-21-00025 AND PLN-23-00086, AT 9300
HALL ROAD, 9350 HALL ROAD, AND 9363 STEWART AND GRAY ROAD
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
A.On March 25, 2022, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) and California Code Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA
Guidelines”), the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for a project titled “Prologis Stewart &
Gray Road Warehouse Project” (“Project”) that was circulated to and available for
comment to residents, public agencies, and other interested parties between
March 25, 2022 and April 27, 2022.
B.On April 18, 2022, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15083, the City held a
public scoping meeting to provide details and clarification, as well as to receive
comments from residents, public agencies, and other interested parties.
C.On April 22, 2022, the City extended and recirculated the NOP for the Draft EIR
for the Project for comment to residents, public agencies, and other interested
parties between April 22, 2022 and May 20, 2022.
D.On December 13, 2023, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City
prepared and circulated for public comment the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse
No. 2022030738) for a 45-day review period from December 13, 2023 and
January 25, 2024.
E.On February 23, 2024, a notice of the public hearing to certify a Final EIR was
sent to all property owners and tenants within 500’ of the subject site, all
interested properties requesting notification, outside public agencies, and the
notice was published in the Downey Patriot newspaper.
F.On March 6, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider all testimony, written and oral, related to the
Final EIR, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and analyzed the
information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Prologis Stewart & Gray
Road Warehouse Project (“Final EIR”). The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR,
which consists of the Draft EIR, Errata and Response to Comments, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, has been completed in accordance with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR was prepared,
published, circulated and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines, and constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective and complete Final
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 24-4022
Downey Planning Commission
PLN-21-00025 & PLN-23-00086 – 9300 Hall Road, 9350 Hall Road, & 9363 Stewart And Gray Road
March 6, 2024 - Page 2
Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR has been presented
to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission has reviewed the Final EIR and has
considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to acting on the Project, and that the
Final EIR reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR identifies and analyzes
one significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impact related to Noise. Based on its
own independent judgment, the Planning Commission finds that there are overriding
considerations and benefits in support of approval of the Project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the Planning Commission adopts the attached Findings
of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in the attached “Exhibit A” of
this Resolution.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, and in support of its approval of the Project, the Planning
Commission adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to require all reasonably
feasible mitigation measures be implemented by means of Project conditions, agreements, or
other measures, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in
“Exhibit B” of this Resolution.
SECTION 7. The Planning Commission directs that, upon approval of the Project, a
Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk-Recorder of Los Angeles
County and, if the Project requires a discretionary approval from any state agency, with the
State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section
15094.
SECTION 8. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the documents and other
materials, including the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
Errata and Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff reports,
technical studies, appendices, plans, and specifications, that constitute the record upon which
the Planning Commission has based its decision are located in the Community Development
Department in Downey City Hall located at 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey CA 90241.
SECTION 9. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March 2024.
Carrie Uva, Chair
Planning Commission
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of
March 2024, by the following vote, to wit:
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 24-4022
Downey Planning Commission
PLN-21-00025 & PLN-23-00086 – 9300 Hall Road, 9350 Hall Road, & 9363 Stewart And Gray Road
March 6, 2024 - Page 3
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Approved as to from
___________________
John M. Funk
City Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Ria Ioannidis, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify that the foregoing
Resolution is the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey
at a regular meeting held on March 6, 2024.
Ria Ioannidis, Secretary
City Planning Commission
Exhibit B
1.Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment;
2.Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been or can or should be adopted by that other agency; or
3.Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations
for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(b) be supported
by substantial evidence in the record. Under CEQA, substantial evidence means that enough relevant
information has been provided (and reasonable inferences from this information may be made) that a
fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be
reached. Substantial evidence may include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and
expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15384).
CEQA further requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects
when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)).
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in
writing the specific reasons to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the
record.
If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the
record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. This statement
does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
CANDIDATE FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
for the
PROLOGIS STEWART AND GRAY ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
SCH No. 2022030738
I. INTRODUCTION
a. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Candidate Findings are made for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
(Project). The environmental effects of the Project are addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (Final EIR) dated March 2024, which is incorporated by reference herein.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [Section 21081(a)] and the CEQA Guidelines
[Section15091(a)] require that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
been completed which identifies one or more significant effects thereof, unless such public agency
makes one or more of the following findings:
Page 2 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No.
2022030738), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of
Downey (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis
for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies
for the implementation of the Project.
b. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Record of
Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the Project;
• All responses to the NOP received by the City;
• The Final EIR;
• The Draft EIR;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review
comment period on the Draft EIR;
• All responses to the written comments included in the Final EIR;
• All written and oral public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the Project at
which such testimony was taken;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
• The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in any responses to comments in
the Final EIR;
• All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in, or otherwise relied
upon during the preparation of, the EIR;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local
laws and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations;
and
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code Section 21167.6(e).
c. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the City’s actions on
the Project are located at the City’s Community Development Department, 11111 Brookshire Avenue,
1st Floor, Downey, CA 90241. The City’s Community Development Department is the custodian of the
Project’s administrative record. Copies of the document that constitute the record of proceedings are on
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 3 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
the City’s website and at all relevant times have been available upon request at the offices of the City’s
Community Development Department. The Draft EIR and Final EIR were placed on the City’s website at
https://www.downeyca.org/our-city/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/environmental-
documents. This information is provided in compliance with the Public Resources Code 21081.6(a)(2)
and CEQA Guidelines 15091(e).
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
a. Project Location
The Project site is located on an approximately 29.16-acre site in the southeastern portion of the City in
the southern portion of Los Angeles County (County). The Project site is located approximately ten miles
southeast of downtown Los Angeles and nine miles northwest of the County of Orange. Regional access
is provided via the following freeways: the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5 [I-5]), the San Gabriel
Freeway (I-605), the Century Freeway (I-105), and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710). The Project site is
bounded by Hall Road on the north, Woodruff Road on the east, Stewart and Gray Road on the south,
and an industrial building on the west. The site is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 6284-019-013
through 017. Primary vehicular access to the Project site is provided by Stewart and Gray Road and
Hall Road.
b. Project Description
The proposed Project would include the demolition of the existing buildings totaling approximately
433,000 square feet (SF) and the construction of an approximately 535,685-SF industrial concrete tilt-up
building for warehouse/logistics uses. The Project would include 683 automobile parking spaces, 255
trailer and/or container parking spaces, and 109 dock loading doors. The new industrial building would
be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold
storage. Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse (508,900 SF) would be high cube fulfillment and
the remaining 5 percent (26,785 SF) would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space). The
facility would also include 20,000 SF of office area and 25,000 SF of mezzanine area within the
535,685-SF building. On-site activities would include storage, distribution, and/or consolidation of
manufactured goods, and last-mile fulfillment and delivery; and general industrial/warehouse with
refrigeration and cold storage component for the purposes of receiving, storing, shipping of food and/or
beverage products. The office space would be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse
operations. The proposed facility would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The building would include concrete tilt up panels on all sides of the building. The southeast, southwest,
and northwest sides of the building would be the entrance to the office component and would include
glazed windows, metal and wood side paneling, metal canopies at select locations, enhanced exterior
building materials and building modulation. Exterior and interior glazing would be tempered with vision
glass and spandrel glass at the main entryways and around the perimeter of the building.
The proposed building would be up to 55 feet tall with a rectilinear form. Roof lines on each side would
generally be uniformly linear but each elevation would be modular such that every 50 to 60 feet of the
façade would have varied design elements of material, color, and pattern to provide articulation.
Mechanical equipment (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units) would be placed on the rooftops
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 4 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
and screened by parapet walls incorporated into the design of the building. Proposed color schemes
would be predominantly gray and white, with browns and silvers associated with wood and metal siding,
and blue glazing on the windows.
In addition, the Project would include landscaping totaling 10.5 percent of the site area, and a perimeter
screen wall. Ornamental landscaping would be provided along the Stewart and Gray Road and Hall Road
frontages, as well as at the building entrances and within parking areas.
c. Discretionary Actions
The Final EIR is intended to provide documentation pursuant to CEQA to cover all local, regional, and
state permits and/or approvals that may be needed to implement the Project. Implementation of the
Project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City:
• Site Plan Review
• Conditional Use Permit
• Variance of Standards (for building height)
• Lot Merger
• Demolition Permit
• Grading Permit
• Building Permit
• Temporary Use of Land Permit (for nighttime construction)
Permits by other Responsible and/or Trustee Agencies include:
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to ensure consistency with water quality
protection requirements during construction.
d. Project Objectives
The objectives of the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project include the following:
• Create a professional, well-maintained, and attractive environment for the development of a
warehouse building consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation
infrastructure.
• Expand economic development, attract new businesses, and provide employment opportunities
in the City of Downey.
• Increase the industrial base in the City of Downey by providing a Class A industrial facility that
meets industry standards for operational design and can accommodate a wide variety of
industrial uses.
• Facilitate a project that provides goods for the regional economy.
• Design the facility for energy efficiency and sustainability.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 5 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
• Encourage warehouse development as attractive and productive uses while minimizing conflicts
to the extent possible with the surrounding existing uses.
• Encourage new warehouse distribution services that take advantage of the area’s close
proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors to reduce traffic congestion on
surface streets and to reduce concomitant air pollution emission from vehicle sources.
• Encourage new development consistent with the capacity and municipal service capabilities.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The lead agency approving the Project and conducting environmental review under CEQA (California
Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder in California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines)), shall be the City. The City as
lead agency shall be primarily responsible for carrying out the Project. In compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15082, the City published a NOP on March 29, 2022, which began a 30-day period for
comments on the appropriate scope of the EIR. Consistent with CEQA Section 21083.9, the City held a
public agency scoping meeting on April 18, 2022 at Downey City Hall in the City Council Chamber. The
purpose of this meeting was to seek input and concerns from the public regarding the environmental
issues that may potentially result from the Project.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(d)(3), HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. prepared and
submitted environmental documents to the City on behalf of the applicant. The City reviewed and
approved the Draft EIR for public circulation. The City filed a Notice of Completion with the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, indicating that the Draft EIR had been completed
and was available for review and comment by the public. The City also posted a Notice of Availability of
the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. The Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for
public review and comment beginning on December 12, 2023 and ending on January 25, 2024. After the
close of public review, the City prepared the Final EIR, which provided responses in writing to comments
received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR, dated March 2024, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines.
The Final EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Project. The
Final EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers and the
public regarding the objectives and components of the Project. The Final EIR addresses the potential
significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Project and identifies feasible mitigation
measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. The Final EIR is
the primary reference document for the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program for the Project.
The City, acting as the Lead Agency, certifies with these Findings that the Final EIR reflects the City’s own
independent judgment and analysis under Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(a)-(c) and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090(a)(3).
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 6 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
IV. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Impacts associated with specific issue areas (e.g., transportation and noise) resulting from approval of
the Project and future implementation are discussed below.
The Final EIR concludes the Project will have no impacts with respect to the following issue areas:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Mineral Resources
• Recreation
The Final EIR concludes the Project will have a less than significant impact and requires no mitigation
measures with respect to the following issue areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
The Final EIR concludes the Project will potentially have a significant impact but mitigated to below a
level of significance with respect to the following issue areas:
• Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Land Use and Planning
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
The Final EIR concludes the Project will potentially have a significant unmitigated impact and no
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to below a level of significance for the
following issue area:
• Noise (nighttime construction noise)
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 7 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
V. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
a. Introduction
The findings reported in the following pages incorporate the facts and discussions in the Final EIR,
including the responses to comments, for the Project as fully set forth therein. For each of the significant
impacts associated with the Project, the following discussion is provided:
• Environmental Impact: A specific description of the environmental effects identified in the EIR,
including a conclusion regarding the significance of the impact.
• Facts in Support of Finding: A summary of the reasons for the finding(s).
• Mitigation Measures: Identified feasible mitigation measures or actions, that are required as
part of the Project, and if mitigation is infeasible, the reasons supporting the finding that the
rejected mitigation is infeasible.
• Finding: One or more of the three specific findings set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment;
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been or can or should be adopted by that other agency; or
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final
EIR.
• Reference: A notation on the specific section in the Final EIR that includes the evidence and
discussion of the identified impact.
b. Findings Regarding Impacts that Can Be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
The City, having independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and
the record of proceedings, finds pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1) AND adopts the following findings regarding the significant effects of the Project, as follows:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, avoid, or
substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR. The basis for
this conclusion follows.
i. Cultural Resources (Historical Resources)
Environmental Impact: The possibility exists that unknown, buried historical resources may be present
within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown
historical resources within the Project area.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 8 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Facts in Support of Finding: A project-specific Historical Resources Evaluation Report was prepared to
evaluate the existing buildings on the Project site. None of the buildings were found to be of significant
historic value. The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a records search for
an area that included the Project site and a one-mile radius around it. The records search and study did
not identify any known historical resources within the Project area. The entire Project area has been
disturbed by previous agricultural activities, irrigation systems, road construction, transportation
(railway) and utility (transmission and gas line) installation, and manufacturing uses. The entire Project
site is currently developed and has been since the 1950s. Two buildings were identified in the archival
research as being present in the Project area between 1896 and 1951, both likely associated with the
previous agricultural uses. These were demolished and replaced with the existing on-site buildings
beginning in the early 1950s. Considering the extended presence of parking lots and limited change to
the Project area since 1952, it is possible that there are cultural resources associated with the small
structure identified in the archival research as having been present in the northwest corner of the
Project site under the asphalt. There is also the possibility of similar resources present in the northeast
corner, but development in that portion of the Project area has likely destroyed or heavily impacted
possible resources there. While no historical resources were identified during the cultural and historic
resources studies, the possibility exists that unknown, buried historical resources may be present within
the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown historical
resources within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of historical
resources and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program during grading
and other ground-disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on-site fill soils.
Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown
historical resources to a less than significant level. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on
the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.6.
ii. Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources)
Impact: The possibility exists that unknown, buried archaeological resources may be present within the
Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown archaeological
resources within the Project area.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a
records search for an area that included the Project site and a one-mile radius around it. The records
search and study did not identify any known archaeological resources within the Project area. Due to
the presently developed nature of the site, the Project area did not undergo an intensive pedestrian
survey and so the ground surface was not investigated. The Project site is located in alluvial soils, where
there is the potential for buried cultural resources. As discussed above under V.b.i, it is possible that
there are buried cultural resources in the northwest and northeast corners of the Project site under the
asphalt. While no archaeological resources were identified during the cultural resources study, the
possibility exists that unknown, buried archaeological resources may be present within the Project site.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 9 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown archaeological resources
within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of
archaeological resources and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program
during grading and other ground-disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on-site fill
soils.
Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown
archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Thus, changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects
on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.6.
iii. Cultural Resources (Human Remains)
Impact: The proposed Project may disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a
records search for an area that included the Project site and a one-mile radius around it. Additionally, a
Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
The records search and SLF did not reveal any resources known to contain human remains within or
near the Project site. While no human remains are known to be present on the Project site,
implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in unanticipated discovery of human
remains through discovery of unknown burial sites. As such, the proposed Project could cause a
significant impact to cultural resources associated with unknown human remains within the Project
area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of
archaeological resources, including human remains, and would require implementation of a cultural
resources monitoring program during grading and other ground-disturbing activities that would extend
below the existing on-site fill soils. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires proper treatment of human
remains, if found, in accordance with applicable laws, including Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If human remains are found during
excavation, excavation would be halted in the vicinity of the find until the County Coroner has
investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of
the remains.
Finding: Substantial adverse changes to the significance of human remains resulting from
implementation of the proposed Project would be reduced to below the level of significance through
the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, which is in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as
identified in the Final EIR.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 10 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.6.
iv. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Release of Hazardous Materials)
Impact: The proposed Project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment associated with on-site contaminated soils and groundwater and presence of
hazardous building materials.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been impacted by historical use of hazardous materials
in various manufacturing processes. As a result of these uses, the soil and groundwater beneath the site
have been exposed to various constituents and contamination at the site has been documented. During
soil vapor testing, volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations in samples exceeded regulatory
screening levels for trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), chloroform, and benzene.
Groundwater samples contained VOCs exceeding regulatory levels for TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethene
(cis-1,2-DCE). The Project site is the subject of an ongoing cleanup and remediation process, which
includes indoor air quality monitoring, groundwater monitoring, and operation of a soil vapor extraction
system.
Based on the results of the investigations for asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, and the
presence of lead in drinking water, demolition activities associated with the Project could result in
releases of asbestos and lead associated with the presence of asbestos-containing material and lead-
based paint. The risk of release of asbestos would be associated with the removal of the buildings at
9301 Stewart and Gray, 9400 Hall Road, 9399 Stewart and Gray Road, and 9333/9363 Stewart and Gray
Road. The risk of release of lead would be associated with the removal of the building at 9400 Hall Road.
Release of these hazardous materials could result in a potentially significant impact to the public and
environment.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 addresses VOC-contaminated soil and includes specific
recommendations and protocols that would be implemented during Project construction activities.
Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 address removal of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based
paint in accordance with regulatory requirements prior to building demolition.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3, along with compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements, potential impacts associated with
accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or
substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.7.6.
v. Land Use and Planning (Consistency with Land Use Plans Adopted for the Purpose of
Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect)
Impact: The proposed Project may conflict with General Plan Circulation Element polices that discourage
land uses that generate high amounts of truck traffic.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 11 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element
requirement for acceptable level of service (LOS) of D or less, as analyzed intersections in the Project
vicinity that are part of the City’s Circulation Element roadway network would operate at a LOS D or
better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.3.3 , however,
discourages land uses that generate high amounts of truck traffic. While the Project would replace a
similar industrial use, it would result in increased traffic trips and an increase in traffic in the Project
vicinity. However, the supporting Programs identified in the Circulation Element under Policy 2.3.3
further specify to discourage land uses that attract high amounts of truck traffic without corresponding
benefits to the community (Program 2.3.3.1). The Project would provide additional industrial sector uses
that provide goods movement services and employment opportunities for the community and region.
Program 2.3.3.2 requires discretionary approvals for land uses generating high amounts of truck traffic,
including general warehouses, truck parking, truck company headquarters, and distribution centers. The
Project is subject to the City’s discretionary approval process to identify and minimize potential impacts.
With regard to transportation, and as identified below in Section V.b.vi, the Project would result in
potentially significant transportation impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and as such, would
potentially be inconsistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.3.3, resulting in a potentially
significant land use impact.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure TR-1 would require implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program for the life of the Project that identifies TDM measures to be
implemented for the Project and documentation of how both physical measures (e.g., bike lockers,
designated carpool parking spaces, etc.) and programmatic measures (e.g., guaranteed ride home
program, employee transportation coordinator, etc.) would be provided.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, impacts related to consistency with land use
plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be reduced to
less than significant. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as
identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.9.6.
vi. Transportation (VMT)
Impact: The proposed Project would be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b) regarding VMT.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project is forecast to generate a baseline employment VMT of
19.2 VMT per employee. Application of VMT reduction project design features, including increased job
density (i.e., VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of jobs
compared to the average job density in the Country) would reduce the Project’s VMT to 17.3 per
employee, but this would still exceed the South County threshold of 15.3 VMT per employee. Therefore,
the Project would result in a significant VMT impact.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure TR-1 would require implementation of a TDM Program that
identifies TDM measures to be implemented for the Project and documentation of how both physical
measures (e.g., bike lockers, designated carpool parking spaces, etc.) and programmatic measures
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 12 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
(e.g., guaranteed ride home program, employee transportation coordinator, etc.) would be provided.
The TDM Plan would be implemented for the life of the Project and would include TDM strategies
related to commute trip reduction, ridesharing, and bicycle facilities to reduce significant VMT impacts.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, VMT impacts would be reduced to less than
significant. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the
Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11.6.
vii. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact: The possibility exists that unknown, buried historical resources may be present within the
Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown historical
resources within the Project area.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a
records search for an area that included the Project site and a one-mile radius around it. The records
search did not identify any tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historic Resources or a local register of historical resources. Additionally, the NAHC did not identify
any known sacred lands or Native American cultural resources within the Project area, but that the area
may be sensitive for cultural resources. During the Assembly Bill 52 tribal consultation with the Kizh
Nation, Tribal representatives indicated that the Project area has a high sensitivity for the presence of
unknown, subsurface tribal cultural resources. The Kizh Nation provided confidential information to the
City identifying culturally sensitive areas within the Project area that may be affected by subsurface
ground disturbance activities. Thus, although no tribal cultural resources were identified during the
cultural and historic resources studies, the possibility exists that unknown, buried tribal cultural
resources may be present within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a
significant impact to unknown tribal cultural resources within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of cultural
resources and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program during grading
and other ground-disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on-site fill soils. Mitigation
Measure CUL-2 requires proper treatment of human remains, if found, in accordance with applicable
laws, including Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public
Resources Code. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted in the
vicinity of the find until the County Coroner has investigated and appropriate recommendations have
been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains.
In addition to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would incorporate mitigation measures
recommended by the Kizh Nation concerning potential impacts to as-yet undiscovered tribal cultural
resources. The mitigation measures include requirements for procedures in the event of an
unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural and archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure TCR-1),
retaining a Native American Monitor/Consultant (Mitigation Measure TCR-2), and procedures for the
unanticipated discovery of burials and human remains (Mitigation Measure TCR-3).
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 13 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, CUL-2, TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3, impacts to
tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the
significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.6.
c. Findings Regarding Impacts that are Found to be Significant and Unavoidable
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Record of
Proceedings and pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3),
hereby finds that the environmental impacts described below for Noise are significant and unavoidable,
and there is no feasible mitigation that can be applied to reduce these impacts to below a level of
significance. “Feasible” is defined in Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean “capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” The CEQA statute (Section 21081) and
Guidelines (Section 15019(a)(3)) also provide that “other” considerations may form the basis for a
finding of infeasibility.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030738) as described below.
These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in Section 4.10 of the EIR.
i. Noise (Construction)
Impact: Project construction activities associated with nighttime concrete pouring would generate a
substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site.
Facts in Support of Finding: Due to high daytime temperatures, pouring of concrete for Project
construction may be required to be conducted at night. The combined noise from two concrete mixer
trucks, a concrete pump truck, and a backhoe (all working in close proximity to each other) would result
in a combined time-averaged noise level of 64.9 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at a distance of 300 feet.
Concrete pouring equipment could be stationary for more than an hour and positioned near the Project
property lines. Therefore, noise-sensitive land uses within 300 feet of the Project site could be exposed
to temporary construction noise more than 10 dBA above nighttime ambient noise levels. Project
nighttime concrete pouring noise would be potentially significant.
It is anticipated that nighttime concrete pouring work would occur on approximately 40 nights during
Project construction. Included in those 40 nights, approximately 12 consecutive nights (including on
weekends) would be required to pour the building slab foundation/floor. Typical nighttime concrete
pouring work would require the use of multiple concrete mixer trucks, a concrete pump truck, and a
backhoe. Nighttime concrete pouring work would typically commence at midnight with pouring
completed by mid-morning and concrete finishing work continuing into the afternoon.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 14 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require written notification of potential
nighttime/weekend concrete work and the anticipated duration to all residences located within 300 feet
of the Project site at least 48 hours in advance.
Finding: Mitigation measure NOI-1 is identified and would be implemented; however, it would not
reduce Project temporary construction-related noise levels to acceptable limits. Further, because some
of the affected residents within 300 feet of the Project site are within the upper levels of a two-story
building, other noise-reducing mitigation such as temporary sound walls would have to be unreasonably
high (more than 20 feet) to provide adequate noise reduction and would not be feasible. Impacts
associated with nighttime concrete pouring noise would be significant and unavoidable. Thus, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the provision
of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Sections 4.10.6 and 4.10.8.
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
ANOTHER AGENCY (CEQA 21081(A)(2) AND CEQA GUIDELINES 15091 (A)(2))
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Record of
Proceedings, finds pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) that
there are no changes or alterations which could reduce significant impacts that are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR must contain a discussion of “a range of
reasonable alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)
further states that "the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that requires
the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice." Thus, the following
discussion focuses on project alternatives that are capable of eliminating significant environmental
impacts or substantially reducing them as compared to the proposed Project, even if the alternative
would impede the attainment of some project objectives, or would be more costly. In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1), among the factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives are: (1) site suitability; (2) economic viability; (3) availability of
infrastructure; (4) general plan consistency; (5) other plans or regulatory limitations; (6) jurisdictional
boundaries; and (7) whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to
the alternative site.
As required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), in developing the alternatives to be addressed in this
section, consideration was given to an alternative’s ability to meet most of the basic objectives of the
project. Because the Project will cause potentially significant environmental effects unless mitigated, the
City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the Project, evaluating
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 15 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental
effects while achieving most of the objectives of the Project.
The alternatives presented and considered in the Final EIR constitute a reasonable range of alternatives
necessary to permit a reasoned choice among the options available to the City and/or the Project
proponent. The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the
Record of Proceedings, and pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(3), makes the following findings with respect to the alternatives identified in the
Final EIR.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030738) as described below. “Feasible”
is defined in Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean “capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
legal, social, and technological factors.” The CEQA statute (Section 21081) and Guidelines (Section
15019(a)(3)) also provide that “other considerations” may form the basis for a finding of infeasibility.
a. Alternatives under Consideration
The Project alternatives are summarized below along with the findings relevant to each alternative.
i. No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e), requires that an EIR evaluate a “no project” alternative along with
its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow a lead agency to
compare the impacts of approving the project to the impacts of not approving it. Under the No Project
Alternative, the project would not be implemented, and the site would remain in its current condition.
Accordingly, the No Project Alternative assumes that the Project would not be adopted, no demolition
of the existing buildings would occur, and the new warehouse building would not be constructed.
Potentially Significant Effects
The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unmitigated (or unavoidable) impacts to
noise (construction noise) identified for the Project. It would also not result in any changes to VMT in
comparison to existing conditions and would therefore, eliminate the need for mitigation related to
transportation, which is also related to land use plan policy consistency impacts. Additionally, the No
Project Alternative would avoid all other less than significant impacts of the Project. The majority of the
impacts necessitating mitigation are related to construction of the proposed Project. The No Project
Alternative would not involve construction, which would eliminate the need for mitigation measures
related to cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources.
Facts In Support of Finding
While the No Project Alternative would avoid the significant environmental effects associated with
Project, it would not achieve most of the objectives of the proposed Project and the benefits of the
proposed Project would not be realized under the No Project Alternative. This alternative would leave
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 16 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
the site as-is and the proposed Project would not be constructed, and therefore this alternative would
not create a warehouse building that would expand the City’s industrial base, expand economic
development, provide a new Class A industrial facility, or provide a new energy-efficient and sustainable
facility.
Finding
The No Project Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations
including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
This alternative is rejected because it could not feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the Project.
Reference
EIR Section 5.3.1.
ii. Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative
Under the Reuse of Existing Building Alternative, the existing buildings and associated facilities on-site
would be retained and reoccupied by the Project applicant for use as a warehouse and logistics facility.
The existing buildings, which encompass a total of approximately 433,000 SF, would be re-used as a
warehouse and logistics center. The physical conditions of the Project site would generally remain as
they are today.
Potentially Significant Effects
Under this alternative, the environmental impacts would be similar to those identified for the No Project
Alternative discussed above in Section VII.a.i. The reuse of existing buildings would eliminate the need
for demolition and construction of new structures and therefore would eliminate the need for the
mitigation measures related to construction that were identified in this EIR for cultural resources,
hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Thus, it would avoid the significant
unavoidable temporary construction noise impact of the proposed Project. The reuse of existing
buildings as a warehouse and logistics center may result in an increase in VMT over existing conditions.
However, due to the reduced square footage of the warehouse and logistics center, this increase in VMT
would likely be less than the projected increase in VMT under the proposed Project and with the
implementation of mitigation measure TR-1 would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impacts
related to land use plan policy consistency also would be similar to the proposed Project given the
potential increase and associated VMT impacts. As with the proposed Project, impacts to aesthetics
would be less than significant but visual quality would not be improved if the existing buildings would
remain and the site improvements associated with the proposed Project would not be constructed.
Potential geology and soils impacts would also be less than significant like the Project but could be
slightly more severe because the existing older buildings would not be replaced with a new modern
building designed in conformance with current seismic design parameters. The Reuse of Existing
Buildings Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to air quality, energy, and GHG
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 17 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
emissions, but the impacts would be slightly less than those associated with the Project given the
reduced building space.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative would not meet the majority of the objectives identified for
the Project. This alternative would locate the warehouse near efficient access points to various freeways
and transportation corridors, facilitate a project that provides goods for the regional economy, and
provide employment opportunities in the City. While this alternative would continue to generate
revenue, the Project site is currently underutilized. This alternative would use the existing buildings and
facilities on the Project site for warehouse and logistics uses and has the potential to continue providing
goods to the local economy. Due to changing demands in the warehouse industry and the condition and
type of buildings on the existing site, the availability of potential tenants could be limited due to the age
of the existing buildings. Therefore, this alternative may not be able to meet the objective of expanding
economic development and attracting new businesses to the City. This alternative would also fail to
provide a Class A industrial facility that meets industry standards for operational design. The existing
facilities also lack the energy efficiency and sustainability design features included as an objective for the
proposed Project.
Finding
The Reuse of Existing Building Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other
considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
This alternative is rejected because it could not accomplish most objectives of the Project.
Reference
EIR Section 5.3.2.
iii. Reduced Building Height Alternative
The Reduced Building Height Alternative would develop the warehouse largely as described in this EIR,
but with a reduced maximum building height of 45 feet. As the maximum building height of the
proposed Project evaluated in this EIR is 55 feet, this would be a 10-foot reduction in overall building
height. The square footage and other components of the site would remain the same as the proposed
Project evaluated in this EIR.
Potentially Significant Effects
Under the Reduced Building Height Alternative, most of the environmental impacts would be the same
as the proposed Project. Construction would still be required to develop the site, and the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR to reduce impacts related to cultural resources, hazards and
hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources during construction would still be required.
Because nighttime construction would still be required, this alternative would also result in a significant
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 18 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
unavoidable temporary construction noise impact. The alternative would also increase employment and
therefore increase VMT, which would necessitate the implementation of mitigation measure TR-1 to
reduce potential VMT impacts and land use plan policy consistency. The reduced building height would
eliminate the need for a variance from the Downey Municipal Code with regard to maximum building
height and would further reduce less than significant aesthetics impacts by reducing the height of the
building. All other less than significant Project impacts would be the same under the Reduced Building
Height Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reduced Building Height Alternative would attain most of the Project objectives. It would create a
warehouse building consistent with the underlying zoning and provide goods for the regional economy,
it would expand economic development in the City while expanding its industrial base, and it would take
advantage of the area’s close proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors. With the
reduced building height, this alternative could still be designed for energy efficiency and sustainability.
The warehouse would take advantage of the area’s close proximity to various freeways and
transportation corridors. However, the lower height would not be ideal for operations because the
lower ceiling could potentially create some operational constraints. Lower building height limits
prospective users of the facilities and could make it more difficult for the Project to meet some of the
objectives because redevelopment of the site with new modern Class A buildings would not occur.
Finding
The Reduced Building Height Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other
considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
The lower building height could limit operations that could create constraints for Class A tenants, which
would not attract new businesses, expand economic development, and provide employment
opportunities in the City as much as the Project. It would also not provide a Class A industrial facility that
meets industry standards for operational design that could accommodate a wide variety of industrial
uses.
Reference:
EIR Section 5.3.3.
iii. Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop a warehouse similar to the proposed Project, but with
an overall building space reduction of 25 percent. Instead of the 535,685 SF building that would be
included under the proposed Project, this alternative would develop an approximately 401,764 SF
industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The auto parking spaces, trailer and/or
container parking spaces, and dock loading doors would also be reduced by approximately 25 percent as
compared to the proposed Project. The on-site uses and operating hours would remain the same as
under the proposed Project.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 19 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Potentially Significant Effects
Under the Reduced Project Alternative, many of the potential impacts related to construction would be
similar to those of the proposed Project. Construction would still be required to develop the site, and
the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to reduce impacts related to cultural resources,
hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources during construction would still be
required. Because nighttime construction would still be required, this alternative would also result in a
significant unavoidable temporary construction noise impact. However, operational impacts under the
Reduced Project Alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project. While this
alternative would also increase employment in comparison to existing conditions and therefore also
increase VMT, this impact would be less than that of the proposed Project because this alternative
would require fewer employees to operate the warehouse and logistics center. Furthermore, this
alternative would also have less of an impact on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy than
the proposed Project because of the reduced square footage and therefore require less energy and fuel
to construct and operate.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reduced Project Alternative would attain most of the Project objectives. The warehouse would take
advantage of the area’s close proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors, it would
increase the City’s industrial base, and the new development would be consistent with the capacity and
municipal service capabilities. This alternative would still provide a Class A industrial facility that meets
industry standards for operational design, however the reduced building area may limit the variety of
industrial uses that the facility could accommodate. Therefore, while the Reduced Project Alternative
would meet most of the Project objectives, it would not attain all the Project objectives.
Finding
The Reduced Project Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations
including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
The reduced building area could limit the variety of industrial uses that the facility could accommodate,
which would not attract new businesses, expand economic development, and provide employment
opportunities in the City as much as the Project.
Reference
EIR Section 5.3.4.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 20 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
a. Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) mandates that the growth-inducing impact of a project be
discussed. This discussion is presented in Section 6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that the Project would not
result in short- or long-term growth-inducing impacts.
Short-Term Growth Inducement
During the Project construction, demand for various construction trade skills and labor would increase.
It is anticipated that this demand would be met by the local labor force and would not require
importation of a substantial number of workers that could cause an increased demand for temporary or
permanent housing in this area.
Long-Term Growth Inducement
The Project would contribute to long-term growth through the redevelopment of existing industrial
space. The Project is expected to create approximately 250 permanent jobs. None of the anticipated
uses is expected to require the importation of a specialized workforce that is not already present in the
region. While the Project has the potential to foster economic growth for the City through expanded
industrial sector uses and associated jobs, it is expected to have a limited effect on regional population
growth because it would draw from the local population for jobs. The Project would not directly or
indirectly increase population growth in the region. No significant pressure on local housing supply or
demand is expected to result from development of the Project.
The proposed Project would not include any off-site infrastructure or roadway improvements.
Stormwater drainage improvements would be made on-site, and new driveways would be constructed
to accommodate the proposed Project. These improvements would not create an expansion of
infrastructure that could induce population growth. Therefore, the Project would not remove barriers to
population growth, nor would it create growth that would overwhelm or exceed existing services. As
such, growth inducement would not be significant as a result of the Project.
b. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes that will be Caused by the Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires an evaluation of significant irreversible environmental
change that may occur as a result of project implementation. This discussion is presented in Section 6.2
of the EIR.
Irreversible environmental changes typically fall into three categories: (1) primary impacts, such as the
use of nonrenewable resources (i.e., biological habitat, agricultural land, mineral deposits, water bodies,
energy resources and cultural resources); (2) secondary impacts, such as road improvements which
provide access to previously inaccessible areas; and (3) environmental accidents potentially associated
with the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) states that irretrievable commitments of
resources should be evaluated to assure that current consumption of such resources is justified.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 21 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
As the site is currently developed with urban uses, implementation of the Project would not result in
significant irreversible impacts to biological resources, historical resources, agricultural or forestry lands,
or mineral resources. In addition, no water bodies are located on or adjacent to the site that would be
impacted by the Project. While there are no recorded or known cultural resources within the Project
site, there are recorded resources within the Project vicinity and thus, Project implementation has the
potential to cause a substantial adverse change to unknown archaeological or tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation measures are identified in the Final EIR (Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, TCR-1, TCR-2, and
TCR-3) that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance such that no irreversible changes to
cultural resources would occur.
The Project would entail the commitment of energy and non-renewable resources, such as energy in the
form of electricity, energy derived from fossil fuels, natural gas, construction materials (i.e., concrete,
asphalt, sand and gravel, petrochemicals, steel, and lumber and forest products), potable water, and
labor during the construction phase. The Project features a number of sustainability elements to
minimize its consumption of energy and non-renewable resources and associated impacts would be less
than significant. Nevertheless, use of these resources on any level would have an incremental effect on
the regional consumption of these commodities, and therefore result in long-term, irretrievable losses
of non-renewable resources, such as fuel and energy.
Lastly, the Project would not involve road or highway improvements that would provide access to
previously inaccessible areas. Further, no major environmental accidents or hazards are anticipated to
occur as a result of Project implementation.
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND REVISIONS IN THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR includes the comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. The
focus of the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues that are
raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c).
Finding/Rationale: Responses to comments made on the Draft EIR and revisions in the Final EIR merely
clarify and amplify the analysis presented in the document, and do not trigger the need to recirculate
per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081(b))
Pursuant to Section 21081(b) of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043, CEQA
requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
risks when determining whether to approve the project.
If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
acceptable pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA further requires that when
the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects
which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency
shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the EIR and/or other
information in the record.
Pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the
City, having considered all of the foregoing, finds that the following specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits associated with the Project outweigh
unavoidable adverse direct impacts related to construction noise.
The City declares that it has adopted all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the proposed
environmental impacts to a less than significant level; considered the entire administrative
record, including the EIR; and weighed the proposed benefits against its environmental impacts.
This determination is based on the following specific benefits, each of which is determined to
be, by itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding and
outweighing unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. Substantial
evidence supports the various benefits and can be found in the preceding sections (which are
incorporated by reference into this section), the Final EIR, or in documents that comprise the
Record of Proceedings for this matter.
1. The Project would create industrial sector uses in accordance with the City’s General
Plan Economic Development Element. Specifically, the Project would support the goals,
policies, and programs of this Element by attracting new businesses in the City (Goal
9.1) and revitalizing an existing industrial site with new modern industrial development
(Program 9.1.1.5).
2. The Project would create additional jobs in the City to reinforce the City as an
employment center consistent with the City’s General Plan Economic Development
Element. The Project would support the goals, policies, and programs of this Element by
promoting job-generating land uses (Goal 9.2.1) and promoting employment in various
economic sectors (Policy 9.2.2 and Program 9.2.2.1).
3. The Project would increase the local tax base and generate a positive fiscal benefit to
the City. This revenue may be spent by the City to improve vital services including police
and fire protection, parks, roads, and other infrastructure in the City. This is consistent
with the City’s General Plan Economic Development Element Goal 9.2 of maintaining the
fiscal balance of the City and Program 9.3.1.1 of encouraging land uses that generate
property tax revenue.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
Page 23 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
4. The Project would facilitate increased goods movement to foster economic
development within the City by providing additional industrial base sector uses in close
proximity to regional transportation facilities. This would be consistent with, and would
implement, goals, policies, and programs in the City’s General Plan Economic
Development Element, including Goal 9.1 to attract businesses, Policy 9.1.2 to capitalize
on the City’s location as an asset, and Program 9.1.2.1 to capitalize on the City's central
location and accessibility to freeways.
5. Implementation of the Project would further the City General Plan’s Conservation
Element policies aimed at energy conservation and sustainability. The Project would
remove existing on-site buildings and replace them with a newly constructed, single
building, which would incorporate updated technology, including improved energy
efficiency. The Project would be constructed consistent with the requirements of Title
24, which regulates green building practices and includes standards for planning and
design, water efficiency, material conservation and resource efficiency, and
environmental quality. The proposed building would incorporate several sustainability
features such as solar and electric vehicle infrastructure and would achieve a LEED Silver
certification.
The City finds in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081(b) and 21081.5, and
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043, that any, or any combination of, the Statement of
Overriding Consideration benefits noted above would be sufficient to reach the conclusion that
overriding findings justify the significant, unmitigable impacts that were found.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution Exhibt A
B-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRPs) are required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081.6 to be adopted by CEQA Lead Agencies for projects having the
potential to cause significant environmental impacts. The MMRP describes changes to the project or
conditions of project approval that mitigate or avoid the project’s potential significant effects on the
environment. This MMRP addresses the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project. A brief
description of the proposed project is provided below. The proposed project is located within the City of
Downey (City); the City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has discretionary authority over the
proposed project.
MMRP FORMAT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project are identified in the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project EIR. These mitigation
measures will become conditions of project approval if the project is approved. The City is required to
verify that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented properly and to ensure compliance, this
MMRP (including the checklist) has been formulated. The MMRP shall be adopted, along with CEQA
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, by the City (Lead Agency) and must be
administered by City personnel from the Community Development Department. Specific responsibilities
are delineated for each measure in the attached checklist table and these responsibilities may be
delegated to qualified City staff or consultants.
The checklist, which follows as Table B-1, is intended to be used by the applicant, grading/construction
contractors, and City personnel, as the appointed mitigation implementation and monitoring entities.
Information contained within the checklist clearly identifies each mitigation measure, defines the
conditions required to verify compliance, and delineates the monitoring schedule. Following is an
explanation of the three columns that constitute each MMRP checklist.
Column 1 Mitigation Measure: An inventory of each mitigation measure is provided.
Column 2 Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies what entities are responsible for determining
compliance with each mitigation measure (e.g., City of Downey Community
Development Department, construction contractor, project applicant).
Column 3 Implementation Schedule: As scheduling is dependent upon the progression of the
overall project, specific dates are not used within the “Schedule” column. Instead,
scheduling describes a logical succession of events (e.g., prior to ground-disturbing
activities, etc.) and, if necessary, delineates a follow-up program.
Column 4 Monitoring Compliance Record Name/Date: Column is left blank and is to be signed and
dated when compliance with the mitigation measure has been met.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-2
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Cultural Monitoring Program. The construction contractor shall
implement an archaeological and Native American monitoring program
during grading and other ground-disturbing activities (i.e., trenching for
utilities) which are to occur below the current layer of fill. The monitoring
program shall include the retention of a qualified archaeologist and a
Native American monitor. The archaeological and Native American
monitors shall attend a pre-construction meeting with the construction
manager and be in attendance during initial ground-disturbing activities at
the Project site. The monitors shall determine the extent of their presence
during soil disturbing activities.
The archaeological and Native American monitors shall have the authority
to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground-disturbing activity
if cultural resources are encountered. If an artifact is encountered, all
operations within 50 feet of where the artifact was found shall be
suspended immediately, the City shall be notified, and the qualified
archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall
evaluate the significance of the find. If cultural material is determined to
be significant, the qualified archaeologist shall coordinate with the
consulting tribes and City staff to develop and implement appropriate
treatment measures. Pursuant to California PRC §21083.2(b), avoidance is
the preferred method of preservation. The archaeologist and the tribal
representative shall make recommendations to the City on the measures
that will be implemented to protect the newly discovered cultural
resource(s), including but not limited to, avoidance in place, excavation,
relocation, and further evaluation of the discoveries in accordance with
CEQA.
Construction
Contractor; Qualified
Archaeologist; Native
American Monitor;
City
During grading and
other soil-disturbing
activities
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-3
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
No further ground disturbance shall occur in the area of the discovery until
the City approves the measures to protect the significant cultural
resource(s).
CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If the discovery of
human remains occurs on the Project site, the specific procedures
outlined by the NAHC, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code,
must be followed:
1. All excavation activities within 60 feet of the remains will immediately
stop, and the area will be protected with flagging or by posting a
monitor or construction worker to ensure that no additional
disturbance occurs.
2. The Project owner or their authorized representative will contact the
Los Angeles County Coroner.
3. The coroner will have two working days to examine the remains after
being notified in accordance with HSC 7050.5. If the coroner
determines that the remains are Native American and are not subject
to the coroner’s authority, the coroner will notify NAHC of the
discovery within 24 hours.
4. NAHC will immediately notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), who
will have 48 hours after being granted access to the location of the
remains to inspect them and make recommendations for their
treatment. Work will be suspended in the area of the find until the
County approves the proposed treatment of human remains.
Project Applicant/
Authorized
Representative/
Construction
Contractor
Upon discovery of
human remains
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-4
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
If human remains of Native American origin are discovered or unearthed,
the applicant shall contact the consulting Tribe, as detailed in Mitigation
Measures TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 regarding any finds and provide
information after the archaeologist makes an initial assessment of the
nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input concerning significance and
treatment. Once the find has been appropriately mitigated, as determined
and documented by a qualified archaeologist, work in the area may
resume.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: VOC-Contaminated Soil. The following shall be implemented
during Project construction to address VOC-contaminated soil:
• Soil Handling: If impacted soil is encountered, the area shall be
delineated as necessary with cones, caution tape, stakes, chalk, or
flagging and the area shall not be disturbed further until an
environmental professional is on-site for observation and
determination of whether testing and/or excavation work is required.
Stockpile staging areas shall be delineated prior to the start of
excavation. The specific equipment, means, and methods to be
utilized for soil removal, handling, and disposition shall be selected
based on the nature of the work to be conducted and its location on
the site.
Areas from which contaminated or potentially contaminated soil is
being excavated, disturbed, or handled shall be secured by temporary
fencing and/or caution tape, as appropriate. Exclusion and support
zones, if any, staging areas, and decontamination pads shall also be
delineated.
Construction
Contractor;
Environmental Field
Coordinator
During Project
construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-5
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
An environmental field coordinator shall be present full-time during
soil removal and handling activities in areas in which contaminated
soil has been encountered or has the potential to be encountered.
This individual shall be responsible for observations of soil conditions,
air monitoring, maintaining communications, ensuring compliance
with the MMP, and any oversight of sampling.
If testing of suspect materials confirm that contaminated soils are
present, notification and permitting with the SCAQMD shall be
required along with implementation of necessary mitigation controls
and monitoring pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1166.
If excavation is conducted during the rainy season (November through
April), provisions shall be made to prevent off-site migration of
sediment in runoff. Best management practices shall be implemented
for runoff control in accordance with the construction permit,
regulatory requirements, and the SWPPP. Measures may include
placement of sandbags, straw rolls, and/or hay bales to control runoff
and to act as filters. If precipitation accumulates within any
excavation, it shall be pumped out and disposed of in accordance with
federal, state, and local regulations.
• Fugitive Dust and Vapor Control: Appropriate procedures shall be
implemented to control the generation of airborne dust by soil
removal activities, including, but not limited to, some or all of the
following:
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-6
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
o Generation of dust and emission of VOCs (if any) during
construction activities shall be minimized, as necessary, by the use
of water as a dust suppressant. The water shall be available from
on-site water service, via a water truck, or through a metered
discharge from a fire hydrant located on or proximate to the
Project site. When necessary, the grading contractor shall control
dust generation by spraying water prior to daily work activities,
during excavation/loading activities (as necessary to maintain
concentrations below action levels) and at truck staging locations.
During construction activities, water equipment shall be
continuously available to provide proper control measures.
o Activities that have the potential to generate fugitive dust shall
cease in the event wind conditions change creating an
uncontrollable condition. If required, the environmental field
coordinator shall monitor on-site meteorological instrumentation
and/or coordinate with off-site meteorological professionals to
identify conditions that require cessation of work.
• Soil excavation and Stockpiling: Impacted soil that is excavated and
not immediately removed from the site shall be stockpiled on and
covered with plastic sheeting to control dust and minimize exposure
to precipitation. The edges of the plastic sheeting shall have an
overlap of at least 24 inches. Plastic sheeting shall be secured at the
base of the stockpile and along seams of overlapping plastic sheeting,
if any, with sandbags or by equivalent means. If a stockpile remains on
site during the rainy season, a perimeter sediment barrier,
constructed of material such as straw bales or fiber roll, shall also be
installed. The stockpiles shall remain covered until the soil is ready for
final disposition.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-7
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
A bi-weekly inspection of stockpiles shall be conducted, as
appropriate, to verify cover integrity. Any gaps, tears, or other
deficiencies shall be documented by the environmental field
coordinator and corrected immediately. Records shall be kept of
stockpile inspections and any repairs made. During stockpile removal,
only the working face of the stockpile shall be uncovered.
If the stockpiled impacted soil is to be transported off site for disposal
or recycling, the soil shall be profiled for waste characteristics. Waste
profiling shall consist of collecting soil samples for laboratory analysis
at the frequency required by the disposal/recycling facility to which
the soil is to be transported. A minimum of four samples shall be
collected from a stockpile of up to 1,000 cubic yards. For each
approximately 500 cubic yards of stockpile material, an additional
sample shall be collected and analyzed. Soil samples shall be analyzed
for parameters required by the disposal/recycling facility. If no specific
analytical program is required by the disposal/recycling facility,
analysis shall include VOCs, metals, and TPH.
• Air and Soil Monitoring, Sampling, and Testing: monitoring and
sampling activities to be performed shall include:
o Air Monitoring: Air monitoring shall be conducted by an air
monitoring/health and safety professional under the guidance of
the environmental field coordinator in areas where potential VOC-
contaminated soil is to be disturbed. Areas of the site requiring
such monitoring shall include those areas where ongoing
remediation is occurring. An air monitoring/health and safety
professional shall be present during ground-disturbing activities
and shall record monitoring data on field sheets, which will be
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-8
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
kept as part of Project documentation. Air monitoring shall include
the following:
Real-time aerosol monitors and industrial hygiene air sampling
equipment and media shall be deployed to measure dust
levels and/or concentration of chemicals of potential concern
in dust.
Vapor concentrations shall be monitored using an organic
vapor analyzer fitted with a photo ionization detector. If
readings using the photo ionization detector reach or exceed
50 parts per million, the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 1166 shall
be implemented, as outlined in Section (c) of Rule 1166.
o Soil Monitoring: During pre-demolition, demolition, grading, and
construction activities, visual observation of the exposed soil
beneath building foundations, floors, pavement, and subsurface
features shall be conducted by a monitoring/health and safety
professional under the guidance of the environmental field
coordinator. A field form shall be completed daily to document
the areas of soil suspected of being contaminated, if any. Any
observed discoloration, odor, or other evidence of potential
hazardous materials shall be documented and serve as the basis
for further evaluation.
o Soil Sampling and Testing: Based on field indications, soil samples
may be collected to evaluate the presence of suspected chemicals
or compounds in exposed soil. Selected soil samples shall be
analyzed by an appropriately certified, off-site laboratory, with the
analytical methods selected based on the following criteria:
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-9
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Visual and Olfactory Observation: Soil that is odorous or
appears dark or oil stained shall be analyzed for TPH by EPA
Method 8015M modified and for VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Soil that appears discolored in a manner typical of metals
impacts (e.g., red, yellow, green, gray, silvery) shall be
analyzed for California Code of Regulations Title 22 metals
using EPA Method 6010B/7000.
Elevated VOC Levels: A soil sample (or samples) shall be
collected for laboratory testing if the headspace VOC
measurement exceeds 100 ppm, as measured with a photo
ionization detector calibrated to hexane during the on-site
screening. Samples may be analyzed for VOCs using EPA
Method 8260 (VOCs) and/or TPH by EPA Method 8015M
modified.
Soil samples for laboratory analysis shall be collected using
hand tools (for instance hand auger or hand trowel) and
placed in glass jars, brass tubes, or other appropriate
containers. Samples to be analyzed for VOCs (if deemed
necessary) shall be field preserved using EPA Method 5035.
After collection, samples shall be sealed, uniquely labeled, and
placed in a chilled cooler pending delivery to the analytical
laboratory. All soil samples shall be tracked from point of
collection through the laboratory using chain-of-custody
documentation. Reuseable soil sampling equipment (hand
auger, trowel, shovel, etc.) shall be decontaminated prior to
re-use to reduce the potential for cross-contamination.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-10
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Laboratory analytical data shall also be used to characterize
excavated soil to determine the appropriate location for off-site
disposal. Soil with no visual or olfactory evidence of impacts and
not containing chemicals of potential concern may be re-used on
the Project site. Soil export manifest records documenting the
destination of all excavated and exported soil shall be maintained.
• Import Fill Soils: Off-site soils brought to the Project site for use as
backfill (import fill), if necessary, shall be tested in general
conformance with the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill
Material document (2001). Import fill shall be tested for target
compounds based on knowledge of the fill source area; however, as a
minimum, the fill should be tested for the following constituents (or
have been tested and documented at the source):
o TPH-cc using EPA Method 8015
o VOCs using EPA Method 8260B
o Title 22 metals using EPA Methods 6010B/7471
o Pesticides using EPA Method 8081A
Other analyses may be required contingent on the source of the
import fill or recommendations by the supervising professional. A
minimum of one sample for laboratory analysis is suggested per
1,000 tons of import fill per borrow site (single source). For quantities
above 5,000 tons of import fill per borrow site (single source), one
sample for laboratory analysis is suggested per 5,000 tons of import
fill.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-11
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
HAZ-2: Asbestos-Containing Material Removal. Prior to issuance of
demolition permits, removal of asbestos-containing materials shall be
conducted in the buildings at 9301 Stewart and Gray, 9400 Hall Road,
9399 Stewart and Gray Road, and 9333/9363 Stewart and Gray Road. A
Licensed State of California asbestos abatement contractor must remove
all known asbestos-containing materials, consistent with applicable
Division of Occupational Safety (Title 8, Industrial Relations, Division 1.
Department of Industrial Relations, Chapter 4. Division of Industrial Safety,
Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 4. Dust Fumes, Mists,
Vapors, and Gases, Section 1529. Asbestos) and SCAQMD (Rule 1403 –
Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/ Renovation Activities) guidelines.
The Licensed State of California asbestos abatement contractor shall
provide documentation of removal activities to the City.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
Prior to demolition
and construction
HAZ-3: Lead-Based Paint Removal. Prior to issuance of demolition
permits, removal of lead-based paint shall be conducted in the building at
9400 Hall Road. The removal of lead-containing materials shall comply
with applicable regulations for demolition methods and dust suppression.
Lead containing materials shall be managed in accordance with applicable
regulations including, at a minimum, the hazardous waste disposal
requirements (CCR Title 22, Division 4.5); and the State Lead Accreditation,
Certification and Work Practice Requirements (CCR Title 17, Division 1,
Chapter 8). Verification that the specified procedures were followed shall
be provided to the City.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
Prior to demolition
and construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-12
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Noise
NOI-1: Construction Activity Limits. The Project applicant or designated
contractor shall obtain permits for Project construction activities from the
City. The City shall ensure all permits contain restrictions to construction
hours, and nighttime work requirements described below.
All construction activity with the exception of concrete pouring as
specified below shall be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and at any time on Sundays or on
any City recognized public holiday. Delivery of materials or equipment to
the site and construction truck traffic coming to and from the site shall be
prohibited during the same hours specified above.
If, due to weather condition (e.g., high temperatures), pouring of concrete
at night or on Sundays or on any City recognized public holiday is required,
the Project applicant or designated contractor shall provide written
notification of nighttime/weekend concrete work to all residences located
within 300 feet of the Project site. The notification shall:
• Be delivered a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencement of
nighttime work;
• Include the days and hours of upcoming concrete poring nighttime
work; and
• Include noise complaint contact information, including phone
numbers and email addresses to register noise complaints with both
the construction contractor and the City.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor; City of
Downey Community
Development
Department
Prior to and during
construction
activities
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-13
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
The City and the construction contractor shall log all received noise
complaints. The construction contractor shall submit to the City a daily log
of all noise complaints received, including the date and time of the
complaint and address of the complainant (if provided). The City shall
work with the construction contractor to respond to noise complaints and
limit nighttime work and locations of noise generating equipment to the
extent feasible.
Transportation
TR-1: Transportation Demand Management Plan. The Project Applicant
shall prepare a formal Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of grading or
building permits. The TDM Plan shall identify the TDM measures that will
be implemented for the Project and shall include documentation of how
both physical measures (e.g., bike lockers, designated carpool parking
spaces, etc.) and programmatic measures (e.g., guaranteed ride home
program, employee transportation coordinator, etc.) will be provided. The
TDM Plan shall be implemented for the life of the Project and shall
include, at a minimum, the TDM strategies listed below (TDM Strategies
T-7, T-8, and T-10) to reduce significant VMT impacts. If new TDM
measures are proposed by the site owner or tenant after City approval of
the TDM Plan, a new TDM plan shall be submitted for review and approval
and shall include an analysis that demonstrates that the selected
measures are expected to achieve the same or greater trip and VMT
reductions as demonstrated by this Project-specific analysis.
Project Applicant; City
of Downey
Community
Development
Department
Prior to construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-14
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
• T-7. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing. The Project
Applicant shall implement a marketing strategy to promote the
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR). Information sharing and marketing
educates employees about their travel choices to and from the
location and promotes alternatives to driving such as carpooling,
taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT. Effective
marketing strategies incorporate the following features or similar
alternatives:
o On-site or online commuter information services.
o Employee transportation coordinators.
o On-site or online transit pass sales.
o Guaranteed ride home service.
The Project Applicant shall provide information on available travel
options to and from the Project site in a clear and easily accessible
location (e.g., a bulletin board in a common employee area), including
information on where transit passes may be purchased online or in
person. The Project Applicant shall also designate an employee
transportation coordinator who will be able to provide information
and/or administer a guaranteed ride home service. Such services may
consist of providing free or subsidized rides upon request via taxis or
other transportation network companies (TNC) such as Uber or Lyft.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-15
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
• T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program. The Project Applicant shall
implement a ridesharing program. Ridesharing encourages carpooled
vehicle trips in place of single-occupancy vehicle trips, thereby
reducing the number of trips and VMT. Ridesharing may be promoted
through a multifaceted approach, such as designating parking spaces
for ridesharing/carpooling vehicles, dedicating loading and waiting
zones, and coordinating rides. The Project Applicant shall provide
designated parking spaces for carpool vehicles in a
convenient/preferential location, and a designated waiting area for
employees participating in ridesharing which is comfortable and
convenient. The Project Applicant should facilitate the process of
arranging ridesharing or carpooling matches, either through a
website/app or via the employee transportation coordinator (refer to
TDM measure T-7 above).
• T-10. Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities. The Project Applicant shall
provide end-of-trip bicycle facilities such as secure bike parking,
showers, and personal lockers. Providing and maintaining secure bike
parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle,
thereby reducing VMT. The Project Applicant shall provide secure
bicycle parking (e.g., bicycle lockers) in an easily accessible, well-lit
location. Additionally, the Project Applicant shall provide showers and
changing rooms.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-16
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of
Ground-Disturbing Activities.
a. The Project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American
Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
– Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the
commencement of any ground-disturbing activity for the subject
Project at all Project locations(i.e., both on-site and any off-site
locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or
required in connection with the Project, such as public improvement
work). Ground-disturbing activity shall include, but is not limited to,
demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree
removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to
the lead agency prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing
activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a
ground-disturbing activity.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor; Native
American Monitor
Prior to
commencement of
any ground-
disturbing activities
and during
construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-17
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide
descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of
construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing
activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts,
conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including
but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts,
remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural
resources, or TCR), as well as any discovered Native American
(ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs
will be provided to the Project applicant/lead agency upon written
request to the Tribe.
d. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the
following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point
of contact for the Project applicant/lead agency that all ground-
disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing
activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are
complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh
to the Project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned
construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the
Project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
e. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the
surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has
been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The
Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or
manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion,
and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for
educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-18
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated
Funerary Objects.
a. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as
an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or
skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods
in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated
according to this statute.
b. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or
recognized on the Project site, then all construction activities shall
immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section7050.5 dictates
that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately
reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities
shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has
determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the
human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to
believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by
telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission,
and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor; Native
American Monitor
During construction
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per
California PRC Section5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the Project site at
a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or
burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that resuming
construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the
project manager express consent of that determination (along with
any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist
deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5(f).)
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-19
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
e. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of
treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any
historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin
(non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum
of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution
agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or
historical society in the area for educational purposes.
f. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept
confidential to prevent further disturbance.
TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains.
a. As the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy
shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains”
encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic
times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the
preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with
the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
b. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the
discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate
treatment plan shall be created.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor; Kizh Tribe;
Qualified
Archaeologist
During construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-20
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
c. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same
manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary
objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a
culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual
human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made
exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also
be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either
be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete
recovery of all sacred materials.
d. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully
documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be
covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by
heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the
remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard
should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every
effort to recommend diverting the Project and keeping the remains in
situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be
determined that burials will be removed.
e. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith
efforts by the Project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before
ground-disturbing activities may resume on the Project site, the
landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint
of the Project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or
ceremonial objects.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-21
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
f. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects
will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary
objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be
removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should
be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of
reburial/repatriation shall be on the Project site but at a location
agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be
protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any
cultural materials recovered.
g. The Tribe will work closely with the Project’s qualified archaeologist to
ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically, and
respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation
shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed
descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-
related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the
Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report
shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT
authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on human remains.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-22
This page intentionally left blank
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
1.Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment;
2.Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been or can or should be adopted by that other agency; or
3.Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations
for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(b) be supported
by substantial evidence in the record. Under CEQA, substantial evidence means that enough relevant
information has been provided (and reasonable inferences from this information may be made) that a
fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be
reached. Substantial evidence may include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and
expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15384).
CEQA further requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects
when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)).
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in
writing the specific reasons to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the
record.
If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the
record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. This statement
does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
CANDIDATE FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
for the
PROLOGIS STEWART AND GRAY ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
SCH No. 2022030738
I. INTRODUCTION
a. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Candidate Findings are made for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
(Project). The environmental effects of the Project are addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (Final EIR) dated March 2024, which is incorporated by reference herein.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [Section 21081(a)] and the CEQA Guidelines
[Section15091(a)] require that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
been completed which identifies one or more significant effects thereof, unless such public agency
makes one or more of the following findings:
Page 2 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No.
2022030738), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of
Downey (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis
for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies
for the implementation of the Project.
b.Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Record of
Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence:
•The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the Project;
•All responses to the NOP received by the City;
•The Final EIR;
•The Draft EIR;
•All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review
comment period on the Draft EIR;
•All responses to the written comments included in the Final EIR;
•All written and oral public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the Project at
which such testimony was taken;
•The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
•The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in any responses to comments in
the Final EIR;
•All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in, or otherwise relied
upon during the preparation of, the EIR;
•Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local
laws and regulations;
•Any documents expressly cited in these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations;
and
•Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code Section 21167.6(e).
c.Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the City’s actions on
the Project are located at the City’s Community Development Department, 11111 Brookshire Avenue,
1st Floor, Downey, CA 90241. The City’s Community Development Department is the custodian of the
Project’s administrative record. Copies of the document that constitute the record of proceedings are on
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 3 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
the City’s website and at all relevant times have been available upon request at the offices of the City’s
Community Development Department. The Draft EIR and Final EIR were placed on the City’s website at
https://www.downeyca.org/our-city/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/environmental-
documents. This information is provided in compliance with the Public Resources Code 21081.6(a)(2)
and CEQA Guidelines 15091(e).
II.PROJECT SUMMARY
a.Project Location
The Project site is located on an approximately 29.16-acre site in the southeastern portion of the City in
the southern portion of Los Angeles County (County). The Project site is located approximately ten miles
southeast of downtown Los Angeles and nine miles northwest of the County of Orange. Regional access
is provided via the following freeways: the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5 [I-5]), the San Gabriel
Freeway (I-605), the Century Freeway (I-105), and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710). The Project site is
bounded by Hall Road on the north, Woodruff Road on the east, Stewart and Gray Road on the south,
and an industrial building on the west. The site is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 6284-019-013
through 017. Primary vehicular access to the Project site is provided by Stewart and Gray Road and
Hall Road.
b.Project Description
The proposed Project would include the demolition of the existing buildings totaling approximately
433,000 square feet (SF) and the construction of an approximately 535,685-SF industrial concrete tilt-up
building for warehouse/logistics uses. The Project would include 683 automobile parking spaces, 255
trailer and/or container parking spaces, and 109 dock loading doors. The new industrial building would
be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold
storage. Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse (508,900 SF) would be high cube fulfillment and
the remaining 5 percent (26,785 SF) would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space). The
facility would also include 20,000 SF of office area and 25,000 SF of mezzanine area within the
535,685-SF building. On-site activities would include storage, distribution, and/or consolidation of
manufactured goods, and last-mile fulfillment and delivery; and general industrial/warehouse with
refrigeration and cold storage component for the purposes of receiving, storing, shipping of food and/or
beverage products. The office space would be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse
operations. The proposed facility would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The building would include concrete tilt up panels on all sides of the building. The southeast, southwest,
and northwest sides of the building would be the entrance to the office component and would include
glazed windows, metal and wood side paneling, metal canopies at select locations, enhanced exterior
building materials and building modulation. Exterior and interior glazing would be tempered with vision
glass and spandrel glass at the main entryways and around the perimeter of the building.
The proposed building would be up to 55 feet tall with a rectilinear form. Roof lines on each side would
generally be uniformly linear but each elevation would be modular such that every 50 to 60 feet of the
façade would have varied design elements of material, color, and pattern to provide articulation.
Mechanical equipment (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units) would be placed on the rooftops
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 4 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
and screened by parapet walls incorporated into the design of the building. Proposed color schemes
would be predominantly gray and white, with browns and silvers associated with wood and metal siding,
and blue glazing on the windows.
In addition, the Project would include landscaping totaling 10.5 percent of the site area, and a perimeter
screen wall. Ornamental landscaping would be provided along the Stewart and Gray Road and Hall Road
frontages, as well as at the building entrances and within parking areas.
c.Discretionary Actions
The Final EIR is intended to provide documentation pursuant to CEQA to cover all local, regional, and
state permits and/or approvals that may be needed to implement the Project. Implementation of the
Project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City:
•Site Plan Review
•Conditional Use Permit
•Variance of Standards (for building height)
•Lot Merger
•Demolition Permit
•Grading Permit
•Building Permit
•Temporary Use of Land Permit (for nighttime construction)
Permits by other Responsible and/or Trustee Agencies include:
•National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to ensure consistency with water quality
protection requirements during construction.
d.Project Objectives
The objectives of the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project include the following:
•Create a professional, well-maintained, and attractive environment for the development of a
warehouse building consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation
infrastructure.
•Expand economic development, attract new businesses, and provide employment opportunities
in the City of Downey.
•Increase the industrial base in the City of Downey by providing a Class A industrial facility that
meets industry standards for operational design and can accommodate a wide variety of
industrial uses.
•Facilitate a project that provides goods for the regional economy.
•Design the facility for energy efficiency and sustainability.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 5 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
•Encourage warehouse development as attractive and productive uses while minimizing conflicts
to the extent possible with the surrounding existing uses.
•Encourage new warehouse distribution services that take advantage of the area’s close
proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors to reduce traffic congestion on
surface streets and to reduce concomitant air pollution emission from vehicle sources.
•Encourage new development consistent with the capacity and municipal service capabilities.
III.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The lead agency approving the Project and conducting environmental review under CEQA (California
Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder in California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines)), shall be the City. The City as
lead agency shall be primarily responsible for carrying out the Project. In compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15082, the City published a NOP on March 29, 2022, which began a 30-day period for
comments on the appropriate scope of the EIR. Consistent with CEQA Section 21083.9, the City held a
public agency scoping meeting on April 18, 2022 at Downey City Hall in the City Council Chamber. The
purpose of this meeting was to seek input and concerns from the public regarding the environmental
issues that may potentially result from the Project.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(d)(3), HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. prepared and
submitted environmental documents to the City on behalf of the applicant. The City reviewed and
approved the Draft EIR for public circulation. The City filed a Notice of Completion with the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, indicating that the Draft EIR had been completed
and was available for review and comment by the public. The City also posted a Notice of Availability of
the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. The Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for
public review and comment beginning on December 12, 2023 and ending on January 25, 2024. After the
close of public review, the City prepared the Final EIR, which provided responses in writing to comments
received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR, dated March 2024, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines.
The Final EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Project. The
Final EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers and the
public regarding the objectives and components of the Project. The Final EIR addresses the potential
significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Project and identifies feasible mitigation
measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. The Final EIR is
the primary reference document for the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program for the Project.
The City, acting as the Lead Agency, certifies with these Findings that the Final EIR reflects the City’s own
independent judgment and analysis under Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(a)-(c) and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090(a)(3).
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 6 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
IV.SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Impacts associated with specific issue areas (e.g., transportation and noise) resulting from approval of
the Project and future implementation are discussed below.
The Final EIR concludes the Project will have no impacts with respect to the following issue areas:
•Agriculture and Forestry Resources
•Mineral Resources
•Recreation
The Final EIR concludes the Project will have a less than significant impact and requires no mitigation
measures with respect to the following issue areas:
•Aesthetics
•Air Quality
•Biological Resources
•Energy
•Geology and Soils
•Greenhouse Gas Emissions
•Hydrology and Water Quality
•Population and Housing
•Public Services
•Utilities and Service Systems
•Wildfire
The Final EIR concludes the Project will potentially have a significant impact but mitigated to below a
level of significance with respect to the following issue areas:
•Cultural Resources
•Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•Land Use and Planning
•Transportation
•Tribal Cultural Resources
The Final EIR concludes the Project will potentially have a significant unmitigated impact and no
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to below a level of significance for the
following issue area:
•Noise (nighttime construction noise)
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 7 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
V.FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
a. Introduction
The findings reported in the following pages incorporate the facts and discussions in the Final EIR,
including the responses to comments, for the Project as fully set forth therein. For each of the significant
impacts associated with the Project, the following discussion is provided:
•Environmental Impact: A specific description of the environmental effects identified in the EIR,
including a conclusion regarding the significance of the impact.
•Facts in Support of Finding: A summary of the reasons for the finding(s).
•Mitigation Measures: Identified feasible mitigation measures or actions, that are required as
part of the Project, and if mitigation is infeasible, the reasons supporting the finding that the
rejected mitigation is infeasible.
•Finding: One or more of the three specific findings set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
1.Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment;
2.Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been or can or should be adopted by that other agency; or
3.Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final
EIR.
•Reference: A notation on the specific section in the Final EIR that includes the evidence and
discussion of the identified impact.
b.Findings Regarding Impacts that Can Be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance
The City, having independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and
the record of proceedings, finds pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1) AND adopts the following findings regarding the significant effects of the Project, as follows:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, avoid, or
substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR. The basis for
this conclusion follows.
i.Cultural Resources (Historical Resources)
Environmental Impact: The possibility exists that unknown, buried historical resources may be present
within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown
historical resources within the Project area.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 8 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Facts in Support of Finding: A project-specific Historical Resources Evaluation Report was prepared to
evaluate the existing buildings on the Project site. None of the buildings were found to be of significant
historic value. The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a records search for
an area that included the Project site and a one-mile radius around it. The records search and study did
not identify any known historical resources within the Project area. The entire Project area has been
disturbed by previous agricultural activities, irrigation systems, road construction, transportation
(railway) and utility (transmission and gas line) installation, and manufacturing uses. The entire Project
site is currently developed and has been since the 1950s. Two buildings were identified in the archival
research as being present in the Project area between 1896 and 1951, both likely associated with the
previous agricultural uses. These were demolished and replaced with the existing on-site buildings
beginning in the early 1950s. Considering the extended presence of parking lots and limited change to
the Project area since 1952, it is possible that there are cultural resources associated with the small
structure identified in the archival research as having been present in the northwest corner of the
Project site under the asphalt. There is also the possibility of similar resources present in the northeast
corner, but development in that portion of the Project area has likely destroyed or heavily impacted
possible resources there. While no historical resources were identified during the cultural and historic
resources studies, the possibility exists that unknown, buried historical resources may be present within
the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown historical
resources within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of historical
resources and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program during grading
and other ground-disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on-site fill soils.
Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown
historical resources to a less than significant level. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on
the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.6.
ii.Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources)
Impact: The possibility exists that unknown, buried archaeological resources may be present within the
Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown archaeological
resources within the Project area.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a
records search for an area that included the Project site and a one-mile radius around it. The records
search and study did not identify any known archaeological resources within the Project area. Due to
the presently developed nature of the site, the Project area did not undergo an intensive pedestrian
survey and so the ground surface was not investigated. The Project site is located in alluvial soils, where
there is the potential for buried cultural resources. As discussed above under V.b.i, it is possible that
there are buried cultural resources in the northwest and northeast corners of the Project site under the
asphalt. While no archaeological resources were identified during the cultural resources study, the
possibility exists that unknown, buried archaeological resources may be present within the Project site.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 9 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown archaeological resources
within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of
archaeological resources and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program
during grading and other ground-disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on-site fill
soils.
Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown
archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Thus, changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects
on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.6.
iii. Cultural Resources (Human Remains)
Impact: The proposed Project may disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a
records search for an area that included the Project site and a one-mile radius around it. Additionally, a
Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
The records search and SLF did not reveal any resources known to contain human remains within or
near the Project site. While no human remains are known to be present on the Project site,
implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in unanticipated discovery of human
remains through discovery of unknown burial sites. As such, the proposed Project could cause a
significant impact to cultural resources associated with unknown human remains within the Project
area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of
archaeological resources, including human remains, and would require implementation of a cultural
resources monitoring program during grading and other ground-disturbing activities that would extend
below the existing on-site fill soils. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires proper treatment of human
remains, if found, in accordance with applicable laws, including Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If human remains are found during
excavation, excavation would be halted in the vicinity of the find until the County Coroner has
investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of
the remains.
Finding: Substantial adverse changes to the significance of human remains resulting from
implementation of the proposed Project would be reduced to below the level of significance through
the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, which is in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as
identified in the Final EIR.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 10 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.6.
iv. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Release of Hazardous Materials)
Impact: The proposed Project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment associated with on-site contaminated soils and groundwater and presence of
hazardous building materials.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been impacted by historical use of hazardous materials
in various manufacturing processes. As a result of these uses, the soil and groundwater beneath the site
have been exposed to various constituents and contamination at the site has been documented. During
soil vapor testing, volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations in samples exceeded regulatory
screening levels for trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), chloroform, and benzene.
Groundwater samples contained VOCs exceeding regulatory levels for TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethene
(cis-1,2-DCE). The Project site is the subject of an ongoing cleanup and remediation process, which
includes indoor air quality monitoring, groundwater monitoring, and operation of a soil vapor extraction
system.
Based on the results of the investigations for asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, and the
presence of lead in drinking water, demolition activities associated with the Project could result in
releases of asbestos and lead associated with the presence of asbestos-containing material and lead-
based paint. The risk of release of asbestos would be associated with the removal of the buildings at
9301 Stewart and Gray, 9400 Hall Road, 9399 Stewart and Gray Road, and 9333/9363 Stewart and Gray
Road. The risk of release of lead would be associated with the removal of the building at 9400 Hall Road.
Release of these hazardous materials could result in a potentially significant impact to the public and
environment.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 addresses VOC-contaminated soil and includes specific
recommendations and protocols that would be implemented during Project construction activities.
Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 address removal of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based
paint in accordance with regulatory requirements prior to building demolition.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3, along with compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements, potential impacts associated with
accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or
substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.7.6.
v. Land Use and Planning (Consistency with Land Use Plans Adopted for the Purpose of
Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect)
Impact: The proposed Project may conflict with General Plan Circulation Element polices that discourage
land uses that generate high amounts of truck traffic.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 11 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element
requirement for acceptable level of service (LOS) of D or less, as analyzed intersections in the Project
vicinity that are part of the City’s Circulation Element roadway network would operate at a LOS D or
better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.3.3 , however,
discourages land uses that generate high amounts of truck traffic. While the Project would replace a
similar industrial use, it would result in increased traffic trips and an increase in traffic in the Project
vicinity. However, the supporting Programs identified in the Circulation Element under Policy 2.3.3
further specify to discourage land uses that attract high amounts of truck traffic without corresponding
benefits to the community (Program 2.3.3.1). The Project would provide additional industrial sector uses
that provide goods movement services and employment opportunities for the community and region.
Program 2.3.3.2 requires discretionary approvals for land uses generating high amounts of truck traffic,
including general warehouses, truck parking, truck company headquarters, and distribution centers. The
Project is subject to the City’s discretionary approval process to identify and minimize potential impacts.
With regard to transportation, and as identified below in Section V.b.vi, the Project would result in
potentially significant transportation impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and as such, would
potentially be inconsistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.3.3, resulting in a potentially
significant land use impact.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure TR-1 would require implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program for the life of the Project that identifies TDM measures to be
implemented for the Project and documentation of how both physical measures (e.g., bike lockers,
designated carpool parking spaces, etc.) and programmatic measures (e.g., guaranteed ride home
program, employee transportation coordinator, etc.) would be provided.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, impacts related to consistency with land use
plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be reduced to
less than significant. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as
identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.9.6.
vi. Transportation (VMT)
Impact: The proposed Project would be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b) regarding VMT.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project is forecast to generate a baseline employment VMT of
19.2 VMT per employee. Application of VMT reduction project design features, including increased job
density (i.e., VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of jobs
compared to the average job density in the Country) would reduce the Project’s VMT to 17.3 per
employee, but this would still exceed the South County threshold of 15.3 VMT per employee. Therefore,
the Project would result in a significant VMT impact.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure TR-1 would require implementation of a TDM Program that
identifies TDM measures to be implemented for the Project and documentation of how both physical
measures (e.g., bike lockers, designated carpool parking spaces, etc.) and programmatic measures
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 12 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
(e.g., guaranteed ride home program, employee transportation coordinator, etc.) would be provided.
The TDM Plan would be implemented for the life of the Project and would include TDM strategies
related to commute trip reduction, ridesharing, and bicycle facilities to reduce significant VMT impacts.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, VMT impacts would be reduced to less than
significant. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the
Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11.6.
vii. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact: The possibility exists that unknown, buried historical resources may be present within the
Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown historical
resources within the Project area.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a
records search for an area that included the Project site and a one-mile radius around it. The records
search did not identify any tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historic Resources or a local register of historical resources. Additionally, the NAHC did not identify
any known sacred lands or Native American cultural resources within the Project area, but that the area
may be sensitive for cultural resources. During the Assembly Bill 52 tribal consultation with the Kizh
Nation, Tribal representatives indicated that the Project area has a high sensitivity for the presence of
unknown, subsurface tribal cultural resources. The Kizh Nation provided confidential information to the
City identifying culturally sensitive areas within the Project area that may be affected by subsurface
ground disturbance activities. Thus, although no tribal cultural resources were identified during the
cultural and historic resources studies, the possibility exists that unknown, buried tribal cultural
resources may be present within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a
significant impact to unknown tribal cultural resources within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of cultural
resources and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program during grading
and other ground-disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on-site fill soils. Mitigation
Measure CUL-2 requires proper treatment of human remains, if found, in accordance with applicable
laws, including Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public
Resources Code. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted in the
vicinity of the find until the County Coroner has investigated and appropriate recommendations have
been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains.
In addition to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would incorporate mitigation measures
recommended by the Kizh Nation concerning potential impacts to as-yet undiscovered tribal cultural
resources. The mitigation measures include requirements for procedures in the event of an
unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural and archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure TCR-1),
retaining a Native American Monitor/Consultant (Mitigation Measure TCR-2), and procedures for the
unanticipated discovery of burials and human remains (Mitigation Measure TCR-3).
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 13 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, CUL-2, TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3, impacts to
tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the
significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.6.
c. Findings Regarding Impacts that are Found to be Significant and Unavoidable
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Record of
Proceedings and pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3),
hereby finds that the environmental impacts described below for Noise are significant and unavoidable,
and there is no feasible mitigation that can be applied to reduce these impacts to below a level of
significance. “Feasible” is defined in Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean “capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” The CEQA statute (Section 21081) and
Guidelines (Section 15019(a)(3)) also provide that “other” considerations may form the basis for a
finding of infeasibility.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030738) as described below.
These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in Section 4.10 of the EIR.
i. Noise (Construction)
Impact: Project construction activities associated with nighttime concrete pouring would generate a
substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site.
Facts in Support of Finding: Due to high daytime temperatures, pouring of concrete for Project
construction may be required to be conducted at night. The combined noise from two concrete mixer
trucks, a concrete pump truck, and a backhoe (all working in close proximity to each other) would result
in a combined time-averaged noise level of 64.9 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at a distance of 300 feet.
Concrete pouring equipment could be stationary for more than an hour and positioned near the Project
property lines. Therefore, noise-sensitive land uses within 300 feet of the Project site could be exposed
to temporary construction noise more than 10 dBA above nighttime ambient noise levels. Project
nighttime concrete pouring noise would be potentially significant.
It is anticipated that nighttime concrete pouring work would occur on approximately 40 nights during
Project construction. Included in those 40 nights, approximately 12 consecutive nights (including on
weekends) would be required to pour the building slab foundation/floor. Typical nighttime concrete
pouring work would require the use of multiple concrete mixer trucks, a concrete pump truck, and a
backhoe. Nighttime concrete pouring work would typically commence at midnight with pouring
completed by mid-morning and concrete finishing work continuing into the afternoon.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 14 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require written notification of potential
nighttime/weekend concrete work and the anticipated duration to all residences located within 300 feet
of the Project site at least 48 hours in advance.
Finding: Mitigation measure NOI-1 is identified and would be implemented; however, it would not
reduce Project temporary construction-related noise levels to acceptable limits. Further, because some
of the affected residents within 300 feet of the Project site are within the upper levels of a two-story
building, other noise-reducing mitigation such as temporary sound walls would have to be unreasonably
high (more than 20 feet) to provide adequate noise reduction and would not be feasible. Impacts
associated with nighttime concrete pouring noise would be significant and unavoidable. Thus, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the provision
of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Sections 4.10.6 and 4.10.8.
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
ANOTHER AGENCY (CEQA 21081(A)(2) AND CEQA GUIDELINES 15091 (A)(2))
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Record of
Proceedings, finds pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) that
there are no changes or alterations which could reduce significant impacts that are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR must contain a discussion of “a range of
reasonable alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)
further states that "the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that requires
the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice." Thus, the following
discussion focuses on project alternatives that are capable of eliminating significant environmental
impacts or substantially reducing them as compared to the proposed Project, even if the alternative
would impede the attainment of some project objectives, or would be more costly. In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1), among the factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives are: (1) site suitability; (2) economic viability; (3) availability of
infrastructure; (4) general plan consistency; (5) other plans or regulatory limitations; (6) jurisdictional
boundaries; and (7) whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to
the alternative site.
As required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), in developing the alternatives to be addressed in this
section, consideration was given to an alternative’s ability to meet most of the basic objectives of the
project. Because the Project will cause potentially significant environmental effects unless mitigated, the
City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the Project, evaluating
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 15 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental
effects while achieving most of the objectives of the Project.
The alternatives presented and considered in the Final EIR constitute a reasonable range of alternatives
necessary to permit a reasoned choice among the options available to the City and/or the Project
proponent. The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the
Record of Proceedings, and pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(3), makes the following findings with respect to the alternatives identified in the
Final EIR.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030738) as described below. “Feasible”
is defined in Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean “capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
legal, social, and technological factors.” The CEQA statute (Section 21081) and Guidelines (Section
15019(a)(3)) also provide that “other considerations” may form the basis for a finding of infeasibility.
a. Alternatives under Consideration
The Project alternatives are summarized below along with the findings relevant to each alternative.
i. No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e), requires that an EIR evaluate a “no project” alternative along with
its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow a lead agency to
compare the impacts of approving the project to the impacts of not approving it. Under the No Project
Alternative, the project would not be implemented, and the site would remain in its current condition.
Accordingly, the No Project Alternative assumes that the Project would not be adopted, no demolition
of the existing buildings would occur, and the new warehouse building would not be constructed.
Potentially Significant Effects
The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unmitigated (or unavoidable) impacts to
noise (construction noise) identified for the Project. It would also not result in any changes to VMT in
comparison to existing conditions and would therefore, eliminate the need for mitigation related to
transportation, which is also related to land use plan policy consistency impacts. Additionally, the No
Project Alternative would avoid all other less than significant impacts of the Project. The majority of the
impacts necessitating mitigation are related to construction of the proposed Project. The No Project
Alternative would not involve construction, which would eliminate the need for mitigation measures
related to cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources.
Facts In Support of Finding
While the No Project Alternative would avoid the significant environmental effects associated with
Project, it would not achieve most of the objectives of the proposed Project and the benefits of the
proposed Project would not be realized under the No Project Alternative. This alternative would leave
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 16 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
the site as-is and the proposed Project would not be constructed, and therefore this alternative would
not create a warehouse building that would expand the City’s industrial base, expand economic
development, provide a new Class A industrial facility, or provide a new energy-efficient and sustainable
facility.
Finding
The No Project Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations
including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
This alternative is rejected because it could not feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the Project.
Reference
EIR Section 5.3.1.
ii. Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative
Under the Reuse of Existing Building Alternative, the existing buildings and associated facilities on-site
would be retained and reoccupied by the Project applicant for use as a warehouse and logistics facility.
The existing buildings, which encompass a total of approximately 433,000 SF, would be re-used as a
warehouse and logistics center. The physical conditions of the Project site would generally remain as
they are today.
Potentially Significant Effects
Under this alternative, the environmental impacts would be similar to those identified for the No Project
Alternative discussed above in Section VII.a.i. The reuse of existing buildings would eliminate the need
for demolition and construction of new structures and therefore would eliminate the need for the
mitigation measures related to construction that were identified in this EIR for cultural resources,
hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Thus, it would avoid the significant
unavoidable temporary construction noise impact of the proposed Project. The reuse of existing
buildings as a warehouse and logistics center may result in an increase in VMT over existing conditions.
However, due to the reduced square footage of the warehouse and logistics center, this increase in VMT
would likely be less than the projected increase in VMT under the proposed Project and with the
implementation of mitigation measure TR-1 would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impacts
related to land use plan policy consistency also would be similar to the proposed Project given the
potential increase and associated VMT impacts. As with the proposed Project, impacts to aesthetics
would be less than significant but visual quality would not be improved if the existing buildings would
remain and the site improvements associated with the proposed Project would not be constructed.
Potential geology and soils impacts would also be less than significant like the Project but could be
slightly more severe because the existing older buildings would not be replaced with a new modern
building designed in conformance with current seismic design parameters. The Reuse of Existing
Buildings Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to air quality, energy, and GHG
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 17 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
emissions, but the impacts would be slightly less than those associated with the Project given the
reduced building space.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative would not meet the majority of the objectives identified for
the Project. This alternative would locate the warehouse near efficient access points to various freeways
and transportation corridors, facilitate a project that provides goods for the regional economy, and
provide employment opportunities in the City. While this alternative would continue to generate
revenue, the Project site is currently underutilized. This alternative would use the existing buildings and
facilities on the Project site for warehouse and logistics uses and has the potential to continue providing
goods to the local economy. Due to changing demands in the warehouse industry and the condition and
type of buildings on the existing site, the availability of potential tenants could be limited due to the age
of the existing buildings. Therefore, this alternative may not be able to meet the objective of expanding
economic development and attracting new businesses to the City. This alternative would also fail to
provide a Class A industrial facility that meets industry standards for operational design. The existing
facilities also lack the energy efficiency and sustainability design features included as an objective for the
proposed Project.
Finding
The Reuse of Existing Building Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other
considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
This alternative is rejected because it could not accomplish most objectives of the Project.
Reference
EIR Section 5.3.2.
iii. Reduced Building Height Alternative
The Reduced Building Height Alternative would develop the warehouse largely as described in this EIR,
but with a reduced maximum building height of 45 feet. As the maximum building height of the
proposed Project evaluated in this EIR is 55 feet, this would be a 10-foot reduction in overall building
height. The square footage and other components of the site would remain the same as the proposed
Project evaluated in this EIR.
Potentially Significant Effects
Under the Reduced Building Height Alternative, most of the environmental impacts would be the same
as the proposed Project. Construction would still be required to develop the site, and the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR to reduce impacts related to cultural resources, hazards and
hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources during construction would still be required.
Because nighttime construction would still be required, this alternative would also result in a significant
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 18 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
unavoidable temporary construction noise impact. The alternative would also increase employment and
therefore increase VMT, which would necessitate the implementation of mitigation measure TR-1 to
reduce potential VMT impacts and land use plan policy consistency. The reduced building height would
eliminate the need for a variance from the Downey Municipal Code with regard to maximum building
height and would further reduce less than significant aesthetics impacts by reducing the height of the
building. All other less than significant Project impacts would be the same under the Reduced Building
Height Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reduced Building Height Alternative would attain most of the Project objectives. It would create a
warehouse building consistent with the underlying zoning and provide goods for the regional economy,
it would expand economic development in the City while expanding its industrial base, and it would take
advantage of the area’s close proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors. With the
reduced building height, this alternative could still be designed for energy efficiency and sustainability.
The warehouse would take advantage of the area’s close proximity to various freeways and
transportation corridors. However, the lower height would not be ideal for operations because the
lower ceiling could potentially create some operational constraints. Lower building height limits
prospective users of the facilities and could make it more difficult for the Project to meet some of the
objectives because redevelopment of the site with new modern Class A buildings would not occur.
Finding
The Reduced Building Height Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other
considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
The lower building height could limit operations that could create constraints for Class A tenants, which
would not attract new businesses, expand economic development, and provide employment
opportunities in the City as much as the Project. It would also not provide a Class A industrial facility that
meets industry standards for operational design that could accommodate a wide variety of industrial
uses.
Reference:
EIR Section 5.3.3.
iii. Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop a warehouse similar to the proposed Project, but with
an overall building space reduction of 25 percent. Instead of the 535,685 SF building that would be
included under the proposed Project, this alternative would develop an approximately 401,764 SF
industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The auto parking spaces, trailer and/or
container parking spaces, and dock loading doors would also be reduced by approximately 25 percent as
compared to the proposed Project. The on-site uses and operating hours would remain the same as
under the proposed Project.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 19 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Potentially Significant Effects
Under the Reduced Project Alternative, many of the potential impacts related to construction would be
similar to those of the proposed Project. Construction would still be required to develop the site, and
the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to reduce impacts related to cultural resources,
hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources during construction would still be
required. Because nighttime construction would still be required, this alternative would also result in a
significant unavoidable temporary construction noise impact. However, operational impacts under the
Reduced Project Alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project. While this
alternative would also increase employment in comparison to existing conditions and therefore also
increase VMT, this impact would be less than that of the proposed Project because this alternative
would require fewer employees to operate the warehouse and logistics center. Furthermore, this
alternative would also have less of an impact on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy than
the proposed Project because of the reduced square footage and therefore require less energy and fuel
to construct and operate.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reduced Project Alternative would attain most of the Project objectives. The warehouse would take
advantage of the area’s close proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors, it would
increase the City’s industrial base, and the new development would be consistent with the capacity and
municipal service capabilities. This alternative would still provide a Class A industrial facility that meets
industry standards for operational design, however the reduced building area may limit the variety of
industrial uses that the facility could accommodate. Therefore, while the Reduced Project Alternative
would meet most of the Project objectives, it would not attain all the Project objectives.
Finding
The Reduced Project Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations
including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
The reduced building area could limit the variety of industrial uses that the facility could accommodate,
which would not attract new businesses, expand economic development, and provide employment
opportunities in the City as much as the Project.
Reference
EIR Section 5.3.4.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 20 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
a. Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) mandates that the growth-inducing impact of a project be
discussed. This discussion is presented in Section 6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that the Project would not
result in short- or long-term growth-inducing impacts.
Short-Term Growth Inducement
During the Project construction, demand for various construction trade skills and labor would increase.
It is anticipated that this demand would be met by the local labor force and would not require
importation of a substantial number of workers that could cause an increased demand for temporary or
permanent housing in this area.
Long-Term Growth Inducement
The Project would contribute to long-term growth through the redevelopment of existing industrial
space. The Project is expected to create approximately 250 permanent jobs. None of the anticipated
uses is expected to require the importation of a specialized workforce that is not already present in the
region. While the Project has the potential to foster economic growth for the City through expanded
industrial sector uses and associated jobs, it is expected to have a limited effect on regional population
growth because it would draw from the local population for jobs. The Project would not directly or
indirectly increase population growth in the region. No significant pressure on local housing supply or
demand is expected to result from development of the Project.
The proposed Project would not include any off-site infrastructure or roadway improvements.
Stormwater drainage improvements would be made on-site, and new driveways would be constructed
to accommodate the proposed Project. These improvements would not create an expansion of
infrastructure that could induce population growth. Therefore, the Project would not remove barriers to
population growth, nor would it create growth that would overwhelm or exceed existing services. As
such, growth inducement would not be significant as a result of the Project.
b. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes that will be Caused by the Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires an evaluation of significant irreversible environmental
change that may occur as a result of project implementation. This discussion is presented in Section 6.2
of the EIR.
Irreversible environmental changes typically fall into three categories: (1) primary impacts, such as the
use of nonrenewable resources (i.e., biological habitat, agricultural land, mineral deposits, water bodies,
energy resources and cultural resources); (2) secondary impacts, such as road improvements which
provide access to previously inaccessible areas; and (3) environmental accidents potentially associated
with the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) states that irretrievable commitments of
resources should be evaluated to assure that current consumption of such resources is justified.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 21 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
As the site is currently developed with urban uses, implementation of the Project would not result in
significant irreversible impacts to biological resources, historical resources, agricultural or forestry lands,
or mineral resources. In addition, no water bodies are located on or adjacent to the site that would be
impacted by the Project. While there are no recorded or known cultural resources within the Project
site, there are recorded resources within the Project vicinity and thus, Project implementation has the
potential to cause a substantial adverse change to unknown archaeological or tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation measures are identified in the Final EIR (Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, TCR-1, TCR-2, and
TCR-3) that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance such that no irreversible changes to
cultural resources would occur.
The Project would entail the commitment of energy and non-renewable resources, such as energy in the
form of electricity, energy derived from fossil fuels, natural gas, construction materials (i.e., concrete,
asphalt, sand and gravel, petrochemicals, steel, and lumber and forest products), potable water, and
labor during the construction phase. The Project features a number of sustainability elements to
minimize its consumption of energy and non-renewable resources and associated impacts would be less
than significant. Nevertheless, use of these resources on any level would have an incremental effect on
the regional consumption of these commodities, and therefore result in long-term, irretrievable losses
of non-renewable resources, such as fuel and energy.
Lastly, the Project would not involve road or highway improvements that would provide access to
previously inaccessible areas. Further, no major environmental accidents or hazards are anticipated to
occur as a result of Project implementation.
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND REVISIONS IN THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR includes the comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. The
focus of the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues that are
raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c).
Finding/Rationale: Responses to comments made on the Draft EIR and revisions in the Final EIR merely
clarify and amplify the analysis presented in the document, and do not trigger the need to recirculate
per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081(b))
Pursuant to Section 21081(b) of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043, CEQA
requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
risks when determining whether to approve the project.
If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
acceptable pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA further requires that when
the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects
which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency
shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the EIR and/or other
information in the record.
Pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the
City, having considered all of the foregoing, finds that the following specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits associated with the Project outweigh
unavoidable adverse direct impacts related to construction noise.
The City declares that it has adopted all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the proposed
environmental impacts to a less than significant level; considered the entire administrative
record, including the EIR; and weighed the proposed benefits against its environmental impacts.
This determination is based on the following specific benefits, each of which is determined to
be, by itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding and
outweighing unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. Substantial
evidence supports the various benefits and can be found in the preceding sections (which are
incorporated by reference into this section), the Final EIR, or in documents that comprise the
Record of Proceedings for this matter.
1. The Project would create industrial sector uses in accordance with the City’s General
Plan Economic Development Element. Specifically, the Project would support the goals,
policies, and programs of this Element by attracting new businesses in the City (Goal
9.1) and revitalizing an existing industrial site with new modern industrial development
(Program 9.1.1.5).
2. The Project would create additional jobs in the City to reinforce the City as an
employment center consistent with the City’s General Plan Economic Development
Element. The Project would support the goals, policies, and programs of this Element by
promoting job-generating land uses (Goal 9.2.1) and promoting employment in various
economic sectors (Policy 9.2.2 and Program 9.2.2.1).
3. The Project would increase the local tax base and generate a positive fiscal benefit to
the City. This revenue may be spent by the City to improve vital services including police
and fire protection, parks, roads, and other infrastructure in the City. This is consistent
with the City’s General Plan Economic Development Element Goal 9.2 of maintaining the
fiscal balance of the City and Program 9.3.1.1 of encouraging land uses that generate
property tax revenue.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Page 23 of 23
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
4. The Project would facilitate increased goods movement to foster economic
development within the City by providing additional industrial base sector uses in close
proximity to regional transportation facilities. This would be consistent with, and would
implement, goals, policies, and programs in the City’s General Plan Economic
Development Element, including Goal 9.1 to attract businesses, Policy 9.1.2 to capitalize
on the City’s location as an asset, and Program 9.1.2.1 to capitalize on the City's central
location and accessibility to freeways.
5. Implementation of the Project would further the City General Plan’s Conservation
Element policies aimed at energy conservation and sustainability. The Project would
remove existing on-site buildings and replace them with a newly constructed, single
building, which would incorporate updated technology, including improved energy
efficiency. The Project would be constructed consistent with the requirements of Title
24, which regulates green building practices and includes standards for planning and
design, water efficiency, material conservation and resource efficiency, and
environmental quality. The proposed building would incorporate several sustainability
features such as solar and electric vehicle infrastructure and would achieve a LEED Silver
certification.
The City finds in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081(b) and 21081.5, and
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043, that any, or any combination of, the Statement of
Overriding Consideration benefits noted above would be sufficient to reach the conclusion that
overriding findings justify the significant, unmitigable impacts that were found.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
B-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRPs) are required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081.6 to be adopted by CEQA Lead Agencies for projects having the
potential to cause significant environmental impacts. The MMRP describes changes to the project or
conditions of project approval that mitigate or avoid the project’s potential significant effects on the
environment. This MMRP addresses the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project. A brief
description of the proposed project is provided below. The proposed project is located within the City of
Downey (City); the City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has discretionary authority over the
proposed project.
MMRP FORMAT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project are identified in the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project EIR. These mitigation
measures will become conditions of project approval if the project is approved. The City is required to
verify that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented properly and to ensure compliance, this
MMRP (including the checklist) has been formulated. The MMRP shall be adopted, along with CEQA
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, by the City (Lead Agency) and must be
administered by City personnel from the Community Development Department. Specific responsibilities
are delineated for each measure in the attached checklist table and these responsibilities may be
delegated to qualified City staff or consultants.
The checklist, which follows as Table B-1, is intended to be used by the applicant, grading/construction
contractors, and City personnel, as the appointed mitigation implementation and monitoring entities.
Information contained within the checklist clearly identifies each mitigation measure, defines the
conditions required to verify compliance, and delineates the monitoring schedule. Following is an
explanation of the three columns that constitute each MMRP checklist.
Column 1 Mitigation Measure: An inventory of each mitigation measure is provided.
Column 2 Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies what entities are responsible for determining
compliance with each mitigation measure (e.g., City of Downey Community
Development Department, construction contractor, project applicant).
Column 3 Implementation Schedule: As scheduling is dependent upon the progression of the
overall project, specific dates are not used within the “Schedule” column. Instead,
scheduling describes a logical succession of events (e.g., prior to ground-disturbing
activities, etc.) and, if necessary, delineates a follow-up program.
Column 4 Monitoring Compliance Record Name/Date: Column is left blank and is to be signed and
dated when compliance with the mitigation measure has been met.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-2
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Cultural Monitoring Program. The construction contractor shall
implement an archaeological and Native American monitoring program
during grading and other ground-disturbing activities (i.e., trenching for
utilities) which are to occur below the current layer of fill. The monitoring
program shall include the retention of a qualified archaeologist and a
Native American monitor. The archaeological and Native American
monitors shall attend a pre-construction meeting with the construction
manager and be in attendance during initial ground-disturbing activities at
the Project site. The monitors shall determine the extent of their presence
during soil disturbing activities.
The archaeological and Native American monitors shall have the authority
to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground-disturbing activity
if cultural resources are encountered. If an artifact is encountered, all
operations within 50 feet of where the artifact was found shall be
suspended immediately, the City shall be notified, and the qualified
archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall
evaluate the significance of the find. If cultural material is determined to
be significant, the qualified archaeologist shall coordinate with the
consulting tribes and City staff to develop and implement appropriate
treatment measures. Pursuant to California PRC §21083.2(b), avoidance is
the preferred method of preservation. The archaeologist and the tribal
representative shall make recommendations to the City on the measures
that will be implemented to protect the newly discovered cultural
resource(s), including but not limited to, avoidance in place, excavation,
relocation, and further evaluation of the discoveries in accordance with
CEQA.
Construction
Contractor; Qualified
Archaeologist; Native
American Monitor;
City
During grading and
other soil-disturbing
activities
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-3
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
No further ground disturbance shall occur in the area of the discovery until
the City approves the measures to protect the significant cultural
resource(s).
CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If the discovery of
human remains occurs on the Project site, the specific procedures
outlined by the NAHC, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code,
must be followed:
1. All excavation activities within 60 feet of the remains will immediately
stop, and the area will be protected with flagging or by posting a
monitor or construction worker to ensure that no additional
disturbance occurs.
2. The Project owner or their authorized representative will contact the
Los Angeles County Coroner.
3. The coroner will have two working days to examine the remains after
being notified in accordance with HSC 7050.5. If the coroner
determines that the remains are Native American and are not subject
to the coroner’s authority, the coroner will notify NAHC of the
discovery within 24 hours.
4. NAHC will immediately notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), who
will have 48 hours after being granted access to the location of the
remains to inspect them and make recommendations for their
treatment. Work will be suspended in the area of the find until the
County approves the proposed treatment of human remains.
Project Applicant/
Authorized
Representative/
Construction
Contractor
Upon discovery of
human remains
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-4
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
If human remains of Native American origin are discovered or unearthed,
the applicant shall contact the consulting Tribe, as detailed in Mitigation
Measures TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 regarding any finds and provide
information after the archaeologist makes an initial assessment of the
nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input concerning significance and
treatment. Once the find has been appropriately mitigated, as determined
and documented by a qualified archaeologist, work in the area may
resume.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: VOC-Contaminated Soil. The following shall be implemented
during Project construction to address VOC-contaminated soil:
• Soil Handling: If impacted soil is encountered, the area shall be
delineated as necessary with cones, caution tape, stakes, chalk, or
flagging and the area shall not be disturbed further until an
environmental professional is on-site for observation and
determination of whether testing and/or excavation work is required.
Stockpile staging areas shall be delineated prior to the start of
excavation. The specific equipment, means, and methods to be
utilized for soil removal, handling, and disposition shall be selected
based on the nature of the work to be conducted and its location on
the site.
Areas from which contaminated or potentially contaminated soil is
being excavated, disturbed, or handled shall be secured by temporary
fencing and/or caution tape, as appropriate. Exclusion and support
zones, if any, staging areas, and decontamination pads shall also be
delineated.
Construction
Contractor;
Environmental Field
Coordinator
During Project
construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-5
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
An environmental field coordinator shall be present full-time during
soil removal and handling activities in areas in which contaminated
soil has been encountered or has the potential to be encountered.
This individual shall be responsible for observations of soil conditions,
air monitoring, maintaining communications, ensuring compliance
with the MMP, and any oversight of sampling.
If testing of suspect materials confirm that contaminated soils are
present, notification and permitting with the SCAQMD shall be
required along with implementation of necessary mitigation controls
and monitoring pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1166.
If excavation is conducted during the rainy season (November through
April), provisions shall be made to prevent off-site migration of
sediment in runoff. Best management practices shall be implemented
for runoff control in accordance with the construction permit,
regulatory requirements, and the SWPPP. Measures may include
placement of sandbags, straw rolls, and/or hay bales to control runoff
and to act as filters. If precipitation accumulates within any
excavation, it shall be pumped out and disposed of in accordance with
federal, state, and local regulations.
• Fugitive Dust and Vapor Control: Appropriate procedures shall be
implemented to control the generation of airborne dust by soil
removal activities, including, but not limited to, some or all of the
following:
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-6
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
o Generation of dust and emission of VOCs (if any) during
construction activities shall be minimized, as necessary, by the use
of water as a dust suppressant. The water shall be available from
on-site water service, via a water truck, or through a metered
discharge from a fire hydrant located on or proximate to the
Project site. When necessary, the grading contractor shall control
dust generation by spraying water prior to daily work activities,
during excavation/loading activities (as necessary to maintain
concentrations below action levels) and at truck staging locations.
During construction activities, water equipment shall be
continuously available to provide proper control measures.
o Activities that have the potential to generate fugitive dust shall
cease in the event wind conditions change creating an
uncontrollable condition. If required, the environmental field
coordinator shall monitor on-site meteorological instrumentation
and/or coordinate with off-site meteorological professionals to
identify conditions that require cessation of work.
• Soil excavation and Stockpiling: Impacted soil that is excavated and
not immediately removed from the site shall be stockpiled on and
covered with plastic sheeting to control dust and minimize exposure
to precipitation. The edges of the plastic sheeting shall have an
overlap of at least 24 inches. Plastic sheeting shall be secured at the
base of the stockpile and along seams of overlapping plastic sheeting,
if any, with sandbags or by equivalent means. If a stockpile remains on
site during the rainy season, a perimeter sediment barrier,
constructed of material such as straw bales or fiber roll, shall also be
installed. The stockpiles shall remain covered until the soil is ready for
final disposition.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-7
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
A bi-weekly inspection of stockpiles shall be conducted, as
appropriate, to verify cover integrity. Any gaps, tears, or other
deficiencies shall be documented by the environmental field
coordinator and corrected immediately. Records shall be kept of
stockpile inspections and any repairs made. During stockpile removal,
only the working face of the stockpile shall be uncovered.
If the stockpiled impacted soil is to be transported off site for disposal
or recycling, the soil shall be profiled for waste characteristics. Waste
profiling shall consist of collecting soil samples for laboratory analysis
at the frequency required by the disposal/recycling facility to which
the soil is to be transported. A minimum of four samples shall be
collected from a stockpile of up to 1,000 cubic yards. For each
approximately 500 cubic yards of stockpile material, an additional
sample shall be collected and analyzed. Soil samples shall be analyzed
for parameters required by the disposal/recycling facility. If no specific
analytical program is required by the disposal/recycling facility,
analysis shall include VOCs, metals, and TPH.
• Air and Soil Monitoring, Sampling, and Testing: monitoring and
sampling activities to be performed shall include:
o Air Monitoring: Air monitoring shall be conducted by an air
monitoring/health and safety professional under the guidance of
the environmental field coordinator in areas where potential VOC-
contaminated soil is to be disturbed. Areas of the site requiring
such monitoring shall include those areas where ongoing
remediation is occurring. An air monitoring/health and safety
professional shall be present during ground-disturbing activities
and shall record monitoring data on field sheets, which will be
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-8
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
kept as part of Project documentation. Air monitoring shall include
the following:
Real-time aerosol monitors and industrial hygiene air sampling
equipment and media shall be deployed to measure dust
levels and/or concentration of chemicals of potential concern
in dust.
Vapor concentrations shall be monitored using an organic
vapor analyzer fitted with a photo ionization detector. If
readings using the photo ionization detector reach or exceed
50 parts per million, the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 1166 shall
be implemented, as outlined in Section (c) of Rule 1166.
o Soil Monitoring: During pre-demolition, demolition, grading, and
construction activities, visual observation of the exposed soil
beneath building foundations, floors, pavement, and subsurface
features shall be conducted by a monitoring/health and safety
professional under the guidance of the environmental field
coordinator. A field form shall be completed daily to document
the areas of soil suspected of being contaminated, if any. Any
observed discoloration, odor, or other evidence of potential
hazardous materials shall be documented and serve as the basis
for further evaluation.
o Soil Sampling and Testing: Based on field indications, soil samples
may be collected to evaluate the presence of suspected chemicals
or compounds in exposed soil. Selected soil samples shall be
analyzed by an appropriately certified, off-site laboratory, with the
analytical methods selected based on the following criteria:
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-9
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Visual and Olfactory Observation: Soil that is odorous or
appears dark or oil stained shall be analyzed for TPH by EPA
Method 8015M modified and for VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
Soil that appears discolored in a manner typical of metals
impacts (e.g., red, yellow, green, gray, silvery) shall be
analyzed for California Code of Regulations Title 22 metals
using EPA Method 6010B/7000.
Elevated VOC Levels: A soil sample (or samples) shall be
collected for laboratory testing if the headspace VOC
measurement exceeds 100 ppm, as measured with a photo
ionization detector calibrated to hexane during the on-site
screening. Samples may be analyzed for VOCs using EPA
Method 8260 (VOCs) and/or TPH by EPA Method 8015M
modified.
Soil samples for laboratory analysis shall be collected using
hand tools (for instance hand auger or hand trowel) and
placed in glass jars, brass tubes, or other appropriate
containers. Samples to be analyzed for VOCs (if deemed
necessary) shall be field preserved using EPA Method 5035.
After collection, samples shall be sealed, uniquely labeled, and
placed in a chilled cooler pending delivery to the analytical
laboratory. All soil samples shall be tracked from point of
collection through the laboratory using chain-of-custody
documentation. Reuseable soil sampling equipment (hand
auger, trowel, shovel, etc.) shall be decontaminated prior to
re-use to reduce the potential for cross-contamination.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-10
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Laboratory analytical data shall also be used to characterize
excavated soil to determine the appropriate location for off-site
disposal. Soil with no visual or olfactory evidence of impacts and
not containing chemicals of potential concern may be re-used on
the Project site. Soil export manifest records documenting the
destination of all excavated and exported soil shall be maintained.
• Import Fill Soils: Off-site soils brought to the Project site for use as
backfill (import fill), if necessary, shall be tested in general
conformance with the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill
Material document (2001). Import fill shall be tested for target
compounds based on knowledge of the fill source area; however, as a
minimum, the fill should be tested for the following constituents (or
have been tested and documented at the source):
o TPH-cc using EPA Method 8015
o VOCs using EPA Method 8260B
o Title 22 metals using EPA Methods 6010B/7471
o Pesticides using EPA Method 8081A
Other analyses may be required contingent on the source of the
import fill or recommendations by the supervising professional. A
minimum of one sample for laboratory analysis is suggested per
1,000 tons of import fill per borrow site (single source). For quantities
above 5,000 tons of import fill per borrow site (single source), one
sample for laboratory analysis is suggested per 5,000 tons of import
fill.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-11
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
HAZ-2: Asbestos-Containing Material Removal. Prior to issuance of
demolition permits, removal of asbestos-containing materials shall be
conducted in the buildings at 9301 Stewart and Gray, 9400 Hall Road,
9399 Stewart and Gray Road, and 9333/9363 Stewart and Gray Road. A
Licensed State of California asbestos abatement contractor must remove
all known asbestos-containing materials, consistent with applicable
Division of Occupational Safety (Title 8, Industrial Relations, Division 1.
Department of Industrial Relations, Chapter 4. Division of Industrial Safety,
Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 4. Dust Fumes, Mists,
Vapors, and Gases, Section 1529. Asbestos) and SCAQMD (Rule 1403 –
Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/ Renovation Activities) guidelines.
The Licensed State of California asbestos abatement contractor shall
provide documentation of removal activities to the City.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
Prior to demolition
and construction
HAZ-3: Lead-Based Paint Removal. Prior to issuance of demolition
permits, removal of lead-based paint shall be conducted in the building at
9400 Hall Road. The removal of lead-containing materials shall comply
with applicable regulations for demolition methods and dust suppression.
Lead containing materials shall be managed in accordance with applicable
regulations including, at a minimum, the hazardous waste disposal
requirements (CCR Title 22, Division 4.5); and the State Lead Accreditation,
Certification and Work Practice Requirements (CCR Title 17, Division 1,
Chapter 8). Verification that the specified procedures were followed shall
be provided to the City.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
Prior to demolition
and construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-12
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Noise
NOI-1: Construction Activity Limits. The Project applicant or designated
contractor shall obtain permits for Project construction activities from the
City. The City shall ensure all permits contain restrictions to construction
hours, and nighttime work requirements described below.
All construction activity with the exception of concrete pouring as
specified below shall be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and at any time on Sundays or on
any City recognized public holiday. Delivery of materials or equipment to
the site and construction truck traffic coming to and from the site shall be
prohibited during the same hours specified above.
If, due to weather condition (e.g., high temperatures), pouring of concrete
at night or on Sundays or on any City recognized public holiday is required,
the Project applicant or designated contractor shall provide written
notification of nighttime/weekend concrete work to all residences located
within 300 feet of the Project site. The notification shall:
• Be delivered a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencement of
nighttime work;
• Include the days and hours of upcoming concrete poring nighttime
work; and
• Include noise complaint contact information, including phone
numbers and email addresses to register noise complaints with both
the construction contractor and the City.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor; City of
Downey Community
Development
Department
Prior to and during
construction
activities
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-13
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
The City and the construction contractor shall log all received noise
complaints. The construction contractor shall submit to the City a daily log
of all noise complaints received, including the date and time of the
complaint and address of the complainant (if provided). The City shall
work with the construction contractor to respond to noise complaints and
limit nighttime work and locations of noise generating equipment to the
extent feasible.
Transportation
TR-1: Transportation Demand Management Plan. The Project Applicant
shall prepare a formal Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of grading or
building permits. The TDM Plan shall identify the TDM measures that will
be implemented for the Project and shall include documentation of how
both physical measures (e.g., bike lockers, designated carpool parking
spaces, etc.) and programmatic measures (e.g., guaranteed ride home
program, employee transportation coordinator, etc.) will be provided. The
TDM Plan shall be implemented for the life of the Project and shall
include, at a minimum, the TDM strategies listed below (TDM Strategies
T-7, T-8, and T-10) to reduce significant VMT impacts. If new TDM
measures are proposed by the site owner or tenant after City approval of
the TDM Plan, a new TDM plan shall be submitted for review and approval
and shall include an analysis that demonstrates that the selected
measures are expected to achieve the same or greater trip and VMT
reductions as demonstrated by this Project-specific analysis.
Project Applicant; City
of Downey
Community
Development
Department
Prior to construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-14
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
• T-7. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing. The Project
Applicant shall implement a marketing strategy to promote the
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR). Information sharing and marketing
educates employees about their travel choices to and from the
location and promotes alternatives to driving such as carpooling,
taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT. Effective
marketing strategies incorporate the following features or similar
alternatives:
o On-site or online commuter information services.
o Employee transportation coordinators.
o On-site or online transit pass sales.
o Guaranteed ride home service.
The Project Applicant shall provide information on available travel
options to and from the Project site in a clear and easily accessible
location (e.g., a bulletin board in a common employee area), including
information on where transit passes may be purchased online or in
person. The Project Applicant shall also designate an employee
transportation coordinator who will be able to provide information
and/or administer a guaranteed ride home service. Such services may
consist of providing free or subsidized rides upon request via taxis or
other transportation network companies (TNC) such as Uber or Lyft.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-15
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
• T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program. The Project Applicant shall
implement a ridesharing program. Ridesharing encourages carpooled
vehicle trips in place of single-occupancy vehicle trips, thereby
reducing the number of trips and VMT. Ridesharing may be promoted
through a multifaceted approach, such as designating parking spaces
for ridesharing/carpooling vehicles, dedicating loading and waiting
zones, and coordinating rides. The Project Applicant shall provide
designated parking spaces for carpool vehicles in a
convenient/preferential location, and a designated waiting area for
employees participating in ridesharing which is comfortable and
convenient. The Project Applicant should facilitate the process of
arranging ridesharing or carpooling matches, either through a
website/app or via the employee transportation coordinator (refer to
TDM measure T-7 above).
• T-10. Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities. The Project Applicant shall
provide end-of-trip bicycle facilities such as secure bike parking,
showers, and personal lockers. Providing and maintaining secure bike
parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle,
thereby reducing VMT. The Project Applicant shall provide secure
bicycle parking (e.g., bicycle lockers) in an easily accessible, well-lit
location. Additionally, the Project Applicant shall provide showers and
changing rooms.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-16
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of
Ground-Disturbing Activities.
a. The Project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American
Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
– Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the
commencement of any ground-disturbing activity for the subject
Project at all Project locations(i.e., both on-site and any off-site
locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or
required in connection with the Project, such as public improvement
work). Ground-disturbing activity shall include, but is not limited to,
demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree
removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to
the lead agency prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing
activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a
ground-disturbing activity.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor; Native
American Monitor
Prior to
commencement of
any ground-
disturbing activities
and during
construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-17
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide
descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of
construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing
activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts,
conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including
but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts,
remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural
resources, or TCR), as well as any discovered Native American
(ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs
will be provided to the Project applicant/lead agency upon written
request to the Tribe.
d. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the
following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point
of contact for the Project applicant/lead agency that all ground-
disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing
activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are
complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh
to the Project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned
construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the
Project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
e. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the
surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has
been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The
Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or
manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion,
and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for
educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-18
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated
Funerary Objects.
a. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as
an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or
skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods
in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated
according to this statute.
b. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or
recognized on the Project site, then all construction activities shall
immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section7050.5 dictates
that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately
reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities
shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has
determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the
human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to
believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by
telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission,
and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor; Native
American Monitor
During construction
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per
California PRC Section5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the Project site at
a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or
burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that resuming
construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the
project manager express consent of that determination (along with
any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist
deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5(f).)
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-19
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
e. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of
treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any
historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin
(non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum
of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution
agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or
historical society in the area for educational purposes.
f. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept
confidential to prevent further disturbance.
TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains.
a. As the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy
shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains”
encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic
times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the
preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with
the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
b. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the
discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate
treatment plan shall be created.
Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor; Kizh Tribe;
Qualified
Archaeologist
During construction
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-20
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
c. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same
manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary
objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a
culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual
human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made
exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also
be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either
be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete
recovery of all sacred materials.
d. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully
documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be
covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by
heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the
remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard
should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every
effort to recommend diverting the Project and keeping the remains in
situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be
determined that burials will be removed.
e. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith
efforts by the Project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before
ground-disturbing activities may resume on the Project site, the
landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint
of the Project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or
ceremonial objects.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-21
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
f. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects
will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary
objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be
removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should
be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of
reburial/repatriation shall be on the Project site but at a location
agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be
protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any
cultural materials recovered.
g. The Tribe will work closely with the Project’s qualified archaeologist to
ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically, and
respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation
shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed
descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-
related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the
Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report
shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT
authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on human remains.
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-22
This page intentionally left blank
Resolution No. 24-4022 - Exhibit B