City of Commerce Housing Element Sites Rezoning, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment Project
Addendum to the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report
(SCH# 21001101128)
Lead Agency:
City of City of Commerce
Department of Community Development
2535 Commerce Way
Commerce, California 90040
Prepared by:
MIG, Inc.
6809 Indiana Avenue, Suite 203
Riverside, California 92506
August 18, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1
- This document is designed for double-sided printing - Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project i
City of Commerce
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 – Background............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 – Addendum Analysis .................................................................................................. 1
1.3 – Addendum Determination ....................................................................................... 13
1.4 – Summary of Addendum Conclusions...................................................................... 14 2 Project Description................................................................................................................... 15
2.1 – Project Title ............................................................................................................. 15
2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address ........................................................................... 15
2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number ....................................................................... 15
2.4 – Project Location ...................................................................................................... 15
2.5 – Project Background................................................................................................. 16
2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation....................................................................... 18
2.7 – Zoning District ......................................................................................................... 18
2.8 – Environmental Setting............................................................................................. 18
2.9 – Project Description.................................................................................................. 21
2.11 – Required Approvals................................................................................................. 24
2.12 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required................................................. 24 3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................... 31
3.1 – Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 33
3.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources........................................................................... 37
3.3 – Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 40
3.4 – Biological Resources............................................................................................... 46
3.5 – Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 50
3.6 – Energy..................................................................................................................... 53
3.7 – Geology and Soils................................................................................................... 56
3.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 62
3.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................... 66
3.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................. 73
3.11 – Land Use and Planning........................................................................................... 80
3.12 – Mineral Resources .................................................................................................. 83
3.13 – Noise....................................................................................................................... 85
3.14 – Population and Housing.......................................................................................... 89
3.16 – Public Services........................................................................................................ 93
3.18 – Recreation............................................................................................................... 99
3.19 – Transportation....................................................................................................... 102
3.20 – Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................................................... 109
3.21 – Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................ 112
3.22 – Wildfire .................................................................................................................. 118
3.23 – Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 120 4 References ............................................................................................................................ 123
4.1 – List of Preparers.................................................................................................... 123
4.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted.................................................................. 123
4.3 – Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 124 Table of Contents
ii Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft August 18, 2025
List of Tables
Table 1 Policies that Will Mitigate Land Use and Development Impacts...................................... 2 Table 2 Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites................................. 15 Table 3 Commerce 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)............................ 16 Table 4 Commerce 2021-2029 Housing Element RHNA Remaining Need................................ 17 Table 5 Summary of RHNA Strategies....................................................................................... 17 Table 6 Proposed Project Sites .................................................................................................. 19 Table 7 2008 GP EIR Theoretical Residential Development and Remaining Capacity.............. 23 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map ................................................................................................. 25 Exhibit 2 Proposed General Plan Amendment ........................................................................... 27 Exhibit 3 Proposed Zoning Map Amendment ............................................................................. 29 Appendices
Appendix A General Plan Environmental Impact Report
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 1
City of Commerce
1 Introduction
This Addendum, its appendices, and related supporting environmental documents have been prepared been prepared by the City of Commerce (the Lead Agency) to determine whether and to what extent the January 2008 City of Commerce General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (“EIR” or “PEIR”; SCH# 21001101128) (see Appendix A) remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed Housing Element Sites Rezoning, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment Project (“project”), or whether additional documentation (e.g., a subsequent EIR) is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.). This Addendum describes certain proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning Code and evaluates the potential environmental effects of such changes. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.3) and its implementing regulations (the CEQA Guidelines) (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387).
1.1 – Background
The January 2008 EIR was prepared to assess the short-term, long-term, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the current General Plan. The EIR was prepared to comply with Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR determined that the General Plan’s implementation would not result in unmitigable significant adverse impacts with implementation of General Plan policies intended to reduce impacts from future land use development impacts. A summary of the policies as described in the January 2008 EIR are provided in Table 1, below.
1.2 – Addendum Analysis
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). This Addendum evaluates the project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR to determine whether any of the conditions described in Guidelines Section 15162 calling for subsequent CEQA review have occurred. The General Plan EIR is available for review on the City’s website and at the City’s Community Development Department.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that the lead agency “shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Subsection (c) further provides that an “addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR,” and subsection (e) states that a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included” in the addendum, the agency’s findings, or elsewhere in the administrative record.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2) provides that “if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR will be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR” and that “[w]hether a later activity is within the scope of a Program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record.” Subsection (c)(4) further provides that “[w]here the later activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the Program EIR.”
1 – Introduction
2 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Table 1
Policies that Will Mitigate Land Use and Development Impacts Policy # Policy Text
AIR QUALITY ELEMENT
AQ Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will consider environmental justice issues as they are related to potential health impacts associated with air pollution and ensure that all land use decisions, including enforcement actions, are made in an equitable fashion to protect residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location from the health effects of air pollution.
AQ Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will encourage the applicants for sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and medical facilities) to incorporate design features (e.g., pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures) in the planning process to minimize the potential impacts of air pollution on sensitive receptors.
AQ Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will promote and support mixed-use land patterns that allow the integration of retail, office, institutional and residential uses. Consult with the AQMD when siting new facilities with dust, odors or TAC emissions to avoid siting those facilities near sensitive receptors and avoid siting sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution.
AQ Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will facilitate communication among residents, businesses and the AQMD to quickly resolve air pollution nuisance complaints. Distribute information to advise residents on how to register a complaint with the SCAQMD.
AQ Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will require that owners of new developments that have the potential to emit air pollutants that would impact sensitive receptors to notify residents and businesses adjacent to the proposed site prior to starting construction.
AQ Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will consider all feasible alternatives to minimize emissions from diesel equipment (e.g., trucks, construction equipment, and generators).
AQ Policy 1.7 The City of Commerce will actively participate in decisions on the siting or expansion of facilities or land uses (e.g. freeway expansions), to ensure the inclusion of air quality.
AQ Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will require that developers of high density and mixed-use developments consult with the local transit agency and incorporate all appropriate and feasible transit amenities into the plans.
AQ Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will establish a Mixed-Use Zoning District that offers incentives to mixed-use developments. The Mixed-Use designation that is applicable to the Atlantic Boulevard corridor implements this policy.
AQ Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will adopt and implement codes that encourage community centers, telecommuting programs, and home-based businesses.
AQ Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will create opportunities to receive State transportation funds by adopting incentives (e.g., an expedited review process) for planning and implementing infill development projects within urbanized areas that include job centers and clean transportation nodes (e.g., preparation of "transit village" plans).
AQ Policy 2.5 The City of Commerce will collaborate with local, regional, state and federal agencies to create incentives for "job/housing opportunity zones," to promote housing in job-rich areas and jobs in housing-rich areas. The Housing Opportunity areas identified in the Community Development Element are consistent with this policy.
AQ Policy 2.6 The City of Commerce will design safe and efficient vehicle access to commercial land uses from arterial streets to ensure efficient vehicular ingress and egress. 1 – Introduction
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 3
City of Commerce
AQ Policy 2.7 The City of Commerce will promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations, and types of vehicles.
AQ Policy 2.8 The City of Commerce will seek new cooperative relationships between employers and employees to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
AQ Policy 2.9 The City of Commerce will work with large employers and commercial/industrial complexes to create Transportation Management Associations and to implement trip/VMT action strategies.
AQ Policy 2.10 The City of Commerce will cooperate with surrounding jurisdictions to provide incentives, adopt regulations and develop transportation demand management programs educe and eliminate vehicle trips and VMT.
AQ Policy 2.11 The City of Commerce will collaborate with local transit agencies to develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit.
AQ Policy 2.12 The City of Commerce will Identify and develop non-motorized transportation corridors (e.g., bicycling and pedestrian trails and lanes).
AQ Policy 2.13 The City of Commerce will establish requirements for special event centers to provide off-site parking and park-n-ride facilities at remote locations. Remote parking should be as close as practicable to the event site and the operator should operate or provide alternative-fuel vehicles for shuttles.
AQ Policy 2.14 The City of Commerce will encourage special event center operators to provide discounted transit passes with event tickets or offer discounted on-site parking for carpooling patrons (four or more persons per vehicle).
AQ Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will manage the City's transportation fleet fueling standards to achieve the greatest number of alternative fuel vehicles in the City fleet.
AQ Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is publicly accessible.
AQ Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will establish programs for priority or free parking on City streets or in City parking lots for alternative fuel vehicles.
AQ Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will cooperate with federal and state agencies and the AQMD in their efforts to reduce exposure from railroad and truck emissions.
AQ Policy 3.5 The City of Commerce will collaborate with the USEPA, CARIB, AQMD, and warehouse owners to create programs and ordinances to minimize the amount of diesel emissions related to warehousing operations.
AQ Policy 3.6 The City of Commerce will manage the City's transportation fleet fueling standards to achieve the greatest number of alternative fuel vehicles in the City fleet.
AQ Policy 3.7 The City of Commerce will support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is publicly accessible.
AQ Policy 4.1 The City of Commerce will synchronize traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties while allowing free flow of mass transit systems.
AQ Policy 4.2 The City of Commerce will reduce traffic delays through highway maintenance, rapid emergency response, debris removal, and elimination of at-grade railroad crossings.
AQ Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will encourage businesses to schedule deliveries at off-peak traffic periods through the land use entitlement or business regulation process.
AQ Policy 4.4 The City of Commerce will encourage the construction of HOV lanes whenever necessary to relieve congestion and reduce air pollution. Emphasize the use of HOV lanes, as well as light rail and bus routes, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve mobility and air quality.
AQ Policy 4.5 The City of Commerce will monitor traffic and congestion to determine when and where the City needs new transportation facilities to achieve increased mobility efficiency.
1 – Introduction
4 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
AQ Policy 4.6 The City of Commerce will work with local transit providers to incorporate best design practices for transit into new development projects.
AQ Policy 4.7 The City of Commerce will continue to implement the required components of the Congestion Management Plan (CMP), and continue to work with Los Angeles County on annual updates to the CMP.
AQ Policy 4.8 The City of Commerce will support SCAG's Regional Growth Management Plan by developing intergovernmental agreements with appropriate governmental entities such as the Gateway Cities, sanitation districts, water districts, and those subregional entities identified in the Regional Growth Management Plan.
AQ Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that all future public facilities and improvements do not have a significant adverse air quality impact on the community and that any such impacts must be mitigated to the fullest extent possible.
AQ Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will oppose the over-concentration of polluting public facilities and improvements.
AQ Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will take a proactive role in meeting with regional planning agencies to ensure that the local community’s voice is heard in air quality issues.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CD Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will continue to promote land use compatibility.
CD Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce shall accelerate the implementation of the city’s development code.
CD Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to implement specific standards for new commercial developments located adjacent to residential neighborhoods in order to ensure that adequate buffers are provided so that negative impacts such as noise, light pollution, truck use, and traffic may be mitigated.
CD Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce shall prevent the further intrusion of industrial and commercial development into the Bandini-Rosini, Northwest, Rosewood, and Southeast Planning Areas.
CD Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will prevent the further intrusion of residential dwelling uses into the existing industrial and commercial districts in the city.
CD Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will ensure that commercial and industrial development provide sufficient landscaped buffers and other design features to separate new non-residential uses located in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
CD Policy 1.7 The city of Commerce will promote site plans for new development located in the vicinity of Washington Boulevard that encourages primary access from Washington Boulevard for those businesses located along the roadway (as opposed to the use of alleyways).
CD Policy 1.8 The City of Commerce, in conjunction with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and other public agencies, will work to reduce potential hazards and health risks associated with the use, storage, or manufacture of hazardous materials.
CD Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will continue to preserve and promote the improvement of the existing commercial areas, including the Commerce Center, the Telegraph Road/Washington Boulevard area, the Atlantic/Washington Redevelopment Project Area, the Commerce Business Park, and the commercial properties located along Slauson Avenue.
CD Policy 2.6 The City of Commerce will strive to improve security within existing and future shopping districts located in the city.
1 – Introduction
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 5
City of Commerce
CD Policy 2.7 The City of Commerce will continue to actively pursue the goals and objectives of the Atlantic/Washington Redevelopment Project Area.
CD Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will continue to promote the maintenance and preservation of industrial activities and business that contribute to the city’s economic and employment base.
CD Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will prevent the intrusion of residential uses within the industrial and commercial districts.
CD Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will encourage the continued revitalization of the city’s industrial districts to accommodate economic development and growth.
CD Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will promote the development of modern and attractive business parks that will enhance the city’s economic well-being.
CD Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will promote the development of new housing for all income groups.
CD Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will continue to explore new opportunities for housing and services to meet the needs of the labor force, and as a means to attract new business and industry to the city.
CD Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will continue to make information available to Commerce residents concerning housing opportunities and rehabilitation programs.
CD Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will expand its housing rehabilitation programs, focusing on the need to rehabilitate housing and eliminate illegal garage conversions in every Commerce neighborhood.
CD Policy 6.1 The City of Commerce will promote the creation of “area themes” to enhance the City’s living and working environment.
CD Policy 6.2 The City of Commerce will strive to see that commercial properties are maintained and that obsolete signage is removed.
CD Policy 6.3 The City of Commerce will require new commercial and industrial development to employ architectural and site design techniques that will promote quality and efficient development.
CD Policy 7.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that all future public facilities and improvements do not have a significant adverse impact on the community and that any such impacts must be mitigated to the fullest extent possible.
CD Policy 7.2 The City of Commerce will oppose the over-concentration of public facilities and improvements that provide benefits to the regional at large while adversely impacting the local community. The region at large must share both the benefits and the disadvantages of such uses and facilities.
CD Policy 7.3 The City of Commerce will take a proactive role in meeting with regional planning agencies to ensure that the local community’s voice is heard in the planning public facilities.
HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT
HS Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will work to minimize hazards to public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent loss of life, bodily injury, and property damage resulting from natural and manmade phenomena.
HS Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will provide public safety information focusing on the prevention of accidents that may be life-threatening or result in property damage.
HS Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to provide adequate levels of emergency services to meet existing and projected demand through the maintenance of contracts with emergency service providers.
HS Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will continue to encourage coordination among City officials, and between the city and other agencies, that provides disaster response and relief services.
1 – Introduction
6 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
HS Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will cooperate with, and support in every way possible, the federal, state, and county agencies responsible for the enforcement of health, safety, and environmental laws.
HS Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will ensure that the public and private water distribution and supply facilities have adequate capacity to meet both the domestic supply needs of the community and the required fire flow.
HS Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will encourage City water purveyors to meet regularly with Fire Department officials to discuss the condition and capabilities of the City’s water system.
HS Policy 4.1 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with the efforts of other agencies and special districts involved in monitoring the City’s water and sewer systems.
HS Policy 4.2 The City of Commerce will contribute toward the maintenance of a wastewater treatment system sufficient to protect the health and safety of all residents and businesses.
HS Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will continue to request local water purveyors to provide the City with periodic reports concerning water quality.
HS Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that appropriate mitigation measures relative to soil contamination and soils characteristics (subsidence, erosion, etc.) are required for development and redevelopment in order to reduce hazards.
HS Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety to identify and monitor those buildings that may represent a risk in the event of a major earthquake.
HS Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will work with Federal, State, and County agencies, as well as the Industrial Council, to protect all City residents and workers from hazardous materials and the risks associated with the transportation of these materials.
HS Policy 5.5 The City of Commerce will work with the Fire Department to enforce “right to know” laws.
HS Policy 5.6 The City of Commerce will maintain a City liaison officer who will continue to work with the Fire Department to monitor the production, use, and storage of hazardous materials.
HS Policy 5.7 The City of Commerce will establish an environmental review procedure that will assess the impact of new potentially hazardous industrial uses on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
HS Policy 5.8 The City of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to enforce the use of the hazardous materials transport routes identified in the Public Safety Element.
HS Policy 5.9 The City of Commerce will encourage the proper disposal of hazardous waste materials produced, used, and stored within the City’s limits.
HS Policy 6.1 The City of Commerce will continue to support the efforts of public safety officials to educate the public in preparing for a major and destructive earthquake.
HS Policy 6.2 The City of Commerce will continually update the emergency preparedness plan to respond to changing needs.
HS Policy 6.3 The City of Commerce will prepare a mini-emergency preparedness plan that may be distributed to households and businesses in the community, and will delineate evacuation routes, emergency response procedures, and other items as deemed necessary. (This plan must include the cable system as a source of emergency information on an ongoing basis as these emergencies occur. Emergency information should be monitored and either changed or modified once it becomes obsolete or impractical.)
1 – Introduction
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 7
City of Commerce
HS Policy 6.4 The City of Commerce will encourage City leaders and those persons living or working in the City to be trained as emergency response personnel.
HOUSING ELEMENT
HS Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will strive to provide a diverse inventory of housing that meets the needs of those who desire to reside in the city.
HS Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will promote the development of a wide range of housing by location, type, and price to meet the existing and future needs of the city.
HS Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will promote the retention and improvement of existing senior housing.
HS Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will promote the development of new housing for low-through upper-income households.
HS Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will explore opportunities for new residential development within those areas of the city occupied by vacant, obsolete commercial and industrial uses.
HS Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will ensure that housing provided for lower-income level households will not be concentrated in any single area or neighborhood of the city.
HS Policy 1.7 The City of Commerce will work to ensure that potential sites for residential development, located in those areas that were previously occupied by nonresidential land uses, are investigated to determine whether or not previous onsite uses present potential health risks.
HS Policy 1.8 The City of Commerce will continue to use redevelopment set-aside funds, density bonuses, and other program incentives to encourage private developers to construct quality low-income housing units.
HS Policy 1.9 The City of Commerce and the city’s Community Development Commission will continue to acquire and assemble properties to facilitate construction of new housing units for all income groups and seniors.
HS Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will continue to promote, maintain, and enhance the character and identity of the residential neighborhoods.
HS Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will continue to maintain the lower residential densities in the Bandini-Rosini and Rosewood neighborhoods.
HS Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will restrict further construction of multiple-family units to only those areas where such uses are appropriate.
HS Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will continue to ensure that the majority of new development in the Southeast planning area will consist primarily of medium-and high-density residential projects.
HS Policy 2.5 The City of Commerce will preserve the existing single-family character of the lowerdensity residential neighborhoods located in the Bandini-Rosini and Rosewood planning areas.
HS Policy 2.6 The City of Commerce will employ adequate code enforcement staff to ensure that residential properties are inspected on a regular basis.
HS Policy 2.7 The City of Commerce will require property owners to maintain their properties to the greatest extent possible.
HS Policy 2.8 The City of Commerce will continue to assist low-and moderate-income households with property maintenance by informing residents regarding the available programs and available low-interest and deferred loans.
HS Policy 2.9 The City of Commerce will establish a “House-of-the-Quarter” program that recognizes and rewards property owners for exemplary property maintenance.
HS Policy 2.10 The City of Commerce will protect the existing viable single-family residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of incompatible uses.
1 – Introduction
8 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
HS Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will encourage the maintenance of the existing housing stock.
HS Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will continue to rehabilitate existing substandard housing units through the enforcement of the City’s Building and Safety Code.
HS Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will enforce the Building and Safety Code and the Zoning Ordinance to prevent the construction of illegal housing units.
HS Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will ensure that homes, found to be in violation of building codes, have follow-up visits as a means to enforce compliance with the codes and fines imposed if compliance with codes is not completed within a reasonable amount of time.
HS Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will encourage quality construction in new residential development and require all properties to be maintained to the greatest extent possible.
HS Policy 4.5 The City of Commerce will ensure that all new housing will have the same standards for design, construction, and maintenance found in housing that is more expensive.
HS Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will continue to support Federal and State laws that prohibit discrimination in housing based on age, sex, or race.
HS Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with the Los Angeles County Fair Housing Council in the enforcement of fair housing laws.
HS Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will continue to work with the Los Angeles County Fair Housing Council in the review of violations of applicable Federal and State fair housing laws.
HS Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will establish formal child day care policies that will enable residents and employees to have access to affordable and high-quality day care facilities within the City.
HS Policy 5.5 The City of Commerce will develop a policy to encourage new industrial developments to include child day care facilities within the City or to pay in-lieu fees into a City-established child day care center fund.
HS Policy 5.7 The City of Commerce will continue to provide a wide variety of social service programs to City residents.
HS Policy 5.8 The City of Commerce will regularly assess the social service needs of the community.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
RM Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will do its part in the conservation and protection of air, water, energy, and land in the Southern California region.
RM Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will cooperate, to the degree necessary, with Federal, State, and County Agencies, and surrounding jurisdictions, in the maintenance and improvement in the quality of local groundwater.
RM Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and other government agencies to ensure that the Commerce Refuse to Energy plant operates in a manner that protects the region’s air resources.
RM Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will encourage the conservation of water resources in residential, commercial, and industrial developments through the use of droughttolerant plant materials and water-saving irrigation systems.
RM Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will strive to preserve the history of the City and any historical places in the City, such as the railroad station and the rubber trees in the vicinity of Olympic and Goodrich Boulevards.
RM Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will evaluate other potential significant sites in the community, and will continue to recognize the City’s cultural and historical resources.
1 – Introduction
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 9
City of Commerce
RM Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will document local historic sites and promote the public’s awareness of these resources.
RM Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will explore opportunities for the development of a City museum and cultural center.
RM Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will assist local utility companies with their public education energy conservation programs.
RM Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will encourage public employees to follow energy conservation procedures designed to reduce energy consumption.
RM Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will contact appropriate State agencies to determine whether the depletion of oil resources in the Bandini oilfield will create local ground subsidence problems.
RM Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will promote reduced energy consumption by existing land uses within the City.
RM Policy 3.5 The City of Commerce will cooperate with the Department of Building and Safety to enforce State energy conservation guidelines that require the incorporation of energy-saving designs and features into new and refurbished buildings.
RM Policy 4.2 The City of Commerce will explore code enforcement measures to ensure that landscaping is well maintained.
RM Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will implement a definitive street tree program which, at a minimum, calls for landscaping along major rights-of-way and within industrial and commercial developments.
RM Policy 4.4 The City of Commerce will review existing landscaping standards for public and private developments to increase the green space throughout the City.
RM Policy 4.5 The City of Commerce will require that at least five percent of the site area of all new commercial and industrial developments be landscaped.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
TR Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will continue to implement a comprehensive plan for a coordinated street circulation system that will provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.
TR Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will continue to develop a street circulation system that is capable of adequately accommodating a reasonable increase in future traffic demands.
TR Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will implement the standards for roadways identified in the Transportation Element in the planning and construction of future street improvements in the city.
TR Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will implement the applicable standards for local roadways specifically serving industrial developments in the city.
TR Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with the Sheriff’s Department in the enforcement of traffic laws on all City streets.
TR Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will continue to support the operation of, and further the enhancement of, a safe and efficient regional and inter-city transit system.
TR Policy 1.7 The City of Commerce will implement measures that will discourage through-traffic on local streets.
TR Policy 1.8 The City of Commerce will continue to analyze traffic congestion and evaluate strategies to improve the efficiency of the city transportation and circulation system.
TR Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will evaluate plans that will promote the separation of commercial and industrial development traffic from residential neighborhoods.
TR Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will prohibit truck traffic from using local streets located within, and exclusively serving, the residential neighborhoods. 1 – Introduction
10 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
TR Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will establish, and enforce the use of, truck routes in the City.
TR Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will seek out means to assess heavy truck users for the cost of maintaining roadway-related infrastructure.
TR Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will continue to encourage the use of alternate transportation modes (e.g., shuttles, etc.).
TR Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will continue to provide residents, employees, and visitors with a local public transit system.
TR Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will continue to monitor population trends and development that may require modifications to municipal bus system schedules and service routes to better service the major employment, shopping, and service areas located throughout the City.
TR Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will promote the development of safe and convenient pedestrian access between residential neighborhoods and the parks and schools that serve those neighborhoods.
TR Policy 3.5 The City of Commerce will encourage the maintenance and improvement of “pedestrian-safe” oriented facilities to ensure safe pedestrian movement.
TR Policy 3.6 The City of Commerce will establish bus shelters at heavily-used bus stops to increase public recognition and promote the use of the local and regional transit system.
TR Policy 3.7 The City of Commerce, together with the local transit provider and MTA, will provide brochure racks at city hall and community centers.
TR Policy 3.8 The City of Commerce will continue to implement the city’s transportation demand management (TDM) measures to improve the efficiency of the City’s circulation network.
TR Policy 3.9 The City of Commerce will require major employers to adopt TDM plans pursuant to the city’s adopted TDM ordinance.
TR Policy 3.10 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with regional transportation agencies to establish routes, stops, and stations in Commerce for the proposed regional mass transit system.
TR Policy 4.1 The City of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department to establish a roadway and traffic safety inspection program.
TR Policy 4.2 The City of Commerce will evaluate the feasibility of forming assessment districts, development fees, or other measures to acquire funds needed for street and trafficrelated improvements.
TR Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will require that the cost of new transportation-related improvements be borne by the developments that create the need for such improvements.
TR Policy 4.4 The City of Commerce will evaluate the feasibility of levying license fees for all trucks using city roads to pay for the cost of associated road repairs.
TR Policy 4.5 The City of Commerce will initiate discussions with Caltrans regarding the placement of a freeway interchange at the Slauson Avenue/Interstate 710 crossing.
TR Policy 4.6 The City of Commerce will consider a project to provide access to Sheila Street from Pacific Way west of Arrowmill Avenue.
TR Policy 4.7 The City of Commerce will install concrete paving on Washington Boulevard between Indiana Street and the Santa Ana Freeway.
TR Policy 4.8 The City of Commerce will widen Sheila Street as needed to accommodate existing and anticipated truck traffic along this route.
TR Policy 4.9 The City of Commerce will evaluate the feasibility of the widening of Ferguson Drive between Gerhart Avenue and Garfield Avenue.
1 – Introduction
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 11 City of Commerce
TR Policy 4.10 The City of Commerce will consult with Caltrans in considering the feasibility of constructing a direct ramp connection from the Long Beach Freeway to the adjacent rail yards as a means to reduce truck traffic on local streets.
TR Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that adequate off-street parking and loading facilities are provided for businesses and residences in the city.
TR Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will actively enforce existing curbside parking laws, particularly in regard to truck and bus parking along major roadways (all high-profile vehicles, including trucks, buses, and sport utility vehicles, should be parked at least a minimum of 20 feet from intersections in order to maintain clear visibility for vehicles entering all roadways).
TR Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will require all new developments to provide on-site parking in compliance with existing zoning regulations.
TR Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will continue to enforce other parking regulations as they apply to existing development.
TR Policy 5.5 The City of Commerce will continue to enforce and monitor parking ordinance regulations that will prohibit the parking of inoperable and service vehicles on residential streets.
TR Policy 5.6 The City of Commerce will develop a program to limit on-street parking in residential neighborhoods that may include, but not be limited to, the issuance of residential parking permits.
TR Policy 5.7 The City of Commerce will consider issuing street parking permits as a means to promote the use of garages for parking.
TR Policy 5.8 The City of Commerce will examine the feasibility of establishing an overnight parking ordinance and/or a street-cleaning program that will serve to restrict onstreet parking in residential neighborhoods.
TR Policy 6.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that all future transportation facilities that will provide a regional benefit do not have a significant adverse impact on the community and that any such impacts must be mitigated to the fullest extent possible.
TR Policy 6.2 The City of Commerce will oppose any regional public transportation improvement that does not first consider the potential impacts of such facilities on the local community in which the facility will be located.
TR Policy 6.3 The City of Commerce will take a proactive role in meeting with regional planning agencies to ensure that the local community’s voice is heard in the planning for future regional transportation facilities.
Source: City of Commerce General Plan Update; January, 2008 (Table 3-5, p. 30). 1 – Introduction
12 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Finally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (cross referenced by Sections 15164 and 15168) provides that:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;1
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Per the above, this Addendum functions as both an “addendum” and a “written checklist,” as called for in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164(a) and 15168(c)(4). As such, this Addendum analyzes the proposed project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects disclosed in the General Plan EIR consistent with Guidelines Section 15162. As detailed in this Addendum, no further CEQA review is required for the proposed project beyond the General Plan EIR and this Addendum because: (1) the project will not have new or substantially more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR; (2) all applicable mitigation measures (policies) in the General Plan EIR will be incorporated into the project’s approval; and, (3) the project will not require any new mitigation measures. This Addendum and its supporting documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or ND is not required prior to approval of the project. 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines “significant effect on the environment” as “... a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance...” (see also Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21068).
1 – Introduction
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 13 City of Commerce
1.3 – Addendum Determination
The City has determined that preparation of an Addendum to the General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 is the most appropriate method for evaluation of the proposed project. Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. 1 – Introduction
14 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
(d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.
Based on the information in this report, the City has determined that the project changes identified in this report meet the above CEQA criteria requiring preparation of an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. This document constitutes that Addendum.
1.4 – Summary of Addendum Conclusions
Section 2 of this Addendum describes the specific differences between the proposed project and the adopted General Plan EIR. As explained above, the proposed project includes changes to the General Plan and Zoning Code. Section 3 of this Addendum describes how the differences between the adopted General Plan EIR and the proposed project would affect the impact conclusions of the approved EIR.
Based on the analysis provided in Section 3 of this document it can be determined that the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of any of the impacts identified in the General Plan EIR nor would it require implementation of any new or modified mitigation measures. The General Plan EIR did not identify any significant unavoidable impacts with implementation of General Plan policies intended to reduce potential environmental impacts from future land use development projects to less than significant levels (see Table 1). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum does not identify any new or more severe impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 15 City of Commerce
2 Project Description
2.1 – Project Title
City of Commerce Housing Element Sites Rezoning, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment Project
2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Commerce
Department of Community Development
2535 Commerce Way
Commerce, California 90040
2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number
Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development
(323) 722-4805 Ext. 2811
2.4 – Project Location
The City of Commerce is located in southwestern Los Angeles County, approximately 4.5 miles southeast of Downtown Los Angeles (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context). The project consists of 26 parcels generally located along Atlantic Boulevard and Washington Boulevard/Jillson Street. The parcel numbers and addresses of the 26 parcels are listed in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites Site Address/
Intersection
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Size
(Acres) Rezoning
General
Plan
Amendment
5736 Washington Blvd 6334-006-900 0.89 Yes Yes
5733 Sheila St 6334-006-901 1.72 Yes Yes
5611 Washington Blvd 6335-023-900 0.59 Yes Yes
5600 Jillson St 6335-023-901 0.3 Yes Yes
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-023-902 0.07 Yes Yes
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-023-903 0.36 Yes Yes
2500 Eastern Ave 6335-024-900 0.69 Yes Yes
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-901 0.07 Yes Yes
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-902 0.07 Yes Yes
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-903 0.07 Yes Yes
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-904 0.07 Yes Yes
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-905 0.07 Yes Yes
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-906 0.07 Yes Yes
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-907 0.15 Yes Yes
2 – Project Description
16 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Site Address/
Intersection
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Size
(Acres) Rezoning
General
Plan
Amendment
Washington Blvd/Daniel Ave 6335-024-908 0.41 Yes Yes
5555 Washington Blvd 6335-024-909 0.53 Yes Yes
Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 5244-024-001 0.13 Yes No
Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 5244-024-002 0.05 Yes No
Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 5244-024-003 0.05 Yes No
Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 6335-005-053 0.05 Yes No
Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 6335-005-054 0.05 Yes No
Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 6335-005-055 0.12 Yes No
2358 Atlantic Blvd 6335-005-056 0.05 Yes No
2354 Atlantic Blvd 6335-005-057 0.11 Yes No
Atlantic Blvd/Harbor Blvd 6335-003-002 0.05 Yes No
2210 Atlantic Blvd 6335-003-003 0.11 Yes No
Total Acres 6.9
2.5 – Project Background
In 2024, the City of Commerce approved the 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element, updated pursuant to California Housing Element law. Article 10.6, Section 65580 – 65589.8, Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code sets forth the legal requirements for a housing element and encourages the provision of affordable and decent housing in suitable living environments for all communities to meet statewide goals. California Housing Element law requires that each city and county develop local housing programs designed to meet their “fair share” of housing needs for all income groups, based on projected population growth, also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) (Government Code Section 65580). The RHNA is the number of units that a jurisdiction must plan for in the Housing Element Update Table 3 below shows the number of RHNA units required for the City of Commerce divided into income categories. As shown in Table 3, Commerce’s RHNA allocation is 247 units.
Table 3
Commerce 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Income Category (% of County AMI) Number of Units
Extremely Low/Very Low (50% or less) 55
Low (51-80% AMI) 22
Moderate (81-120% AMI) 39
Above Moderate (>121% AMI) 131
Total 247
The 2021-2029 Housing Element indicated that while the City had made some progress toward meeting the RHNA, as indicated in Table 4 below, there was a remaining RHNA of 105 units (52 extremely/very low income, 15 low income, and 38 moderate income units) for which the City must identify adequate sites to allow for future development.
2 – Project Description
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 17 City of Commerce
Table 4
Commerce 2021-2029 Housing Element RHNA Remaining Need
Unit Type RHNA
Potential
ADUs
Bldg. Permits
Issued Entitled
Remaining
Need
Extremely Low 28 2 0 0 26
Very Low 27 1 0 0 26
Low 22 7 0 0 15
Moderate 39 1 0 0 38
Above Moderate 131 5 31 102 0
Total 247 16 31 102 105
City-owned vacant and underutilized sites in existing residential zones can accommodate an additional 29 units (6 very low income, 6 low income, and 17 moderate income units). The remaining 76 units (46 very low income, 9 low income, and 21 moderate income) can be accommodated on underutilized nonresidential sites that the City is proposing to redesignate as mixed use as part of the Comprehensive General Plan Update and rezone to allow for mixed-use. Table 5 below outlines the various methods the City used to achieve its RHNA.
Table 5
Summary of RHNA Strategies
Extremely
Low/Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
RHNA 55 22 39 131 247
Potential ADUs* 3 7 1 5 16
Building Permits Issued
(Site B of Rosewood Village) 0 0 0 31 31
Entitled (Site 1A and Site 2) 0 0 0 102 102
Total Credits 3 7 1 138 149
Remaining RHNA 52 15 38 0 105
Modelo Specific Plan 0 0 0 85 85
City-Owned Properties
• Vacant Residential Sites 6 6 17 0 29
• Underutilized Mixed-Use Rezone
Sites 73 70 19 78 300
Non-City-Owned Properties
• Vacant Opportunity Residential
Sites 0 0 0 5 5
• Underutilized Opportunity MixedUse Rezone Sites 0 0 0 34 34 Total Units to Meet Remaining RHNA 79 76 96 967 1,218
Surplus 27 61 58 836 1,113
% Buffer over RHNA 49% 277% 149% 638% 451%
Note: *ADUs distributed according to the SCAG region recommended income distribution 2 – Project Description
18 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation
As indicated in Table 6, parcels have a current General Plan Land Use designation of either Commercial Manufacturing (CM) or Atlantic Mixed Use (AMU). Those parcels in Table 6 that are not already Atlantic Mixed Use are proposed to be redesignated Atlantic MU in the General Plan Land Use Element.
2.7 – Zoning District
As indicated in Table 6, all parcels have a current zoning of C/M1. These 26 Parcels are proposed to be rezoned to add a Mixed Use Overlay.
2.8 – Environmental Setting
The City of Commerce is fully urbanized and built out. The City is comprised of industrial, manufacturing, mixed-use, commercial, residential, and institutional uses. There are very few vacant parcels within the City. No natural, undeveloped open space areas are located within the City. In addition, there are no areas within the City that are subject to habitat conservation plans and there are no county designated Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) located within the City. No agricultural activities are located within the City nor does the City of Commerce General Plan provide for any agricultural land use designation.
There are no soils in the City designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The City is relatively flat with an elevation ranging between approximately 145 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southern portion of the City and approximately 195 feet AMSL in the northern portion of the City. The proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are all currently developed with commercial or industrial uses, public facilities, and surface parking. None of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments contain any natural habitat.
2 – Project Description
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 19 City of Commerce
Table 6
Proposed Project Sites
Site Address/
Intersection
Assessor
Parcel Number
Size
(Ac.)
Current
General
Plan
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General
Plan
Proposed
Zoning
Description of
Existing Uses
Consolidation
Opportunities
City
Owned
(Y/N)
5736 Washington Blvd 6334-006-900 0.89 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Commercial Consolidated Site E
Y
5733 Sheila St 6334-006-901 1.72 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Commercial Y 5611 Washington Blvd 6335-023-900 0.59 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Public facilities Consolidated
Site F
Y
5600 Jillson St 6335-023-901 0.3 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Public facilities Y Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-023-902 0.07 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Public facilities Y Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-023-903 0.36 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Public facilities Y 2500 Eastern Ave 6335-024-900 0.69 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Consolidated
Site G
Y
Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-901 0.07 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Y Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-902 0.07 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Y Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-903 0.07 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Y Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-904 0.07 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Y Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-905 0.07 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Y Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-906 0.07 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Y Jillson St/Daniel Ave 6335-024-907 0.15 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Y Washington Blvd/Daniel Ave 6335-024-908 0.41 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Y 5555 Washington Blvd 6335-024-909 0.53 CM C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Commercial Y Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 5244-024-001 0.13 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU AB-O Parking Consolidated
Site H
N
Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 5244-024-002 0.05 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU AB-O Parking N Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 5244-024-003 0.05 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU AB-O Parking N Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 6335-005-053 0.05 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU AB-O Parking Consolidated
Site I
N
Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 6335-005-054 0.05 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU AB-O Parking N Atlantic Blvd/Jardine St 6335-005-055 0.12 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU AB-O Parking N 2358 Atlantic Blvd 6335-005-056 0.05 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking Consolidated Site J
N
2354 Atlantic Blvd 6335-005-057 0.11 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU WB-O Parking N Atlantic Blvd/Harbor Blvd 6335-003-002 0.05 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU AB-O Vacant Consolidated Site K
N
2210 Atlantic Blvd 6335-003-003 0.11 Atlantic MU C/M1 Atlantic MU AB-O Commercial N 2 – Project Description
20 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
2 – Project Description
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 21 City of Commerce
2.9 – Project Description
The proposed Project includes the following:
• General Plan Amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Atlantic Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan (see Table 6: Proposed General Plan and Zoning for Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites and Exhibit 2: Proposed General Plan Amendment)
• Zoning Map Amendments (see Table 6: Proposed General Plan and Zoning for Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites and Exhibit 3: Proposed Zoning Map Amendment) to add a Mixed-Use Overlay zone to 16 parcels along Washington Boulevard and 10 parcels along Atlantic Boulevard, all of which are currently zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map. • Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Zoning Map Amendments:
o To create a new Mixed-Use Overlay, applicable to only those sites associated with the Zoning Map Amendment.
o To create a new Division 24 under Chapter 19.31 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) to provide live/work development and operating standards for any new proposed live/work development within the new overlays
o To add additional clarifying definitions to the Zoning Code associated with the new overlays.
o To create a new Administrative Site Plan review process to allow for streamlined review consistent with State Housing law.
General Plan Land Use Plan Amendment
The project includes a General Plan Land Use Plan amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Atlantic Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan, as identified in Table 6 and Exhibit 2. These parcels are located along Washington Boulevard and were identified in the Housing Element as viable sites to meet the RHNA. The sites currently do not allow housing, under the existing Commercial Manufacturing land use designation. The General Plan amendment would allow housing on the identified 16 parcels and create consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Maps, given the proposed rezoning required by State Housing Element law. The Atlantic Boulevard sites are already designated Atlantic Mixed Use, from the 2008 General Plan.
Zoning Map Amendment
As required by State Housing Element law, the project includes a Zoning Map amendment for 26 parcels, as identified in Table 6. The Zoning Map amendment would add an overlay zone to 16 parcels currently zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map along Washington Boulevard, and an overlay zone to 10 parcels currently zoned C/M1 along Atlantic Boulevard on the Zoning Map (see Exhibit 3). As an overlay zone, the existing underlying zoning remains. The overlay zone is additive to the C/M1 zone on these 26 parcels, providing additional flexibility to property owners to allow housing, supportive and transitional housing, live/work, and mixed-use in addition to other uses already allowed by the underlying zone.
2 – Project Description
22 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Zoning Text Amendments
Per Housing Element law, the rezoned sites must meet the requirements of Government Code 65583.2, including but not limited to a minimum density of 20 units per acre, minimum site size to permit at least 16 units on site, and zoned to allow ownership and rental housing by-right for development projects in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. As part of the rezoning, appropriate development standards (including but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage, height, and parking, among others) must also established to ensure the allowable maximum density of each zone can be achieved.
Mixed Use Overlay (New Chapter 19.49) Zoning Text Amendments. The Mixed-Use Overlay Zoning Text Amendment is additive to the underlying zone. The Overlay allows for multi-family housing, supportive and transitional housing, live/work, and mixed-use development. The zone allows for a maximum residential density of 60 units per acre, with a required minimum density of 27 units per acre.
The overlay zone also allows for increased density (up to 85 units per acre) and nonresidential intensity (up to 2.5 FAR) if the project includes community benefits, such as affordable housing, a public plaza, rent subsidies to provide below-market rent to small legacy and community-serving businesses, a dedicated ground floor space for a food establishment, and public art, among others.
The zone overlay includes standards for height, setbacks, and parking that will allow the identified density to be achieved. The zone overlay also includes a requirement to plant trees to enhance the pedestrian environment and a provision to minimize shade/shadow on any adjacent residential zones.
Objective design standards pertaining to façade composition and architecture are included to guide high-quality design, including:
• Requirement for building transparency (windows), with additional transparency required on the ground floor
• Elevation of the first floor (within two feet of existing grade for commercial and six feet for residential) to contribute to the pedestrian experience • Pedestrian entrance orientation toward the primary street • Minimum width and façade modulation for building entries • Building articulation via variable wall plane and a variety of colors, materials, and textures.
To ensure compliance with Housing Element law by preventing a reduction in citywide housing capacity for lower-income units, any project that proposes less units for that site than identified in the Housing Element requires a finding of no net loss (i.e., that there is remaining capacity within the surplus of sites identified in the Housing Element, or another HCD-approved site has been identified, to meet the RHNA).
New Chapter 19.31, Division 24 (Live/work). Live/work is an allowed use in the new MU-O zones.
This new section of the Zoning Code provides development and operating standards for any new proposed live/work development within the new overlays, including a limitation on certain uses that would be incompatible with residential uses, design standards requiring a minimum area devoted to commercial space, occupancy and business license requirements, and a prohibition on conversion of a live/work unit to either entirely residential use or entirely nonresidential use.
Amendments to Chapter 19.45 (Definitions). In association with the new zoning overlay (MU-O), definitions are proposed to add additional clarifying definitions to the Zoning Code. The definition of Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR) is amended to clarify that the calculation is applicable only to the 2 – Project Description
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 23 City of Commerce
nonresidential portion of the building. New definitions are proposed for mixed-use, major transit stop, and various types of open space.
Amendments to Chapter 19.39, Division 10 (Site Plan Review). The existing code requires Site Plan review for larger development projects, which involves Planning Commission review. The amendment would add a new Administrative Site Plan review process (Site Plan – Minor) to allow for streamlined review consistent with State Housing law.
General Plan Buildout
The Commerce General Plan was adopted in 2008 and concurrently was assessed for environmental impacts through a Draft and Final General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR identified that build out in accordance with general plan land use policy would result in a total of 6,570 dwelling units, including 567 units of housing implemented through mixed-use on Atlantic Boulevard. While this was identified as a policy in the 2008 General Plan and in the 2008 General Plan Land Use Plan included a mixeduse designation along Atlantic Boulevard, the implementing zoning was never adopted. The 2021-2029 Housing Element reported that there were 3,470 existing housing units in Commerce as of 2022. The California Department of Finance reports that there are an estimated 3,565 housing units in Commerce as of 2025. As such, there is a remaining capacity of 3,005 units before the buildout identified in the 2008 General Plan EIR is exceeded, as outlined in Table 7 below.
Table 7
2008 General Plan EIR Theoretical Residential Development and Remaining Capacity Residential Land Use
Designation
Intensity
Standard
(units/ac) General Plan
Existing
Units as
of 2008
Existing
Units as
of 2025
Remaining
Capacity
in General
Plan
Low Density Residential 11 129 ac. 1,419 un.
3,424 un. 3,565 un. 3,005 un.
Medium Density Residential 17 73 ac. 1,214 un.
High Density Residential 27 64 ac. 1,728 un.
Atlantic Boulevard Mixed Use 27 21 ac. 567 un.
Housing Opportunity 17 95 ac. 1,615 un.
Total 287 ac. 6,570 un.
Notes:
ac. = acres; un. = units.
* The 2008 General Plan and EIR noted that it assumed the development intensity for the Medium Density and High Density Residential land use designations at 17 units/acre and 27 units/acre, respectively. The development potential for the Atlantic Boulevard mixed use assumed 50% would be developed as residential.
As identified in Table 5, the 2021-2029 Housing Element identified sites that could accommodate 1,218 total units to meet the RHNA. The rezoning and general plan amendment, which is the subject of this project, would allow for up to 300 units on City-owned sites and up to 34 units on non-City-owned sites, for a total of 334 units. There is remaining capacity within the 2008 General Plan build out assumptions for 3,005 units. This remaining capacity well exceeds the number of units associated with the rezoning/general plan amendment (334 units), leaving a remaining capacity of 2,671 units. The City is also, as a separate project that will require a separate CEQA review, currently undertaking a comprehensive update to the General Plan and anticipates completion of the General Plan update in 2026. The rezoning/general plan amendment is being undertaken as a separate project to comply with State Housing Element requirements. Exhibit 2 shows the proposed general plan land use map amendments and Exhibit 3 shows the proposed rezoning.
2 – Project Description
24 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
2.11 – Required Approvals
The project will require the following approvals:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 25-01
• Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 25-03
• Zoning Change (ZC) No. 25-01
2.12 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required
• None
2 – Project Description
Housing Element Sites Rezoning 25
City of Commerce
Exhibit 1
Regional Context Map
2 – Project Description
26 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
2 – Project Description
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 27 City of Commerce
Exhibit 2
Proposed General Plan Amendment
2 – Project Description
28 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
2 – Project Description
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 29 City of Commerce
Exhibit 3
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
2 – Project Description
30 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 31 City of Commerce
3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the CEQA environmental checklist categories in terms of any changed conditions from the approved General Plan EIR to the proposed project (e.g., project changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial importance) that may produce a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). As such, the Addendum’s checklist analysis uses the standard environmental categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed in Guidelines Section 15162(a). General Plan policies identified in the General Plan EIR and applicable to the proposed project are discussed under each environmental section and are listed in Section 5 (Applicable General Plan Policies). As discussed in the following sections, the proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR.
EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES (COLUMNS) Effect Not Examined in Program EIR?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1), this column indicates whether the project would have effects that were not previously examined by the General Plan EIR, in which new effects could necessitate subsequent CEQA review. The General Plan EIR is nearly twenty years old; therefore, there are several impact areas that were not examined as part of the original environmental analysis. Since 2008, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated numerous times requiring analysis of several new impact areas that were not included in the General Plan EIR.
Significance Conclusion in Program EIR?
This column identifies the conclusion of the General Plan EIR concerning the environmental issues listed under each topic with respect to its significance.
Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1), this column indicates whether any changes represented by the proposed project would result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the General Plan EIR, or whether the changes would result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.
New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed project would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of one or more new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, shows any of the following:
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
32 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous PEIR or Negative Declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous PEIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous PEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the General Plan EIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “No,” and no subsequent environmental review would be required.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWING CHECKLIST EVALUATION
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers regarding the proposed project in relation to the General Plan EIR. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. Applicable policies from the General Plan EIR that apply to the proposed project are listed under each environmental category as well as in Section 4 of this report.
Conclusion
Each section ends with a summary of the conclusion of the preceding analysis. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 33 City of Commerce
3.1 – Aesthetics
Would the project:
Effect
Examined in
the General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Yes No Impact No No No
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within
view from a state scenic
highway?
Yes No Impact No No No
c) In non-urbanized area,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of
the site and its
surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations governing
scenic quality?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Scenic Vistas. The General Plan EIR did not identify any scenic resources within the City or within close proximity to the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that no impact to scenic resources would occur.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan, Zoning Map Amendments to add Mixed Use overlay zones to 16 parcels along Washington Boulevard and 10 parcels along Atlantic Boulevard currently 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
34 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map, and Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Zoning Map Amendments. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan development capacity as analyzed in the General Plan EIR and there are no scenic vistas in the City or within close proximity to the City. Therefore, the proposed project would similarly have no impact on scenic vistas. (b) Visual Resources within a State Scenic Highway. The General Plan EIR found that there are no scenic highways in or within close proximity to the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to scenic resources within view from a state scenic highway would not occur.
There are no officially designated scenic highways in or within close proximity the City. State Route 2 (SR-2) is the nearest designated state scenic highway to the City and is located in the San Gabriel Mountains about 17 miles north of the City (Caltrans, 2010). Therefore, the proposed project would similarly have no impacts to scenic resources within view from a state scenic highway. (c) Degrade Existing Visual Character. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts to the existing visual character of the sites and surrounding area because it was not required by CEQA when the General Plan EIR was certified in 2008. However, the General Plan EIR did find that the General Plan would have a beneficial impact with respect to aesthetics and any new future development would be required to conform to adopted design standards and zoning requirements. In addition, the General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan includes a number of policies aimed at improving the City’s appearance.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. Future projects in the project area would be developed consistent with the design and development requirements of the General Plan. The size and scale of the proposed buildings would be consistent with existing development in the surrounding area. The overall appearance of new buildings within the project area would be consistent with the scale and size allowed under the General Plan and with applicable specific plans and zoning requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and would have less than significant impacts with implementation of applicable General Plan policies listed below.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Community Development Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will continue to promote land use compatibility.
Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce shall accelerate the implementation of the City’s development code.
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to implement specific standards for new commercial developments located adjacent to residential neighborhoods in order to ensure that adequate buffers are provided so that negative impacts such as noise, light pollution, truck use, and traffic may be mitigated.
Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will ensure that commercial and industrial development provide sufficient landscaped buffers and other design features to separate new non-residential uses located in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 35 City of Commerce
Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will expand its housing rehabilitation programs, focusing on the need to rehabilitate housing and eliminate illegal garage conversions in every Commerce neighborhood.
Policy 6.1 The City of Commerce will promote the creation of “area themes” to enhance the City’s living and working environment.
Policy 6.2 The City of Commerce will strive to see that commercial properties are maintained and that obsolete signage is removed.
Policy 6.3 The City of Commerce will require new commercial and industrial development to employ architectural and site design techniques that will promote quality and efficient development.
Housing Element
Policy 2.6 The City of Commerce will employ adequate code enforcement staff to ensure that residential properties are inspected on a regular basis.
Policy 2.7 The City of Commerce will require property owners to maintain their properties to the greatest extent possible.
Policy 2.9 The City of Commerce will establish a “House-of-the-Quarter” program that recognizes and rewards property owners for exemplary property maintenance.
Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will encourage the maintenance of the existing housing stock.
Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will continue to rehabilitate existing substandard housing units through the enforcement of the City’s Building and Safety Code.
Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will enforce the Building and Safety Code and the Zoning Ordinance to prevent the construction of illegal housing units.
Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will ensure that homes, found to be in violation of building codes, have follow-up visits as a means to enforce compliance with the codes and fines imposed if compliance with codes is not completed within a reasonable amount of time.
Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will encourage quality construction in new residential development and require all properties to be maintained to the greatest extent possible.
Policy 4.5 The City of Commerce will ensure that all new housing will have the same standards for design, construction, and maintenance found in housing that is more expensive.
Resource Management Element
Policy 4.2 The City of Commerce will explore code enforcement measures to ensure that landscaping is well maintained.
Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will implement a definitive street tree program which, at a minimum, calls for landscaping along major rights-of-way and within industrial and commercial developments.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
36 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Policy 4.4 The City of Commerce will review existing landscaping standards for public and private developments to increase the green space throughout the City.
Policy 4.5 The City of Commerce will require that at least five percent of the site area of all new commercial and industrial developments be landscaped.
(d) Light and Glare. The General Plan EIR found that future development would generate new sources of light and glare in the area. It was also noted that lighting utilized for parking areas, security lighting, and lights within the structures will continue to be the predominant source of light and glare in the City.
As such, it was determined that the degree of light and glare, while likely to be comparable to existing levels, would require evaluation on a project–by-project basis and compliance with City Municipal Code requirements for shielding lighting from adjoining uses (Commerce Municipal Code 19.19.130). It was also found that the Sheriff’s Department and the City may also require approval of a detailed lighting plan for larger developments. Finally, the General Plan found that applicable General Plan policies would ensure that adequate buffers are provided so that negative impacts such as light pollution may be mitigated. With implementation of General Plan policies, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. Future projects in the project area would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis and developed consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 19.19.130 which requires all exterior lighting to be shielded as to avoid light spillover onto adjacent properties. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations, including applicable General Plan policies, would ensure the proposed project’s light and glare impacts would be less than significant and no new mitigation is required.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Community Development Element
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to implement specific standards for new commercial developments located adjacent to residential neighborhoods in order to ensure that adequate buffers are provided so that negative impacts such as noise, light pollution, truck use, and traffic may be mitigated.
Conclusion
As analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetics impacts. The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 37 City of Commerce
3.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Yes No Impact No No No
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
Yes No Impact No No No
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public
Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code
section 51104 (g))?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
d) Result in loss of forest
land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their location or
Yes No Impact No No No
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
38 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Designated Farmland. The General Plan EIR found that there are no agricultural activities located within the City, nor does the City of Commerce General Plan provide for any agricultural land use designations. In addition, it was determined that there are no soils in the City designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan’s implementation would not result in the conversion of any existing farmland to non-agricultural uses and no impacts would occur.
Because the City does not contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as mapped by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project has no potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non‐agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
(b) Williamson Act. The General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan does not provide an agricultural land use designation anywhere in the City. In addition, it was determined that there are no parcels within the City zoned for agricultural uses or under a Williamson Act contract. As such, the General Plan EIR determined that no impacts on farmland soils, agricultural zoning, or existing or future Williamson Act contracts would result from the General Plan’s implementation.
Because the General Plan does not provide for any agricultural land use designations and there are no parcels within the City zoned for agricultural uses or under a Williamson Act contract, the project has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. (c) Forest Zoning. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to forest zoning. The City does not contain any forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production. Because no lands on the project site are zoned for forestland or timberland, the project has no potential to impact such zoning. No impact would occur.
(d) Loss of Forestland. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to loss of forestland.
There are no parcels in the City zoned as forest lands, nor are there any parcels identified as containing forest resources by the General Plan. Because forest land is not present within the City, the project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.
(e) Conversion of Land. As discussed in response 4.2(a) above, the General Plan EIR found that there are no agricultural activities located within the City, nor does the City of Commerce General Plan provide for any agricultural land use designation. In addition, as discussed in response 4.2(c) above, the City does not contain any forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production.
Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that project implementation would not result in conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 39 City of Commerce
Because the project area does not contain any land zoned for agricultural or forest uses, the proposed project would not result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no unanticipated impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Conclusion
There are no agricultural or forest-related resources in or near the project area that would be impacted.
The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. No subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation measures are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
40 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.3 – Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Conflict with AQMP. The General Plan EIR did not evaluate the existing General Plan for conflicts or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan. However, the General Plan EIR does note that the General Plan includes policies intended to facilitate coordination between the City and the SCAG on development of regional growth management plans. Since certification of the General Plan EIR, SCAQMD has released updated AQMPs, with the 2022 AQMP currently in effect. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan, Zoning Map Amendments to add Mixed Use overlay zones to 16 parcels along Washington Boulevard and 10 parcels along Atlantic Boulevard currently zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map, and Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Zoning Map Amendments. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. For this reason, the proposed project would remain consistent with development and population projections used to prepare the 2022 AQMP and would not conflict with the control measures in the AQMP.
Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to applicable General Plan policies intended to facilitate coordination between the City and SCAG in development of its regional growth management 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 41 City of Commerce
plans. In turn, AQMD would utilize SCAG’s regional growth projections in the preparation of the Basin Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and would result in a less than significant impact.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Air Quality Element
Policy 4.8 The City of Commerce will support SCAG's Regional Growth Management Plan by developing intergovernmental agreements with appropriate governmental entities such as the Gateway Cities, sanitation districts, water districts, and those sub-regional entities identified in the Regional Growth Management Plan.
(b) Criteria Pollutant Emissions. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not result in emission of either short-term or long-term criteria pollutants that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District’s (SCAQMD) daily thresholds for significance. The General Plan EIR also identified policies included in the General Plan that would further reduce criteria pollutant emissions impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
Because the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments, the project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity. Because of this the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would also be subject to applicable General Plan policies intended to reduce criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant impact greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR would result from the proposed project.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Air Quality Element
Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will require that developers of high density and mixed-use developments consult with the local transit agency and incorporate all appropriate and feasible transit amenities into the plans.
Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will establish a Mixed-Use Zoning District that offers incentives to mixed-use developments. The Mixed-Use designation that is applicable to the Atlantic Boulevard corridor implements this policy.
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will adopt and implement codes that encourage community centers, telecommuting programs, and home-based businesses.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will create opportunities to receive State transportation funds by adopting incentives (e.g., an expedited review process) for planning and implementing infill development projects within urbanized areas that include job centers and clean transportation nodes (e.g., preparation of "transit village" plans).
Policy 2.5 The City of Commerce will collaborate with local, regional, state and federal agencies to create incentives for "job/housing opportunity zones," to promote housing in job-rich 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
42 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
areas and jobs in housing-rich areas. The Housing Opportunity areas identified in the Community Development Element are consistent with this policy.
Policy 2.7 The City of Commerce will promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations, and types of vehicles Policy 2.8 The City of Commerce will seek new cooperative relationships between employers and employees to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Policy 2.9 The City of Commerce will work with large employers and commercial/industrial complexes to create Transportation Management Associations and to implement trip/VMT action strategies.
Policy 2.10 The City of Commerce will cooperate with surrounding jurisdictions to provide incentives, adopt regulations and develop transportation demand management programs educe and eliminate vehicle trips and VMT.
Policy 2.11 The City of Commerce will collaborate with local transit agencies to develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit.
Policy 2.12 The City of Commerce will Identify and develop non-motorized transportation corridors (e.g., bicycling and pedestrian trails and lanes).
Policy 2.13 The City of Commerce will establish requirements for special event centers to provide off-site parking and park-n-ride facilities at remote locations. Remote parking should be as close as practicable to the event site and the operator should operate or provide alternative-fuel vehicles for shuttles.
Policy 2.14 The City of Commerce will encourage special event center operators to provide discounted transit passes with event tickets or offer discounted on-site parking for carpooling patrons (four or more persons per vehicle).
Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will manage the City's transportation fleet fueling standards to achieve the greatest number of alternative fuel vehicles in the City fleet.
Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is publicly accessible.
Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will establish programs for priority or free parking on City streets or in City parking lots for alternative fuel vehicles.
Policy 3.6 The City of Commerce will manage the City's transportation fleet fueling standards to achieve the greatest number of alternative fuel vehicles in the City fleet.
Policy 3.7 The City of Commerce will support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is publicly accessible.
Policy 4.1 The City of Commerce will synchronize traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties while allowing free flow of mass transit systems. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 43 City of Commerce
Policy 4.2 The City of Commerce will reduce traffic delays through highway maintenance, rapid emergency response, debris removal, and elimination of at-grade railroad crossings.
Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will encourage businesses to schedule deliveries at off-peak traffic periods through the land use entitlement or business regulation process.
Policy 4.4 The City of Commerce will encourage the construction of HOV lanes whenever necessary to relieve congestion and reduce air pollution. Emphasize the use of HOV lanes, as well as light rail and bus routes, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve mobility and air quality.
Policy 4.5 The City of Commerce will monitor traffic and congestion to determine when and where the City needs new transportation facilities to achieve increased mobility efficiency.
Policy 4.6 The City of Commerce will work with local transit providers to incorporate best design practices for transit into new development projects.
Policy 4.7 The City of Commerce will continue to implement the required components of the Congestion Management Plan (CMP), and continue to work with Los Angeles County on annual updates to the CMP.
Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that all future public facilities and improvements do not have a significant adverse air quality impact on the community and that any such impacts must be mitigated to the fullest extent possible. (c) Sensitive Receptors. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would not involve any land use changes that would place sensitive receptors in areas subject to high pollutant concentrations from either mobile or stationary sources. It was also noted that impacts from individual projects that would occur as part of the General Plan’s implementation would require evaluation on a project-specific basis. Finally, the General Plan EIR found that policies included in the General Plan would further reduce impacts to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. The proposed project would not permit any land use that includes toxic emissions or result in the placement of any sensitive receptors ( i.e., schools, hospitals, convalescent homes) near major roadways or heavy industrial areas. Future development as part of implementation of the proposed project would be required to conduct project-specific evaluation of impacts on sensitive receptors, including from Toxic Air Contaminants and Localized Emissions from construction and operation. Finally, implementation of the proposed project would be subject to applicable General Plan policies intended to limit air quality impacts to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and would result in a similar less than significant impact as was determined in the General Plan EIR.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Air Quality Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will consider environmental justice issues as they are related to potential health impacts associated with air pollution and ensure that all land use 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
44 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
decisions, including enforcement actions, are made in an equitable fashion to protect residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location from the health effects of air pollution.
Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will encourage the applicants for sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and medical facilities) to incorporate design features (e.g., pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures) in the planning process to minimize the potential impacts of air pollution on sensitive receptors.
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will promote and support mixed-use land patterns that allow the integration of retail, office, institutional and residential uses. Consult with the AQMD when siting new facilities with dust, odors or TAC emissions to avoid siting those facilities near sensitive receptors and avoid siting sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will facilitate communication among residents, businesses and the AQMD to quickly resolve air pollution nuisance complaints. Distribute information to advise residents on how to register a complaint with the SCAQMD.
Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will require that owners of new developments that have the potential to emit air pollutants that would impact sensitive receptors to notify residents and businesses adjacent to the proposed site prior to starting construction.
Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will consider all feasible alternatives to minimize emissions from diesel equipment (e.g., trucks, construction equipment, and generators).
Policy 1.7 The City of Commerce will actively participate in decisions on the siting or expansion of facilities or land uses (e.g. freeway expansions), to ensure the inclusion of air quality.
Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will cooperate with federal and state agencies and the AQMD in their efforts to reduce exposure from railroad and truck emissions.
Policy 3.5 The City of Commerce will collaborate with the USEPA, CARIB, AQMD, and warehouse owners to create programs and ordinances to minimize the amount of diesel emissions related to warehousing operations.
Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will oppose the over-concentration of polluting public facilities and improvements.
Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will take a proactive role in meeting with regional planning agencies to ensure that the local community’s voice is heard in air quality issues. (d) Other Emissions Such as Odors. The General Plan EIR does not evaluate impacts from exposure to odors from implementation of the General Plan. However, the General Plan EIR does note that the General Plan includes policies intended to reduce impacts related to exposure to odors. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan, Zoning Map Amendments to add Mixed Use overlay zones to 16 parcels along Washington Boulevard and 10 parcels along Atlantic Boulevard currently zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map, and 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 45 City of Commerce
Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Zoning Map Amendments. The proposed project would not permit land uses associated with odors. The proposed project would also be subject to General Plan policies intended to reduce impacts related to exposure of odors. For this reason, the proposed project would not generate other emissions or odors that could adversely affect a substantial number of people.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Air Quality Element
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will promote and support mixed-use land patterns that allow the integration of retail, office, institutional and residential uses. Consult with the AQMD when siting new facilities with dust, odors or TAC emissions to avoid siting those facilities near sensitive receptors and avoid siting sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution.
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR indicated that implementation of the General Plan would result in less significant air quality impacts, both as an individual project and cumulatively in terms of air pollutant emissions that exceeded then-established standards. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in greater emissions than were evaluated and approved in the General Plan EIR. The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
46 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.4 – Biological Resources
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified
in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Yes No Impact No No No
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Yes No Impact No No No
d) Interfere substantially
with the movement of any
native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Yes No Impact No No No
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 47 City of Commerce
preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation
plan?
Yes No Impact No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Listed or Sensitive Species. The General Plan EIR noted that the City of Commerce is urbanized, the City is completely surrounded by commercial and industrial development, and plant life in the City is limited to non-native, introduced, and ornamental species, which are used for landscaping. The General Plan EIR also noted that animal life in Commerce and nearby urban areas consists of species commonly found in urban settings. For this reason, the General Plan EIR determined that there are no sensitive or endangered animal and plant species located within or near the City. Thus, it was determined that future development within the City under the General Plan would not have any adverse impacts on sensitive plants or animals. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to listed or sensitive species would be less than significant.
The City of Commerce is fully urbanized. No natural, undeveloped open space areas are located within the City. The bulk of the remaining open space in the City, not devoted to parks and recreation facilities, is included in utility easements and the landscaped areas of the individual properties. A 55-acre SCE utility easement traverses the eastern half of the City and is the largest open space area in terms of land area. This easement traverses the City in a north to south orientation and the easement averages 300 feet in width. Tree nurseries occupy portions of the easement, and other sections serve as overflow parking lots for adjacent industrial land uses. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan, Zoning Map Amendments to add Mixed Use overlay zones to 16 parcels along Washington Boulevard and 10 parcels along Atlantic Boulevard currently zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map, and Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Zoning Map Amendments. Because there are no listed or sensitive species within the City, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. (b) Riparian or Sensitive Habitat. The General Plan EIR determined that no riparian or other natural habitats are found within the City or in adjacent areas. Therefore, it was determined that no impact to riparian or sensitive habitats would occur with implementation of the General Plan.
None of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments contain any natural habitat and there are no riparian or other natural habitats within the City or in adjacent areas. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community. (c) Wetlands. The General Plan EIR found that no natural blue line streams traverse the City. The General Plan EIR noted that the Los Angeles River and the Rio Hondo River have been artificially modified to accommodate storm water flows. As such, these rivers no longer contain wetland habitat.
For these reasons, the General Plan EIR determined that no wetland habitat would be disturbed by any future development under the General Plan and no impact would occur. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
48 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Because there are no wetlands within the City, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
(d) Wildlife Movement. The General Plan EIR determined that because there is no natural habitat within the City that implementation of the General Plan would not affect the movement of wildlife.
Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that no impact would occur.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. No natural habitat or community that could support the movement of wildlife exist on sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. (e) Local Policies. The General Plan EIR noted that all future development resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter
19.23.060, which prohibits the removal of any tree on any public street or right-of-way without approval of a permit by the department of public services. For this reason, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and impacts would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations.
As previously noted, the project site does not contain any natural habitat or community, does not contain any riparian/riverine areas, and does not contain any wetlands. Commerce has an active street tree program that is administered by the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation. The Department plants and maintains trees as needed throughout the City, and special emphasis is placed on providing specimen trees in the industrial and commercial areas. At present, the City does not have a street tree master plan, but the success of the existing ongoing program has earned Commerce a “Tree City USA” award. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. All future projects developed within the City as a result of the proposed project would be required to comply with existing Municipal Code regulations governing the removal of street trees. For this reason, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and impacts would be less than significant.
(f) Habitat Conservation Plans. The General Plan EIR noted that the area governed by the General Plan does not include areas governed by a habitat conservation or community conservation plan. For this reason, it was determined that implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that no impact would occur.
No natural habitat exists on sites identified for rezoning or general plan amendments and there are no areas within the City that are subject to habitat conservation plans. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 49 City of Commerce
Conclusion
The project site does not contain wetlands, riparian habitat, sensitive plants or animals, or other important biological resources. The proposed project would be within the scope of what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
50 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.5 – Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to
Section15064.5?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to
Section15064.5?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Historical Resources. The General Plan EIR noted that there are two locally significant historic sites in Commerce: the former Uniroyal Tire Plant facade (now a part of the Citadel shopping center/office complex) and the Pillsbury mill, both of which are listed on the State Register of Historical Places. Other sites of local significance include the site of the Vail Landing Field which is located in the northeast portion of the City (a plaque marks the site where Western Airlines began its West Coast passenger and airmail services). Additional sites of local interest within the City include the Union Pacific East Los Angeles Train Station; Mount Olive, Russian Molakian, and Mount Carmel ethnic cemeteries, and the 1942 Sleepy Lagoon Murder site. The latter site is noteworthy in that the murder led to a trial, which culminated in the Zoot Suit Riots, focusing international attention on the Mexican-American political movement. The General Plan EIR found that future development within the City could lead to the demolition or alteration of existing structures. However, it was also found that the implementation of the General Plan would promote the maintenance and preservation of the existing Citadel facade, which is presently a protected resource. The General Plan EIR also found that the General Plan provides for the development of a “cultural center ” that would include a local museum. In addition, it was noted that the impacts of future development projects would require evaluation on a project-by-project basis. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan and its policies would result in less than significant impacts on historic resources.
All of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments have been previously disturbed by urban development. None of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments contain any of the historic resources identified in the General Plan EIR. All future development on the 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 51 City of Commerce
sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to perform evaluation on a project-by-project basis and would incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary, to ensure impacts to historical resources are not significant. In addition, all future projects would be subject to General Plan policies intended to preserve important cultural resources in the City. Finally, all future discretionary development projects would be subject to Tribal coordination and consultation requirements of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and, as applicable, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which would ensure that significant impacts to Native American historical resources would not occur. Therefore, similar to the General Plan, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the significance of any historical resources.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Resource Management Element
Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will strive to preserve the history of the City and any historical places in the City, such as the railroad station and the rubber trees in the vicinity of Olympic and Goodrich Boulevards.
Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will evaluate other potential significant sites in the community, and will continue to recognize the City’s cultural and historical resources.
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will document local historic sites and promote the public’s awareness of these resources.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will explore opportunities for the development of a City museum and cultural center.
(b) Archaeological Resources. The General Plan EIR did not analyze potential impacts to archaeological resources as a result of implementation of the General Plan. The City of Commerce is completely built out and all of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments have been previously disturbed by development. All future development on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to perform evaluation on a project-by-project basis and would incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary, to ensure impacts to archaeological resources are not significant. Finally, all future discretionary development projects would be subject to Tribal coordination and consultation requirements of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and, as applicable, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which would ensure that significant impacts to Native American archaeological resources would not occur. For these reasons, impacts to archaeological resources from the proposed project would be less than significant.
(c) Human Remains. The General Plan EIR did not address the disturbance of human remains. If human remains are discovered during grading or other ground disturbing activities associated with development on sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments, the project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et. Seq. as a standard condition of approval. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If buried features (i.e., human remains, hearths, or cultural deposits) are present during ground-disturbing activities, they would be handled in a timely and proper manner according to standard requirements. These standard requirements would ensure 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
52 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
that discovered human remains are properly treated. Compliance with established health and safety regulations, and stand conditions of approval, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Conclusion
Impacts to historic resources are not anticipated. Impacts to archaeological resources can be reduced to less than significant with implementation of standard conditions of approval. Additionally, compliance with established health and safety regulations would reduce potential human remains impacts to less than significant levels. The project would be within the scope of what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis are required.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 53 City of Commerce
3.6 – Energy
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct
a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency??
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Energy Consumption. The General Plan EIR found that future development under the General Plan would not involve any uses or activities that would preclude energy conservation. In addition, it was found that all future development would be required to implement energy conservation measures pursuant to Title 24 requirements. Finally, it was noted that implementation of General Plan policies would be effective in further reducing energy consumption. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan’s implementation would not result in any significant adverse impacts on energy resources.
The proposed project would consume diesel and gasoline fuel during construction, and gasoline, electricity, and natural gas during operation. This energy consumption would be necessary for the development and operation of the project. On-site, heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery trucks would primarily consume diesel fuel, and construction worker trips would primarily use gasoline.
These vehicles would be subject to state regulations that have been adopted since the approval of the General Plan EIR, including increased fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles and medium and heavy-duty trucks. As a result, heavy duty trucks used during project construction and passenger vehicles used in construction and operation of the project would consume less energy than vehicles evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. Several efficiency improvements have occurred since the approval of the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the amount of electricity generated by renewable sources in the State has increased over the last few decades. Projects built in the State are also now subject to the 2022 Title 24 Building Code, which contains standards that are more energy efficient than previous building codes. Fuel efficiency standards for on-road vehicles have also improved due to new regulations at the State and federal level.
Finally, implementation of General Plan policies would further reduce project energy use and ensure 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
54 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
consistency with California code. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts from energy consumption would similar to the General Plan EIR, be less than significant.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Resource Management Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will do its part in the conservation and protection of air, water, energy, and land in the Southern California region.
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and other government agencies to ensure that the Commerce Refuse to Energy plant operates in a manner that protects the region’s air resources.
Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will assist local utility companies with their public education energy conservation programs.
Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will encourage public employees to follow energy conservation procedures designed to reduce energy consumption.
Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will promote reduced energy consumption by existing land uses within the City.
Policy 3.5 The City of Commerce will cooperate with the Department of Building and Safety to enforce State energy conservation guidelines that require the incorporation of energysaving designs and features into new and refurbished buildings. (b) Conflict with Local Plan. As described in response 3.6(a), the General Plan EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. It was also found that all future development under the General Plan would be required to comply with Title 24 energy conservation requirements. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The project would also not interfere with implementation of state or local energy plans. As previously described, many energy efficiency programs have gone into effect since approval of the General Plan EIR that would reduce energy consumption from the proposed project. The City has not adopted a specific document for the purposes of addressing renewable energy or energy efficiency; however, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan policies related to energy efficiency (listed above) and comply with statewide regulations, including 2022 Title 24 building standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would result in a less than significant impact.
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR found there was a less than significant energy impact with the implementation of General Plan policies that would reduce operational energy consumption. The proposed project would result in energy consumption; however, because it would not result in greater growth than was evaluated 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 55 City of Commerce
by the General Plan EIR and would comply with stricter state requirements, the proposed project is expected to consume less energy than the General Plan analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, energy impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant. The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
56 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.7 – Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for
the area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iv) Landslides?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result
of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 57 City of Commerce
d) Be located on
expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1997),
creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or
property?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
Yes No Impact No No No
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a.i) Fault Rupture. The General Plan EIR found that there are no known or suspected active fault traces that traverse the City of Commerce, or the general area of the City of Commerce, though the surrounding region is seismically active with five known active faults in the general area of the City of Commerce. It was further found that surface fault rupture is not a concern during an earthquake since no known faults are located within the City. Because no active faults are located within the City, no areas of the City are included within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The General Plan EIR also noted that the General Plan includes a number of policies that would reduce the potential loss of life and property damage in the event of a major earthquake. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that no surface rupture impacts would occur with implementation of the General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project is located in seismically active Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the project. No part of the City, including the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments, are located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (i.e., Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Act Zone) and no active faults are known to cross the City. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the City. Future development projects would be required to construct structures in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). Detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code would also be required prior to approval of construction. The City’s Building and Safety Department would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the building during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the building. Compliance with the CBC as verified by the City’s review process, as well as General Plan policies intended to reduce the potential loss of life and property damage in the event of a major earthquake, would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
58 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Health and Safety Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will work to minimize hazards to public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent loss of life, bodily injury, and property damage resulting from natural and manmade phenomena.
Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will provide public safety information focusing on the prevention of accidents that may be life-threatening or result in property damage.
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to provide adequate levels of emergency services to meet existing and projected demand through the maintenance of contracts with emergency service providers.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will continue to encourage coordination among City officials, and between the city and other agencies, that provides disaster response and relief services.
Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will cooperate with, and support in every way possible, the federal, state, and county agencies responsible for the enforcement of health, safety, and environmental laws.
Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety to identify and monitor those buildings that may represent a risk in the event of a major earthquake.
Policy 6.1 The City of Commerce will continue to support the efforts of public safety officials to educate the public in preparing for a major and destructive earthquake.
Policy 6.2 The City of Commerce will continually update the emergency preparedness plan to respond to changing needs.
Policy 6.3 The City of Commerce will prepare a mini-emergency preparedness plan that may be distributed to households and businesses in the community, and will delineate evacuation routes, emergency response procedures, and other items as deemed necessary. (This plan must include the cable system as a source of emergency information on an ongoing basis as these emergencies occur. Emergency information should be monitored and either changed or modified once it becomes obsolete or impractical.)
Policy 6.4 The City of Commerce will encourage City leaders and those persons living or working in the City to be trained as emergency response personnel. (a.ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking. As described in response 3.7(a.i), while the City is located in seismically active Southern California, the risk of fault rupture in the City is not a concern during an earthquake since no known faults are located within the City. The General Plan EIR also noted that the General Plan includes a number of policies that would reduce the potential loss of life and property damage in the event of a major earthquake. Lastly, the General Plan EIR noted that project structures and foundations would be designed to resist seismic forces in accordance with the criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 59 City of Commerce
The proposed project area is located in seismically active Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the project. All future development under the proposed project would be required to construct structures in accordance with the CBC.
Detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction. The City’s Building and Safety Department would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the building during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the building. Compliance with the CBC as verified by the City’s land use approval and building permit review processes, would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels.
(a.iii) Liquefaction. The General Plan EIR noted that liquefaction typically occurs in areas where groundwater exists within 30 to 50 feet of the ground surface and where poorly consolidated, cohesion less soils predominate. It was also noted that in some instances, ground shaking may cause unconsolidated soils to settle, which can result in significant damage to structures. The General Plan EIR found that geologic investigations performed by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology indicate that no such soil conditions exist within the City limits. In addition, the General Plan EIR determined that ground water in the project area is expected to be 75 feet to 80 feet below the ground surface, and liquefaction hazards are expected to be low to moderate. As such, it was determined that the City has a limited liquefaction hazard potential. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant with implementation of the General Plan.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. Because there is low risk of liquefaction in the City, there is a low risk of the proposed project resulting in seismic-induced ground failure. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project related to liquefaction would be similar to the impacts analyzed by the General Plan and would be less than significant.
(a.iv) Landslides. The General Plan EIR determined that landsliding is not considered to be a potential hazard in the City due to the lack of slopes in the area. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
There are no slopes or hills in the City of Commerce. Topographically, the City (including the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments) are relatively flat and not considered susceptible to landslides, seismically-induced landslides, or other mass wasting processes (debris flows, rock falls, etc.). Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts would be similar to the impacts analyzed by the General Plan and would be less than significant. (b) Erosion/Loss of Topsoil. The General Plan EIR found that since most parcels in the City are developed, future development would involve the continued coverage of those parcels undergoing development with impervious materials (buildings and parking areas). In addition, it was found that the balance of any future development site not covered by impervious surfaces would be landscaped. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that future development arising as part of the General Plan’s implementation would not result in any additional soil erosion or loss of topsoil following development.
Therefore, it was determined that impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project is within the scope of the General Plan. Reduction of the erosion potential can be accomplished through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies Best Management Practices for temporary erosion controls. Such measures typically include temporary catch basins and/or sandbagging to control runoff and contain sediment transport within the 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
60 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
project site. The SWPPP is required for plan check and approval by the City’s Building and Safety Department, prior to provision of permits for projects, and would include construction BMPs. With adherence to existing regulations, this potential impact is similar to the impacts analyzed by the General Plan and are less than significant.
(c) Unstable Geologic Unit. The General Plan EIR noted that no unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures are anticipated to occur with the excavation, grading, and paving that would be needed for any future development under the General Plan. It was also noted that potential ground motion affects (lateral movement, fault creep, ground-shaking) in the City are no greater than those expected for the surrounding region. As such, it was determined that future development would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property and impacts would be less than significant.
The sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are relatively flat and there are no slopes in the area that are susceptible to lateral spreading. Due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet below the ground surface, the low potential for liquefaction, and lack of a nearby “free face” condition, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low in the project area. Detailed designlevel geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code would be required prior to approval of future developments. Compliance with the recommendations of the sitespecific geotechnical study for soils conditions is a standard practice and would be required by the City Building and Safety Department. Compliance with the requirements of the California Building Standards Code as identified in a site specific geotechnical design would be reviewed by the City for appropriate inclusion, as part of the building plan check and development review process. Therefore, the proposed project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property and impacts would be similar to the impacts anlyzed by the General Plan and would be less than significant. (d) Expansive Soils. The General Plan EIR noted that the soils that underlie the City include the Romona-Placentia, Hanford, and Yolo Soils Associations. Romona-Placentia soils underlie the majority of the City, while the Handford and Yolo soils are generally confined to the western portion of the City south of Washington Boulevard and east of Eastern Avenue. It was further noted that all of these soils are generally well drained, have low soil permeability, and their inherent fertility is relatively low. Thus, it was determined that no unusual soil constraints to future development in the City would occur with implementation of the General Plan. Further, it was determined that the limited excavation required for the installation of foundations, infrastructure, etc. for future projects would not result in any changes in the City’s topography. Given the developed character of the City, the General Plan EIR determined that no significant adverse constraints related to expansive soils would occur with implementation of the General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. The project area is generally underlain by soils that are not considered to be expansive.
In addition, detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code would be required prior to approval of construction of any future development under the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils are similar to the impacts analyzed by the General Plan and would be less than significant. (e) Septic Systems. The General Plan EIR found that no septic tanks would be used as part of any future redevelopment within the City and noted that their use is not permitted in the City. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would result from any future development within the City.
The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
Therefore, soils impacts related to underground septic systems would not occur. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 61 City of Commerce
(f) Paleontological Resources. The General Plan EIR noted that the City is fully developed and has undergone extensive ground disturbance associated with past development and excavations. As such, the General Plan EIR found that the potential for paleontological resources in the City is considered low due to the geological and topographical characteristics of the area. In addition, it was found that no paleontological resources have been uncovered in the area. Thus, it was determined that construction of development projects under implementation of the General Plan would not disturb any paleontological resources. Therefore, it was determined that future development projects would not disturb any previously undiscovered paleontological resources and no impact would occur.
The City is fully developed and has undergone extensive ground disturbance associated with past development and excavations. The potential for paleontological resources in the City is considered low due to the geological and topographical characteristics of the area. In addition, no paleontological resources have been uncovered in the area. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to disturb any paleontological resources within future construction projects and no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Conclusion
The proposed project would either have no impacts or less than significant impacts related to geologic and soil constraints with implementation of standard grading, dust control, and erosion control measures and adhering to existing regulatory compliance. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features within the General Plan area. The proposed project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
62 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant
impact on the
environment?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a-b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The General Plan EIR did not specifically address GHG emissions or climate change impacts. Over the last couple of decades, the State of California has implemented numerous plans, policies, and regulations to curtail GHG emissions and address the effects of climate change. Many of these actions are enacted at the State level; however, local air districts provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of project GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. The following regulatory actions would result in the reduction of GHG emissions past what would have been estimated if the General Plan EIR had analyzed GHG emission when it was certified in 2008.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act) and Related GHG Emission Reduction Goals
In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 establishes the caps on statewide GHG emissions proclaimed in Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 and established the timeline for meeting State GHG reduction targets. The deadline for meeting the 2020 reduction target is December 31, 2020.
As part of AB 32, CARB determined 1990 GHG emissions levels and projected a “business-as-usual” (BAU)ii estimate for 2020, to determine the amount of GHG emission reductions that would need to be achieved. In 2007, CARB approved a statewide 1990 emissions level and corresponding 2020 GHG emissions limit of 427 million MTCO2e (CARB 2007). In 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which projects 2020 statewide GHG emissions levels of 596 million MTCO2e and ii
BAU is a term used to define emissions levels without considering reductions from future or existing programs or technologies.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 63 City of Commerce
identifies numerous measures (i.e., mandatory rules and regulations and voluntary measures) that would achieve at least 174 million MTCO2e of GHG reductions and bring statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB 2009).
EO B-30-15, 2030 Carbon Target and Adaptation, issued by Governor Brown in April 2015, set a target of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030. To achieve this ambitious target, Governor Brown identified five key goals for reducing GHG emissions in California through 2030:
• Increase renewable electricity to 50 percent.
• Double energy efficiency savings achieved in existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner.
• Reduce petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent. • Reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants.
• Manage farms, rangelands, forests, and wetlands to increasingly store carbon.
By directing State agencies to take measures consistent with their existing authority to reduce GHG emissions, EO B-30-15 establishes coherence between the 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction goals set by AB 32 and seeks to align California with the scientifically established GHG emissions levels needed to limit global warming below two degrees Celsius.
To reinforce the goals established through EO B-30-15, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197 on September 8, 2016. SB 32 made the GHG reduction target (to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) a requirement, as opposed to a goal. AB 197 gives the Legislature additional authority over CARB to ensure the most successful strategies for lowering emissions are implemented, and requires CARB to, “protect the State’s most impacted and disadvantaged communities …[and] consider the social costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases.” Executive Order B-55-18, AB 1279, and SB 1020
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-55-18, to achieve carbon neutrality by moving California to 100% clean energy by 2045. This Executive Order also includes specific measures to reduce GHG emissions via clean transportation, energy efficient buildings, directing capand-trade funds to disadvantaged communities, and better management of the State’s forest land. On September 16, 2022, Governor Newson signed into law AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, and SB 1020, the Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022. AB 1279 codified California’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal and established a GHG emission reduction target of 85% below 1990 levels. SB 1020 set targets for the retail sale of electricity of 90% clean electricity by 2035 and 95% by 2040, and 100% by 2045. It also set a target for 100% clean electricity for electricity serving state agencies by 2035.
CARB Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is the comprehensive plan primarily directed at identifying the measures necessary to reach the GHG reduction targets stipulated in AB 32. The second update to the scoping plan, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan update (CARB 2017b), was adopted by CARB in December 2017. The primary objective for the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan is to identify the measures required to achieve the mid-term GHG reduction target for 2030 (i.e., reduce emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) established under EO B-30-15 and SB 32. The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan was released in May 2022. The plan presents a scenario for California to meet the State goal of reducing GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 (CARB 2022b). The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan is expected to be finalized in the fall of 2022. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
64 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
New Information of Substantial Importance Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) The potential effects of GHG emissions and climate change were generally known when the original 2008 General Plan EIR was prepared by the City. For instance, in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the United States Supreme Court explained the issue of global climate change began garnering governmental attention long before the City certified the 1982 MCSP EIR. The opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) states:
“In the late 1970’s, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program to `assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications,’ [citation]. President Carter, in turn, asked the National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to investigate the subject. The Council’s response was unequivocal: `If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. . . . A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.'" (549 U.S. at pp. 507-508.) In addition, the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, in C.R.E.E.D. v. City of San Diego (2011), found a Supplemental EIR is not necessarily required instead of an Addendum to an EIR on the basis of GHG emissions, since information on the effects GHG emissions have on climate change were known long before the City of San Diego approved the 1994 EIR for a development project.
Furthermore, in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. the City of Dublin (2013), the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, found the adoption of guidelines for analyzing and evaluating the significance of data does not constitute new information of substantial importance if the underlying information was otherwise known or should have been known at the time the EIR was certified. Since the effects of GHG emissions associated with the General Plan EIR could have been raised by the public and agencies in 2008 when the City considered the EIR, the analyses contained in this Addendum do not constitute new information of substantial importance.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan, Zoning Map Amendments to add Mixed Use overlay zones to 16 parcels along Washington Boulevard and 10 parcels along Atlantic Boulevard currently zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map, and Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Zoning Map Amendments. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. For this reason, there is no new information of substantial importance pertaining to the proposed project, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the City certified the General Plan EIR, which shows:
• The proposed project would have one or more significant GHG effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR;
• The proposed project would result in substantially more severe significant GHG effects than previously examined in the General Plan EIR;
• There are no mitigation measures or alternatives found to be infeasible in the General Plan EIR that are now feasible and would substantially reduce significant effects of the proposed project, but are being declined for adoption by the proponent or the City; and 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 65 City of Commerce
• There are no mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different than those identified in the General Plan EIR needed to substantially reduce significant effects of the proposed project but are being declined for adoption by the proponent or the City.
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR did not analyze GHG emissions. The proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. As such, the proposed project would not involve substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, GHG impacts from the proposed project would not be significant. The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
66 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) 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?
Yes No Impact No No No
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed
school?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Be located on a site
which is included on a list
of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 67 City of Commerce
working in the project
area?
f) Impair implementation
of or physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation
plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
h) Expose people or
structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. The General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan’s adoption, by itself, would not result in any impacts related to hazardous materials. The General Plan EIR also noted that certain land uses proposed in the City requires submittal of a Plot Plan, which requires applications to contain the following information:
1) A description of the proposed industrial operation in sufficient detail to fully describe the nature and extent of the proposed use.
2) Plans or reports describing proposed methods for handling traffic, noise, glare, odor, vibration, hazardous gases, liquids and other materials.
3) Plans or reports showing proposed method for treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial and toxic waste materials.
The General Plan EIR noted that mitigation of any potential impacts associated with toxic substances would be addressed on a project-by-project basis at the Plot Plan stage of project development. In addition, the General Plan EIR noted that there are several General Plan policies intended to reduce impacts associated with the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. For this reason, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. During construction of future developments, there would be a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste that are typical of construction projects.
This would include, but is not limited to, fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, and other building materials. Federal, state, and local regulations associated with construction sites and use of associated hazardous materials include routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up. These uniformly applicable standards would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the General Plan contains policies intended to reduce potential impacts from the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regard to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
68 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Transportation Element
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will establish, and enforce the use of, truck routes in the City.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will seek out means to assess heavy truck users for the cost of maintaining roadway-related infrastructure.
Health & Safety Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will work to minimize hazards to public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent loss of life, bodily injury, and property damage resulting from natural and manmade phenomena.
Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will work with Federal, State, and County agencies, as well as the Industrial Council, to protect all City residents and workers from hazardous materials and the risks associated with the transportation of these materials.
Policy 5.5 The City of Commerce will work with the Fire Department to enforce “right to know” laws.
Policy 5.6 The City of Commerce will maintain a City liaison officer who will continue to work with the Fire Department to monitor the production, use, and storage of hazardous materials.
Policy 5.8 The City of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to enforce the use of the hazardous materials transport routes identified in the Public Safety Element.
Policy 5.9 The City of Commerce will encourage the proper disposal of hazardous waste materials produced, used, and stored within the City’s limits.
(b) Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions. The General Plan EIR noted that chemicals and substances used in the majority of future development would be limited to chemicals and solvents used in routine cleaning and maintenance. The General Plan EIR also noted that there are a number of land uses in the City that have historically used hazardous materials. The potential for risk of upset impacts from future development arising from the implementation of the General Plan may be related to the following:
• During future site development, contaminated soils may be encountered during grading and excavation.
• There may be improperly or unrecorded abandoned wells located within a future development site. Should any abandoned wells be encountered during construction, procedures for proper abandonment must be adhered to.
• Asbestos was commonly used for insulation, ceiling tiles, and floor tiles prior to the 1960's. As a result, limited residual asbestos containing materials (ACM’s) may be encountered during building demolition in the absence of mitigation.
• Other potential contaminants include lead residue from paints, PCB residue from older transformers, and volatile organic chemicals from solvents. One of the regulated uses was engaged in the manufacture of lead products. These materials are more likely to be encountered in those buildings located in the planning area that are more than 40 years old. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 69 City of Commerce
The General EIR found that the General Plan’s adoption, by itself, would not result in any impacts related to hazardous materials. However, it was found that demolition activities associated with future redevelopment could result in hazardous materials or contaminated soils being encountered, and the nature and extent of this potential risk would need to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. Prior to the commencement of any new development, a thorough investigation of building interiors must be undertaken to ascertain whether ACMs or other residual contaminants are present. Should these contaminants be identified as part of the site investigation, remediation and disposal must be undertaken pursuant to CalEPA (Department of Toxic Substances Control) and Federal EPA requirements. The General Plan EIR also found that the future development contemplated as part of the General Plan’s implementation may also involve the removal of the existing, older structures and their replacement with newer structures and improvements that would be constructed in conformance to existing codes. The replacement of the existing structures with new development constructed to current building, health, and safety codes is considered a beneficial impact in the General Plan EIR. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that the General Plan includes policies intended to reduce impacts from upset and accident conditions. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that no significant adverse risk of upset or accident would occur as a result of the General Plan with compliance with existing regulations and implementation of General Plan policies and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments and would not include demolition of any existing buildings or structures that could possibly contain asbestos or lead. Future development projects would be required to handle and dispose of hazardous materials and soils according to federal, state, and local standards. Further, future development projects would be required to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment if information exists showing that the project site is potentially contaminated and implement control measures to ensure that hazardous materials are not released into the environment during construction or operation activities. Finally, the proposed project does not approve any uses that utilize hazardous materials or processes. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mandatory federal, state, and local regulations would reduce the risk to the public or environment from upset and accident conditions to a less than significant level.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Community Development Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will continue to promote land use compatibility. Community Development Policy 1.2. The City of Commerce shall accelerate the implementation of the City’s development code.
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to implement specific standards for new commercial developments located adjacent to residential neighborhoods in order to ensure that adequate buffers are provided so that negative impacts such as noise, light pollution, truck use, and traffic may be mitigated.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce shall prevent the further intrusion of industrial and commercial development into the Bandini-Rosini, Northwest, Rosewood, and Southeast Planning Areas.
Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will prevent the intrusion of residential uses within the industrial and commercial districts.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
70 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Transportation Element
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will establish, and enforce the use of, truck routes in the City.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will seek out means to assess heavy truck users for the cost of maintaining roadway-related infrastructure.
Health & Safety Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will work to minimize hazards to public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent loss of life, bodily injury, and property damage resulting from natural and manmade phenomena.
Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that appropriate mitigation measures relative to soil contamination and soils characteristics (subsidence, erosion, etc.) are required for development and redevelopment in order to reduce hazards.
Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will work with Federal, State, and County agencies, as well as the Industrial Council, to protect all City residents and workers from hazardous materials and the risks associated with the transportation of these materials.
Policy 5.5 The City of Commerce will work with the Fire Department to enforce “right to know” laws.
Policy 5.6 The City of Commerce will maintain a City liaison officer who will continue to work with the Fire Department to monitor the production, use, and storage of hazardous materials.
Policy 5.7 The City of Commerce will establish an environmental review procedure that will assess the impact of new potentially hazardous industrial uses on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Policy 5.8 The City of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to enforce the use of the hazardous materials transport routes identified in the Public Safety Element.
Policy 5.9 The City of Commerce will encourage the proper disposal of hazardous waste materials produced, used, and stored within the City’s limits.
(c) Proximity to Schools. The General EIR found that the General Plan’s adoption, by itself, would not result in any impacts related to hazardous materials. As such, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. As stated in section 4.9.a above, construction activities resulting from the proposed project may involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous waste materials. However, construction activities are subject to uniformly applicable standards set forth by federal, state, and local agencies. Operational activities resulting from development of commercial and mixed-use projects would not emit any hazardous emissions or result in the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, potential project impacts from emitting hazardous 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 71 City of Commerce
emissions, handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of existing or proposed schools would be less than significant. (d) Government Code Section 65962. The General Plan EIR found that future development under the General Plan would be subject to existing regulations and General Plan policies intended to reduce impacts associated with hazardous waste sites. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to Government Code Section 65962 would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations.
Future developments under the proposed project would be required to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment if information exists showing that the project site is potentially contaminated, and implement control measures to ensure that hazardous materials are properly disposed of and not released into the environment. This includes remediation of leaking underground storage tanks, contaminated soils, and other remnants of previous uses that utilized hazardous materials or substances. Future projects would also be subject to General Plan policies (listed above) intended to reduce impacts from contaminated sites. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
(e) Airport Land Use Plan. The General Plan EIR noted that he City is not located within two miles of an operational public airport, and the nearest airport is El Monte Airport, located approximately 7 miles northeast of the City. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that future development contemplated as part of the General Plan’s implementation would not present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport operations at a public use airport and impacts would be less than significant.
There are no public airports or private airstrips within two miles of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments. Therefore, no impacts related to airport hazards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
(g) Emergency Plans. The General Plan EIR found that impacts to emergency plans from the General Plan would be reduced with implementation of General Plan policies intended to foster cooperation in emergency planning. As such, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Pursuant to state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space would have to be provided around the proposed residential structures for emergency personnel and equipment access and emergency evacuation. All project elements, including landscaping, would be sited with sufficient clearance from proposed structures so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from structures.
All future projects would be required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted in the Commerce Municipal Code. Existing roadways would allow emergency access and evacuation from the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments and would be constructed per California Fire Code specifications. Future projects would also be required to provide adequate maneuvering space for emergency response vehicles (e.g., fire trucks). Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant.
(h) Wildfire Risks. The General Plan EIR did not analyze the risk from wildfire. According to the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), the City of Commerce, including the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments, is not designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Therefore, impacts related to wildfire would not occur as a result of the proposed project. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
72 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Conclusion
As outlined above, the project has no impact or less than significant impacts related to hazardous materials, airport hazards, and wildfires. The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation measures are required.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 73 City of Commerce
3.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water supply?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river,
or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation onor off-site;
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff
in a manner which
would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
74 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
iv) impede or redirect
flood flows? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
Yes No Impact No No No
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Violate Water Quality Standards or Degrade the Water Supply. The General Plan EIR found that future development would not generate any excessive runoff to the storm water system other than from the runoff from building roofs, parking areas, and other impervious surfaces. It was further found that master planned drainage facilities would be designed to accommodate any additional flow. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that future development would not contribute any significant incremental increases in the quantity of pesticides, fertilizers, and detergents into the storm drain system. Finally, it was found that future development would be required to implement storm water pollution control measures and to obtain storm water runoff permits pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Given the developed character of the City, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not generate a significant net increase in the amount or quality of storm water runoff. As a result, it was determined that water quality impacts would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.
All future development projects on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to prepare Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that outlines site design BMPs, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to protect water quality. Site design BMPs include, but are not limited to, directing primary flow to water quality basins prior to discharge in offsite storm drains, preserving the existing secondary drainage pattern (which flows in a northeasterly direction), and minimizing impervious area to the extent feasible and replacing with planting/landscaping. Source control BMPs include, but are not limited to, providing integrated pest management (IPM) information to new owners, lessees, and operators; installing grease interceptors for drains located within food service operations; designing site drainage to flow away from trash enclosures and minimize runoff from trash enclosures; and sweeping plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots regularly to prevent accumulation of litter and debris and to prevent trash entry into the storm drain system. Treatment control BMPs include, but are not limited to, removing pollutants of concern via bioretention basins. Water quality basins are highly effective at removing the following pollutants of concern: bacterial indicators, metals, nutrients, pesticides, toxic organic compounds (solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons), and sediments.
Finally, future development projects would be subject to General Plan policies intended to protect water quality. With implementation of a combination of site design BMPs, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs, water quality impacts related to operation of future projects on the sites identified for 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 75 City of Commerce
rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be similar to the impacts previously analyzed in the Genera Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Resource Management Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will do its part in the conservation and protection of air, water, energy, and land in the Southern California region.
Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will cooperate, to the degree necessary, with Federal, State, and County Agencies, and surrounding jurisdictions, in the maintenance and improvement in the quality of local groundwater.
Health & Safety Element
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will ensure that the public and private water distribution and supply facilities have adequate capacity to meet both the domestic supply needs of the community and the required fire flow.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will encourage City water purveyors to meet regularly with Fire Department officials to discuss the condition and capabilities of the City’s water system.
Policy 4.1 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with the efforts of other agencies and special districts involved in monitoring the City’s water and sewer systems.
Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will continue to request local water purveyors to provide the City with periodic reports concerning water quality.
(b) Groundwater Supplies. The General Plan EIR noted that water supply in the City is derived from local groundwater wells operated and maintained by the California Water Service Company and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The General Plan EIR also noted that any future development would be required to employ applicable water conservation measures for interior plumbing and landscaping and no existing wells would be impacted by future development under the General Plan. Finally, the General Plan EIR found that water demands would be further mitigated through implementation of General Plan policies. For these reasons, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to groundwater would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments and would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. None of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are utilized for groundwater recharge and would include landscaped areas upon development that would serve as infiltration. Because the project area is not managed for groundwater supplies and future development projects would provide landscaped areas for continued infiltration, any nominal change in infiltration would not have a significant effect on the groundwater table level. Lastly, the proposed project would be subject to General Plan policies intended to conserve the quality of local groundwater. For these reasons, projectrelated impacts to groundwater supplies are similar to those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
76 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Resource Management Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will do its part in the conservation and protection of air, water, energy, and land in the Southern California region.
Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will cooperate, to the degree necessary, with Federal, State, and County Agencies, and surrounding jurisdictions, in the maintenance and improvement in the quality of local groundwater.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will encourage the conservation of water resources in residential, commercial, and industrial developments through the use of drought- tolerant plant materials and water-saving irrigation systems.
(c.i) Substantial Erosion or Siltation. The General Plan EIR noted that there are no lakes or streams within the City or within the surrounding area. It was also noted that the City, in its entirety, has undergone development with the majority of the area being covered by impervious surfaces (roadways, parking areas, and buildings) and no natural stream channels remain within the City. In addition, the General Plan EIR determined that, since most parcels in the City are developed, future development under the General Plan would involve the continued coverage of those parcels undergoing development with impervious materials (buildings and parking areas), and the balance of any future development site not covered by impervious surfaces, would be landscaped. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that future development arising as part of the General Plan’s implementation would not result in any additional soil erosion or loss of topsoil following development and impacts would be less than significant.
All of the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are developed with mostly impervious surfaces and minimal landscaping. Future development projects on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to implement stormwater and drainage improvements that would direct stormwater into the municipal stormwater collection system. Erosion and siltation reduction measures would also be included in the project design and implemented during construction. At the completion of construction, future development project would consist mostly of impervious surfaces and would therefore not be prone to substantial erosion. As such, the drainage pattern of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not be substantially altered in a manner that could cause increases in erosion off-site. For this reason, the project impacts with respect to erosion and siltation would be similar to those previously analyzed in the General Plan and would be less than significant.
(c.ii) Flooding from Runoff. The General Plan EIR noted that flood protection for the City is provided by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, which operates and maintains an extensive network of flood-control facilities. The system includes the Los Angeles River and Rio Hondo River Channels located near the City. The Los Angeles River Flood Control system has been designed to accommodate the Standard Project Flood. The Standard Project Flood is defined as “that flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of meteorological and hydrological conditions that are considered reasonably characteristic of the geographical area in which the drainage basin is located, excluding extremely rare circumstances.” The level of protection in this particular instance is for 100-year storm flows and is the level generally provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is considered adequate for Commerce. The General Plan EIR also noted that recent studies performed by FEMA indicate that no portion of the City lies within a 100-year flood zone. As a result, the General Plan EIR found that new development in the City would not impede or redirect the flows of potential 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 77 City of Commerce
floodwater, since the City is not located within a flood hazard area, as defined by FEMA’s Flood Insurance Mapping Program (FIRM). For this reason, with adherence to the standards of the LAFCD, the General Plan EIR determined that no flooding impacts would occur with implementation of the General Plan.
Future development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would include drainage facilities that would be designed and constructed with sufficient capacity to safely convey additional stormwater flows and thereby ensure that no habitable structure would be placed within a 100-year floodplain as shown on the FEMA Insurance Rate Maps. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and less than significant. (c.iii) Stormwater Drainage Capacity. The General Plan EIR noted that, given the nature and extent of existing development within the City, no net increase in the amount of storm water runoff would occur.
Furthermore, it was found that no degradation in the quality of storm water runoff is expected since future development would be required to demonstrate compliance with NPDES requirements. Further, it was found that future development would not generate any excessive runoff to the storm water system other than from the runoff from building roofs, parking areas, and other impervious surfaces.
Additionally, it was determined that there would not be any increase in storm water surface runoff conveyed to the storm drain system with implementation of General Policies intended to monitor and maintain municipal sewer systems. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to stormwater runoff would be less than significant.
The proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are all previously developed with commercial uses, public facilities, or surface parking. Development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not significantly increase the net area of impermeable surfaces in the City; therefore, increased discharges to the City’s existing storm drain system would likely not occur. Future development project would include stormwater improvements. Stormwater would be collected on-site in storm drains, retained on site if necessary, and conveyed to the City’s storm drainage system as capacity allows. The drainage improvements would be constructed in accordance with the MDP and the LAFCD’s requirements. Permits to connect to the existing storm drainage system would be obtained prior to construction of future development. All drainage plans would be subject to City review and approval. Lastly, the proposed project does not permit any new industrial uses and therefore would not result in substantial pollutant loading such that treatment control BMPs would be required to protect downstream water quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Health & Safety Element
Policy 4.1 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with the efforts of other agencies and special districts involved in monitoring the City’s water and sewer systems. (c.iv) Impede or Redirect Flood Flows. The General Plan EIR noted that there are no lakes or streams within the City or within the surrounding area. It was also noted that the City, in its entirety, has undergone development with the majority of the area being covered by impervious surfaces (roadways, parking areas, and buildings) and no natural stream channels remain within the City. The General Plan EIR also found that no portion of the City lies within a 100-year flood zone. The General Plan EIR noted that flood protection for the City is provided by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, which operates and maintains an extensive network of flood-control facilities. The system includes the Los 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
78 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Angeles River and Rio Hondo River Channels located near the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments impedes or redirects flood flows. Development of projects on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments must comply with existing programs aimed at reducing flooding hazards. These programs include: 1) participation in the National Flood Insurance Program; 2) coordination with the LAFCWCD to ensure maintenance of flood control channels and completion of necessary repairs to LAFCWCDowned facilities on an as-needed basis; and 3) maintenance of emergency procedures in accordance with Section 8589.5 of the California Government Code. No portion of the City lies within a 100-year flood zone and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District operates and maintains an extensive network of flood-control facilities near the City. Development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not physically impact any flood control facilities. With adherence to existing regulations, impacts related to impediment or redirection of flood flows from the proposed project are similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. (d) Other Water-Related Risks or Pollution. Impacts related to flood hazards are discussed in response 4.10.c.i – 4.10.c.iv above. The General Plan EIR noted that the City of Commerce is located inland (approximately 16 miles) from the Pacific Ocean, and thus, the City would not be exposed to the effects of a tsunami. It was also noted that no dams, reservoirs, or other surface body features are located within the City that would present seiche hazards. It was also noted that portions of Commerce lie within the dam inundation area of the Garvey Reservoir in Monterey Park. However, it was found that an emergency evacuation plan prepared by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department indicates that if the dam were to fail, persons residing or working within the dam inundation zone would have sufficient time to evacuate before flood flows reached the City. Finally, because the City is generally flat and there are no hillsides or slopes in close proximity to the City, the General Plan EIR determined that the City is not subject to impacts from mudflows. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that no impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are associated with the implementation of the General Plan.
The City is not exposed to tsunami hazards due to its inland location, and there are no reservoirs or waterbodies located in the vicinity of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments that could result in seiche. The Los Angeles County Public Works Department operates and maintains a state-of-the-art ALERT computer system to monitor meteorological conditions in the County and Southern California in real time, i.e., as they occur. The system includes a network of field sensors that monitor and receive precipitation amounts including rainfall data from the Corps of Engineers' Los Angeles Telemetry System. These systems allow for system level real time checks that provide for emergency management planning. The City of Commerce likewise operates an Emergency Management system in the event of dam failures. In addition, the “Metropolitan Water District of Southern California carries out continuous automated monitoring of the dams and their foundations for deformation due to the weight of the dams, water pressure, and the effects of wetting of dam materials.
The design and construction of the dams for earthquake resistance, in combination with monitoring of the dams, reduce risks of dam failure due to earthquakes.” The proposed project does not include modifications to a dam system or levees that would alter the hazard planning completed by the City of Commerce. With adherence to existing policies, regulations, and ordinances the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. Therefore, impacts related to dam inundation would be less than significant.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 79 City of Commerce
(e) Conflict with Water Quality or Groundwater Management Plans. The General Plan EIR determined that with adherence to existing regulations, implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
The Regional Board's Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the State's anti-degradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. Development allowed by the project would be required to adhere to requirements of the water quality control plan, including all existing regulation and permitting requirements. This would include the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality during construction and operational periods. Development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would also be subject to all existing water quality regulations and programs, including all applicable construction permits. Existing General Plan policies related to water quality (as previously listed above) would also be applicable to project developed on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments.
Implementation of General Plan policies, in conjunction with compliance with existing regulatory programs, would ensure that water quality impacts related to the project would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan, including the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments and zoning text amendments, would not have significant impacts on hydrology, water quality, and other water-related resources and constraints with adherence to existing regulations, and no mitigation was recommended. With regulatory compliance, the preceding sections have demonstrated the proposed project would also not have any significant water-related impacts. The project would be within the scope of what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
80 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.11 – Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Physically divide an
established community? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Divide an Established Community. The General Plan EIR found that the General Plan’s land use policies would not adversely impact any existing neighborhoods or result in the division of any established or planned community. Additionally, it was found that access to existing neighborhoods in the City would remain unchanged with implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that no impact would occur as a result of the physical division of an established community.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan, Zoning Map Amendments to add Mixed Use overlay zones to 16 parcels along Washington Boulevard and 10 parcels along Atlantic Boulevard currently zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map, and Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Zoning Map Amendments. The proposed project would not result in the closure of any roadways or the construction of any new roadways or features that would physically divide an established community. Therefore, the project would have impacts similar to those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
(b) Conflict with Applicable Plans. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would not result in any significant impact on applicable regional environmental plans. Additionally, the General Plan EIR noted that there are a number of General Plan policies that directly support regional planning efforts, and the majority of the changes in the zoning were designed to reflect existing land uses and development at the time. The General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan defines the applicable environmental goals and policies for the City and a number of General Plan policies provide direction regarding future development within the City. In addition, it was noted that there are several other regional environmental plans that are applicable to the City, including the Regional Comprehensive Plan, the Congestion Management Program, and the Air Quality Management Plan.
The General Plan EIR found that adoption and subsequent implementation of the General Plan would be consistent with the environmental plans and, therefore, no significant adverse impacts would result 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 81 City of Commerce
from the General Plan’s adoption and subsequent implementation. Therefore, with implementation of General Plan policies, the Genera Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
The purpose of the proposed project is to implement policies and requirement of the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element and includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan, Zoning Map Amendments to add Mixed Use overlay zones to 16 parcels along Washington Boulevard and 10 parcels along Atlantic Boulevard currently zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map, and Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Zoning Map Amendments. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the General Plan and what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is therefore provides implementing actions for the Housing Element and is consistent with the level of growth evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, impacts related to land use plans would be less than significant.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Community Development Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will continue to promote land use compatibility.
Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce shall accelerate the implementation of the city’s development code.
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to implement specific standards for new commercial developments located adjacent to residential neighborhoods in order to ensure that adequate buffers are provided so that negative impacts such as noise, light pollution, truck use, and traffic may be mitigated.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce shall prevent the further intrusion of industrial and commercial development into the Bandini-Rosini, Northwest, Rosewood, and Southeast Planning Areas.
Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will prevent the further intrusion of residential dwelling uses into the existing industrial and commercial districts in the city.
Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will ensure that commercial and industrial development provide sufficient landscaped buffers and other design features to separate new non-residential uses located in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.8 The City of Commerce, in conjunction with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and other public agencies, will work to reduce potential hazards and health risks associated with the use, storage, or manufacture of hazardous materials.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will continue to preserve and promote the improvement of the existing commercial areas, including the Commerce Center, the Telegraph Road/Washington Boulevard area, the Atlantic/Washington Redevelopment Project Area, the Commerce Business Park, and the commercial properties located along Slauson Avenue.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
82 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Policy 2.6 The City of Commerce will strive to improve security within existing and future shopping districts located in the city.
Policy 2.7 The City of Commerce will continue to actively pursue the goals and objectives of the Atlantic/Washington Redevelopment Project Area.
Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will continue to promote the maintenance and preservation of industrial activities and business that contribute to the city’s economic and employment base.
Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will prevent the intrusion of residential uses within the industrial and commercial districts.
Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will encourage the continued revitalization of the city’s industrial districts to accommodate economic development and growth.
Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will promote the development of modern and attractive business parks that will enhance the city’s economic well-being.
Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will promote the development of new housing for all income groups.
Policy 7.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that all future public facilities and improvements do not have a significant adverse impact on the community and that any such impacts must be mitigated to the fullest extent possible.
Policy 7.2 The City of Commerce will oppose the over-concentration of public facilities and improvements that provide benefits to the regional at large while adversely impacting the local community. The region at large must share both the benefits and the disadvantages of such uses and facilities.
Policy 7.3 The City of Commerce will take a proactive role in meeting with regional planning agencies to ensure that the local community’s voice is heard in the planning public facilities.
Conclusion
The project impacts are similar to those evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not result in greater development potential than was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would be within the scope of what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. No subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 83 City of Commerce
3.12 – Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region
and the residents of the
state?
Yes No Impact No No No
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource
recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Yes No Impact No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Loss of Availability of Known Mineral Resources. The General Plan EIR noted that the City of Commerce overlies a portion of the Bandini and East Los Angeles oilfields and eighteen wells currently pump resources from the Bandini oilfield, and two of these wells lie within the City limits. In addition to these active wells, there are approximately 106 closed and/or capped and abandoned wells within the City. Review of maps provided by the State Department of Conservation indicates there are a number of abandoned and capped wells within the City, and a total of 106 wells are in the area included within the City’s boundaries. The General Plan EIR noted that closure of these wells must conform to State Department of Conservation requirements should any abandoned wells be encountered as part of future development. The analysis determined that the General Plan’s implementation would not result in any significant adverse impacts on mineral resources. It was also found that General Plan policies would further reduce impacts on these resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined there would be no impacts to mineral resources.
(b) Loss of Availability of Locally Important Mineral Resources. There are no known or locally important mineral resources located on any of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments and there are no known mineral resources in the immediate vicinity. Further there are no oil wells located on any of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments. Therefore, because there are no mining operations in the project area, implementation of the project would not result in the loss of known mineral resources.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
84 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Resource Management Element
Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will contact appropriate State agencies to determine whether the depletion of oil resources in the Bandini oilfield will create local ground subsidence problems.
Conclusion
None of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments contain identified mineral resources either at a state level or local level that can be reasonably extracted given existing onsite and surrounding land uses. Therefore, there would be no impacts regarding mineral resources. The project would be within what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 85 City of Commerce
3.13 – Noise
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport
land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use
airport, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
Yes No Impact No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Noise in Excess of Local Standards. The General Plan EIR that noted potential noise impacts associated with the General Plan’s implementation may be segregated into two categories: the impact of future development on the surrounding land uses; and the compatibility of future development with noise sensitive land uses. It was also noted that three types of noise impacts would likely occur with implementation of the General Plan: 1) construction noise impacts from any future development; 2) project-related traffic noise impacts; and 3) stationary noise impacts associated with onsite activities. It was found that new development contemplated under the General Plan could result in increased noise levels due to increased traffic volumes, intensification of industrial development, equipment and appliance use, construction noise, and other activities in open areas. However, it was found that a critical policy component of the General Plan is concerned with reducing potential noise impacts through proper land use planning. This is accomplished in several ways. First, noise-sensitive land uses are not to be located in areas subject to high ambient noise levels, as much as this is possible. Secondly, activities and/or land uses that generate high levels of noise are not located near sensitive receptors. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
86 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Lastly, the General Plan promotes measures that reduce noise exposure through the use of site planning and construction techniques that consider noise exposure.
The General Plan EIR found that short-term noise impacts associated with demolition and construction would increase ambient noise in the immediate area to levels of between 70-90 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source. However, it was also found that construction noise impacts will be temporary and scattered throughout the City since individual development projects would be incremental over a long period of time.
Based on estimates of future traffic noise, the General Plan EIR found that increased traffic noise along all major roadways in the City would experience traffic noise increases less than 1.5 dBA, and that it typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes to generate an increase in the ambient noise levels of
3.0 dB or greater. As such, based on the estimates of future traffic noise, the General Plan EIR found that the change in traffic noise levels from existing levels would not be perceptible over the long-term with implementation of the General Plan. As a result, it was determined that no significant adverse impacts related to traffic noise would occur with implementation of the General Plan.
Further, the General Plan EIR found that the introduction of new development involving new commercial and industrial uses would lead to the introduction of new sources of stationary noise. However, it was also found that the potential noise levels from these uses would be comparable to those of existing development and that no noise sensitive receptors (homes, schools, or hospitals) would be placed in high noise areas under the General Plan. In addition, it was found that a number of policies contained in the General Plan would be effective in reducing potential noise impacts. For these reasons, the General Plan EIR determined that short- and long-term noise impacts from implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. In addition, there are no land use plan changes that involve the introduction of commercial or industrial uses into noise sensitive areas. With the introduction of mixed-use land use designations along two of the the City’s major corridors, the proposed project would result in lower trips and VMT as compared to the General Plan EIR, would not increase traffic noise levels beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Future development projects would be required to prepare project-specific transportation assessments to assess project-level construction and operation impacts and incorporate mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce short- and long-term noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts would be less than significant.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Community Development Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will continue to promote land use compatibility. Community Development Policy 1.3. The City of Commerce will continue to implement specific standards for new commercial developments located adjacent to residential neighborhoods in order to ensure that adequate buffers are provided so that negative impacts such as noise, light pollution, truck use, and traffic may be mitigated. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 87 City of Commerce
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce shall prevent the further intrusion of industrial and commercial development into the Bandini-Rosini, Northwest, Rosewood, and Southeast Planning Areas.
Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will prevent the further intrusion of residential dwelling uses into the existing industrial and commercial districts in the City.
Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will ensure that commercial and industrial development provide sufficient landscaped buffers and other design features to separate new non-residential uses located in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will prevent the intrusion of residential uses within the industrial and commercial districts.
Health and Safety Element
Policy 7.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that residents are protected from harmful and irritating noise sources to the greatest extent possible.
Policy 7.2 The City of Commerce will work with businesses in the City and other public agencies to identify ways to reduce noise impacts throughout the City.
Policy 7.3 The City of Commerce will continue to enforce the existing City’s noise control ordinance.
Policy 7.4 The City of Commerce will incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions.
Policy 7.5 The City of Commerce will prohibit noise-intensive land uses adjacent to or near residential areas, schools, convalescent homes, and other noise-sensitive receptors.
Policy 7.6 The City of Commerce will encourage acoustical design in all new construction.
Policy 7.7 The City of Commerce will require additional landscaping in industrial and commercial projects to help reduce noise impacts through increased setbacks.
Policy 7.8 The City of Commerce will evaluate and implement measures to control stationary nontransportation noise impacts.
Policy 7.9 The City of Commerce will continue to use the Sheriff’s Department or expand the responsibility of the city’s Code Enforcement Division to monitor and respond to noise complaints.
Policy 7.10 The City of Commerce will establish and maintain coordination among the City agencies involved in noise abatement.
Policy 8.1 The City of Commerce will strive to reduce railroad noise impacts in the vicinity of Astor Avenue.
Policy 8.2 The City of Commerce will work with Union Pacific Railroad to reduce noise impacts from railroad operations in the vicinity of Washington Boulevard. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
88 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Policy 8.3 The City of Commerce will provide measures to reduce noise impacts from transportation-related noise sources.
Policy 8.4 The City of Commerce will evaluate the feasibility of constructing sound barriers to mitigate transportation-related noise from railroads and the freeways.
Policy 8.5 The City of Commerce, together with the railroads, will consider the feasibility of constructing sound walls wherever residential uses abut railroad rights-of-way.
Policy 8.6 The City of Commerce will ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures in the design of new roadway projects.
Policy 8.7 The City of Commerce will mitigate potential impacts for future helicopter operations by restricting residential uses in the vicinity of the heliports.
Policy 8.8 The City of Commerce will mitigate noise impacts related to truck loading and unloading (including garbage trucks) by requiring trash pick-up to be changed to daytime periods. (b) Excessive Vibration. The General Plan EIR did not directly evaluate vibration levels. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendments would not result in substantial construction or operational activities that could generate sustained groundborne vibration levels at existing sensitive receptors that could result in building damage or sustained human annoyance. Future construction of mixed-use and commercial development on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments is not anticipated to require equipment, such as pile drivers or similar equipment which would be likely to cause substantial vibration. Future discretionary development projects would be required to prepare project-specific noise assessments for project level construction and operation impacts and incorporate mitigation measures, if necessary to reduce vibration impacts on sensitive receptors to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would result in a less than significant impact.
(c) Airport/Airstrip Noise. The General Plan EIR noted that the City is not located within two miles of an operational public airport, and the nearest airport is El Monte Airport, located approximately 7 miles northeast of the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft and impacts would be less than significant.
There are no public airports or private airstrips within two miles of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments. None of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and would result in a less than significant impact.
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. The proposed project would not result in greater development capacity than was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 89 City of Commerce
3.14 – Population and Housing
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Induce Unplanned Population Growth. The General Plan EIR found that the potential population under buildout of the General Plan could result in a build-out population of up to 25,623 persons, which would be an increase of approximately 12,119 persons over the life of the Plan. However, the General Plan EIR also found that the General Plan included policies intended to mitigate the potential impacts of future development. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not include substantial unplanned population growth and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would incorporate General Plan policies intended to preserve residential neighborhoods and provide housing opportunities for all City residents. In addition, the proposed project would remain consistent with and the population projections used to prepare the 2022 AQMP. The proposed project would be consistent with the lever of growth anticipated under the General Plan and the potential impact would be considered less than significant.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
90 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Community Development Element
Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will promote the development of new housing for all income groups.
Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will continue to explore new opportunities for housing and services to meet the needs of the labor force, and as a means to attract new business and industry to the city.
Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will continue to make information available to Commerce residents concerning housing opportunities and rehabilitation programs.
Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will expand its housing rehabilitation programs, focusing on the need to rehabilitate housing and eliminate illegal garage conversions in every Commerce neighborhood.
Housing Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will strive to provide a diverse inventory of housing that meets the needs of those who desire to reside in the city.
Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will promote the development of a wide range of housing by location, type, and price to meet the existing and future needs of the city.
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will promote the retention and improvement of existing senior housing.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will promote the development of new housing for low-through upper-income households.
Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will explore opportunities for new residential development within those areas of the city occupied by vacant, obsolete commercial and industrial uses.
Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will ensure that housing provided for lower-income level households will not be concentrated in any single area or neighborhood of the city.
Policy 1.7 The City of Commerce will work to ensure that potential sites for residential development, located in those areas that were previously occupied by nonresidential land uses, are investigated to determine whether or not previous on-site uses present potential health risks.
Policy 1.8 The City of Commerce will continue to use redevelopment set-aside funds, density bonuses, and other program incentives to encourage private developers to construct quality low-income housing units.
Policy 1.9 The City of Commerce and the city’s Community Development Commission will continue to acquire and assemble properties to facilitate construction of new housing units for all income groups and seniors.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 91 City of Commerce
Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will continue to promote, maintain, and enhance the character and identity of the residential neighborhoods.
Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will continue to maintain the lower residential densities in the Bandini-Rosini and Rosewood neighborhoods.
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will restrict further construction of multiple-family units to only those areas where such uses are appropriate.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will continue to ensure that the majority of new development in the Southeast planning area will consist primarily of medium-and high-density residential projects.
Policy 2.5 The City of Commerce will preserve the existing single-family character of the lowerdensity residential neighborhoods located in the Bandini-Rosini and Rosewood planning areas.
Policy 2.7 The City of Commerce will require property owners to maintain their properties to the greatest extent possible.
Policy 2.8 The City of Commerce will continue to assist low-and moderate-income households with property maintenance by informing residents regarding the available programs and available low-interest and deferred loans.
Policy 2.9 The City of Commerce will establish a “House-of-the-Quarter” program that recognizes and rewards property owners for exemplary property maintenance.
Policy 2.10 The City of Commerce will protect the existing viable single-family residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of incompatible uses.
Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will encourage the maintenance of the existing housing stock.
Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will continue to rehabilitate existing substandard housing units through the enforcement of the city’s building and safety code.
Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will enforce the building and safety code and the zoning ordinance to prevent the construction of illegal housing units.
Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will ensure that homes, found to be in violation of building codes, have follow-up visits as a means to enforce compliance with the codes and fines imposed if compliance with codes is not completed within a reasonable amount of time.
Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will continue to support Federal and State laws that prohibit discrimination in housing based on age, sex, or race.
Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with the Los Angeles County Fair Housing Council in the enforcement of fair housing laws.
Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will continue to work with the Los Angeles County Fair Housing Council in the review of violations of applicable Federal and State fair housing laws. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
92 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will establish formal child day care policies that will enable residents and employees to have access to affordable and high-quality day care facilities within the City.
Policy 5.5 The City of Commerce will develop a policy to encourage new industrial developments to include child day care facilities within the City or to pay in-lieu fees into a Cityestablished child day care center fund.
Policy 5.7 The City of Commerce will continue to provide a wide variety of social service programs to City residents.
Policy 5.8 The City of Commerce will regularly assess the social service needs of the community. (b) Displace People or Housing. The General Plan EIR found that future development associated with the implementation of the General Plan would not result in any housing displacement. It was also noted that the changes in the land use designations were intended to bring the General Plan into conformity with the existing development within certain areas of the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to displacement of people or housing would be less than significant.
The proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments do not contain any existing residential housing. As such, implementation of the project would not displace existing housing, nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Conclusion
The project would not result in direct population growth in the City that was not already accounted for in the General Plan EIR. Moreover, the project would not result in the displacement of any existing City residents (population) or housing by its development. Therefore, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. The project would be within the scope of what is evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 93 City of Commerce
3.16 – Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Fire protection? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Police protection? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Schools? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Parks? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Other public facilities? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Fire protection. The General Plan EIR noted that any development within the City contemplated as part of the General Plan’s implementation would replace substandard and dilapidated uses, resulting in a beneficial impact in terms of eliminating existing potential fire hazards. It was further noted that the rehabilitation of older structures as part of any new development would reduce potential fire hazards by removing older electrical systems and requiring compliance with current, building that is more stringent codes in the new construction. The General Plan EIR noted that the greatest potential impact of General Plan implementation would be related to calls for service for paramedic services due to the increased concentrations of persons anticipated with the development possible under the General Plan’s land use plan. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that the Los Angeles County Fire Department would review all new development plans and any new development would be required to conform to applicable fire protection and prevention requirements including, but not limited to, building setbacks, emergency access, interior sprinklers, etc. It was further found that the potential housing and population under the General Plan at the time would be greater than that possible under the current General Plan. Lastly, the General Plan EIR found that General Plan includes policies intended to limit any significant adverse impact on fire protection services from future development. As such, no fire protection measures beyond those specified in the Uniform Building Code were incorporated into the General Plan EIR and impacts related to fire protection services were determined to be less than significant. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
94 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The project would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in providing for fire protection facilities. For these reasons, the proposed project would have impacts similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives: impacts would be less than significant.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Health and Safety Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will work to minimize hazards to public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent loss of life, bodily injury, and property damage resulting from natural and manmade phenomena.
Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will provide public safety information focusing on the prevention of accidents that may be life-threatening or result in property damage.
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to provide adequate levels of emergency services to meet existing and projected demand through the maintenance of contracts with emergency service providers.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will continue to encourage coordination among City officials, and between the City and other agencies, that provides disaster response and relief services.
Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will cooperate with, and support in every way possible, the Federal, State, and County agencies responsible for the enforcement of health, safety, and environmental laws.
Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will strive to respond to all in-City emergency incidents within a five-minute or less response time.
Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will continue to support the efforts of the Fire Department in the prevention and suppression of fires.
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will ensure that the public and private water distribution and supply facilities have adequate capacity to meet both the domestic supply needs of the community and the required fire flow.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will encourage City water purveyors to meet regularly with Fire Department officials to discuss the condition and capabilities of the City’s water system.
Policy 2.5 The City of Commerce will ensure that all street signs shall be clearly marked and visible to all emergency personnel.
Policy 2.6 The City of Commerce will ensure that the Fire Department will be included in the environmental review of any large development to ensure that fire prevention and suppression features have been considered in the overall design. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 95 City of Commerce
Policy 2.7 The City of Commerce will ensure that structures identified, as being deficient in fire protection or suppression devices will be required to make the recommended improvements in a timeframe established by the Fire Department.
Policy 2.8 The City of Commerce will ensure that the Fire Department will be provided those facilities that are deemed necessary to enable it to provide services at levels desirable to both the City and the County.
Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will require defensible space designs in all new developments. (b) Police protection. The General Plan EIR noted that the potential build-out population possible under the General Plan’s implementation would be less than that theoretically possible under the adopted General Plan at the time. As a result, the General Plan EIR found that the demand for services would be less than that contemplated under the (then) adopted General Plan, and the additional population theoretically possible under the General Plan’s implementation would take place incrementally over the life of the Plan. Additionally, the General Plan EIR noted that there are a number of General Plan policies that directly support regional planning efforts, and the majority of the changes in the zoning were designed to reflect existing land uses and development at the time. As such, the General Plan EIR determined that, with incorporation of General Plan policies, implementation of the General Plan would not result in any significant adverse impact on police protection services. Therefore, with these policies in place, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to police services would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The project would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in providing for police protection facilities.
Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional police protection facilities, if necessary. The proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Therefore, potential impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Health and Safety Element
Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that law enforcement services continue to meet the public safety needs of the community.
Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will encourage the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Commerce safety specialists to develop better people skills with our residents, such as “Wave - Smile - Say Hello,” and the ongoing evaluation of law enforcement services will continue to be implemented.
Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will continue to work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to suppress gang activity in the City.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
96 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Policy 3.5 The City of Commerce will encourage existing developments to practice crime prevention by providing outdoor lighting, maintaining low-level landscaping, and supplying private on-site security patrols or security systems. (c) Schools. As described in the General Plan EIR, the City of Commerce is served by the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Montebello Unified School District. Both districts were experiencing overcrowded conditions at the time the General Plan EIR was certified; therefore, it was determined that any new development that may occur under the General Plan could lead to indirect increases in the student population requiring school services. The General Plan EIR noted that this impact was largely due to the potential increase in employment that would result from new development under the General Plan as the majority of new jobs were expected to be filled by the local labor pool already residing in the area. However, it was noted that new development within the City would be implemented over a relatively lengthy period of time; thus, impacts on school services would be incremental in nature.
In addition, it was noted that any new development would be required to pay the applicable development fees pursuant to SB50, and the school development fees are considered sufficient in mitigating the impacts of new development on schools. As such, the General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts on school.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of the School Districts’ development mitigation fee schedule, which requires a fee payment to assist the Districts in providing for school facilities.
Payment of these fees would ensure that the project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional school facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities and this potential impact would be considered less than significant. (d) Parks. The General Plan EIR found the implementation of the General Plan would not result in a significant increase in the demand for the park facilities since the potential “ build-out ” population of the General Plan was less than that under the current the General Plan that was adopted at the time. The General Plan EIR also noted that the General Plan includes a number of park facility improvements that would be scheduled for implementation. Further, the General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan also called for the development of a small mini-park to serve the Ferguson neighborhood and would include a tot lot and playground area. Lastly, the General Plan EIR found that the General Plan contains a number of policies that would be effective in reducing or eliminating potential impacts of future development on recreational facilities and services. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that with incorporation of General Plan policies, impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
The proposed project is within the scope of the General Plan. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. The proposed project would result in the potential for more households with children and adults who want to use parks and recreation facilities.
Development of the project, therefore, would have the potential to increase use of local park facilities.
However, all new development, including the proposed project, would be subject to payment of development impact fees to cover its fair share of the cost for facility expansion and maintenance.
Therefore, with payment of standard fees, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities from the proposed project would be less than significant. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 97 City of Commerce
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Resource Management Element
Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will maintain the existing park and recreational facilities to the extent that they can continue to provide residents with the best possible recreational opportunities.
Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will strive to create more “green space” and recreational facilities that will accommodate skateboarding, roller hockey, and field soccer programming.
Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will continue to upgrade existing facilities to improve park appearance and utility.
Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will expand Veteran’s Park and Bristow Park to include such facilities as soccer fields and basketball courts.
Policy 5.5 The City of Commerce will evaluate the feasibility of developing tot lots and pocket parks in the City’s residential neighborhoods.
Policy 5.6 The City of Commerce will improve and expand the recreational facilities at Camp Commerce.
Policy 5.7 The City of Commerce will continue to assess the recreational program needs of the City’s residents, and establish guidelines to respond to those needs.
Policy 5.8 The City of Commerce will develop a quarterly recreation program report.
Policy 5.9 The City of Commerce will continue to identify the maintenance requirements of the park and recreational facilities in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Policy 5.10 The City of Commerce will encourage citizen involvement and participation in the planning of park improvements.
Policy 5.11 The City of Commerce will identify new funding sources to provide recreational improvements and services in the City.
Policy 5.12 The City of Commerce will include the replacement and/or remodeling of the restroom and snack bar facilities in Bristow Park in the Capital Improvement Program List. (e) Other public facilities. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would not result in substantial impacts to other public facilities, including libraries. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the proposed project would not result in an increase in residents that would generate additional demand for public facilities such as libraries beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, all future development would be required to pay development impact fees to cover its fair share of the cost of facility expansion. Therefore, impacts related to expansion of library facilities would be less than significant.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
98 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Conclusion
Future project applicants would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees to reduce impacts to public services. The project would be within the scope of what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 99 City of Commerce
3.18 – Recreation
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Would the project
increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Increased Park Use. The General Plan EIR found the implementation of the General Plan would not result in a significant increase in the demand for the park facilities since the potential “ build-out ” population of the General Plan was less than that under the current the General Plan that was adopted at the time. The General Plan EIR also noted that the General Plan includes a number of park facility improvements that would be scheduled for implementation. Further, the General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan also called for the development of a small mini-park to serve the Ferguson neighborhood, and would include a tot lot and playground area. Lastly, the General Plan EIR found that the General Plan contains a number of policies that would be effective in reducing or eliminating potential impacts of future development on recreational facilities and services. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that with incorporation of General Plan policies, impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
The proposed project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. The proposed project would result in the potential for more households with children and adults who want to use parks and recreation facilities. Development of the project, therefore, would have the potential to increase use of local park facilities. However, all new development under the proposed project would be subject to payment of development impact fees to cover its fair share of the cost for facility expansion and maintenance. Therefore, with payment of standard fees, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities from the proposed project would be less than significant. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
100 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Resource Management Element
Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will maintain the existing park and recreational facilities to the extent that they can continue to provide residents with the best possible recreational opportunities.
Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will strive to create more “green space” and recreational facilities that will accommodate skateboarding, roller hockey, and field soccer programming.
Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will continue to upgrade existing facilities to improve park appearance and utility.
Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will expand Veteran’s Park and Bristow Park to include such facilities as soccer fields and basketball courts.
Policy 5.5 The City of Commerce will evaluate the feasibility of developing tot lots and pocket parks in the City’s residential neighborhoods.
Policy 5.6 The City of Commerce will improve and expand the recreational facilities at Camp Commerce.
Policy 5.7 The City of Commerce will continue to assess the recreational program needs of the City’s residents, and establish guidelines to respond to those needs.
Policy 5.8 The City of Commerce will develop a quarterly recreation program report.
Policy 5.9 The City of Commerce will continue to identify the maintenance requirements of the park and recreational facilities in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Policy 5.10 The City of Commerce will encourage citizen involvement and participation in the planning of park improvements.
Policy 5.11 The City of Commerce will identify new funding sources to provide recreational improvements and services in the City.
Policy 5.12 The City of Commerce will include the replacement and/or remodeling of the restroom and snack bar facilities in Bristow Park in the Capital Improvement Program List. (b) Need for New Parks. The General Plan EIR found the implementation of the General Plan would not result in a significant increase in the demand for the park facilities since the potential “ build-out ” population of the General Plan was less than that under the current the General Plan that was adopted at the time. The General Plan EIR also noted that the General Plan includes a number of park facility improvements that would be scheduled for implementation. Further, the General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan also called for the development of a small mini-park which would include a tot lot and playground area to serve the Ferguson neighborhood. Lastly, the General Plan EIR found that the General Plan contains a number of policies that would be effective in reducing or eliminating potential impacts of future development on recreational facilities and services. With these policies included in the General Plan, the General Plan EIR determined that the construction or expansion of recreational 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 101 City of Commerce
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment would not be required and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As previously mentioned, all future development under the proposed project would be subject to payment of development impact fees to cover its fair share of the cost for facility expansion and maintenance.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any adverse physical effect on the environment caused by expansion or construction of outdoor recreational facilities and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project does include residential uses. Any increase in park or recreational facility usage associated with development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be considered minimal with payment of applicable parks related development impact fees. The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. The potential recreation impacts from the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
102 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.19 – Transportation
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Would the project
conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Circulation Plan Consistency. The General Plan EIR noted that the zoning for the General Plan planning areas would result in approximately 47,765 daily trips, of which 1,090 trips would be generated during the morning peak hour and 4,620 trips would be generated during the evening peak hour. The future traffic volumes for the year 2010 were estimated using an annual growth rate of one percent that corresponds to the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan and represented the worst-case scenario with respect to traffic congestion. Using the worst-case scenario, the General Plan EIR found that under existing and future conditions, 6 of the 12 streets would operate at unacceptable levels of service with implementation of the General Plan. Further, the General Plan EIR noted that since street widening opportunities are extremely limited, and re-striping the streets with significant heavy vehicle (truck) traffic is not advisable, traffic management techniques would be the primary recourse available in the short term to alleviate congestion to some degree. It was also noted that peak direction parking restrictions during peak periods and signal synchronization to achieve optimal flow are two techniques that could be applied where feasible. Finally, it was noted that intersection improvements would also contribute significantly to alleviating traffic congestion along corridors. However, since it was observed that regional and subregional traffic, and in particular heavy vehicle movements contribute significantly to congestion on the streets in the City of Commerce, the General Plan EIR found that it is evident that 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 103 City of Commerce
in the long run, the City’s traffic congestion problems can only be solved through the improvement of regional (Freeway) networks and interchanges. Furthermore, it was found that a collaborative effort with other agencies such as the railroads and the surrounding cities is key to managing traffic and funding improvements. The General Plan EIR determined that the analysis of transportation impacts indicated that no unmitigable significant adverse impacts would result from the implementation of the General Plan. While the General Plan would result in increased traffic, the General Plan EIR found that additional project trips would not represent a significant adverse impact on the operating levels of service (LOS) of any area intersections. As a result, no mitigation with respect to traffic and circulation was required, although the policies in the General Plan were identified as being effective in further reducing potential traffic-related impacts. With incorporation of General Plan policies, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to the circulation system would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 16 parcels from Commercial Manufacturing to Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan, Zoning Map Amendments to add Mixed Use overlay zones to 16 parcels along Washington Boulevard and 10 parcels along Atlantic Boulevard currently zoned C/M1 on the Zoning Map, and Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Zoning Map Amendments. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is within the scope what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Future development projects on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be reviewed by the City to ensure no significant transportation related impacts would occur. Future development projects would also be subject to General Plan policies intended to mitigate impacts to the circulation system. Therefore, with incorporation of existing General Plan policies, impacts from the proposed project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would result in less than significant impacts on the circulation system.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Transportation Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will continue to implement a comprehensive plan for a coordinated street circulation system that will provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.
Policy 1.2 The City of Commerce will continue to develop a street circulation system that is capable of adequately accommodating a reasonable increase in future traffic demands.
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will implement the standards for roadways identified in the Transportation Element in the planning and construction of future street improvements in the city.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will implement the applicable standards for local roadways specifically serving industrial developments in the city.
Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with the Sheriff’s Department in the enforcement of traffic laws on all City streets.
Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will continue to support the operation of, and further the enhancement of, a safe and efficient regional and inter-city transit system. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
104 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Policy 1.7 The City of Commerce will implement measures that will discourage through-traffic on local streets.
Policy 1.8 The City of Commerce will continue to analyze traffic congestion and evaluate strategies to improve the efficiency of the city transportation and circulation system.
Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will evaluate plans that will promote the separation of commercial and industrial development traffic from residential neighborhoods.
Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will prohibit truck traffic from using local streets located within, and exclusively serving, the residential neighborhoods.
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will establish, and enforce the use of, truck routes in the City.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will seek out means to assess heavy truck users for the cost of maintaining roadway-related infrastructure.
Policy 3.1 The City of Commerce will continue to encourage the use of alternate transportation modes (e.g., shuttles, etc.).
Policy 3.2 The City of Commerce will continue to provide residents, employees, and visitors with a local public transit system.
Policy 3.3 The City of Commerce will continue to monitor population trends and development that may require modifications to municipal bus system schedules and service routes to better service the major employment, shopping, and service areas located throughout the City.
Policy 3.4 The City of Commerce will promote the development of safe and convenient pedestrian access between residential neighborhoods and the parks and schools that serve those neighborhoods.
Policy 3.5 The City of Commerce will encourage the maintenance and improvement of “pedestriansafe” oriented facilities to ensure safe pedestrian movement.
Policy 3.6 The City of Commerce will establish bus shelters at heavily-used bus stops to increase public recognition and promote the use of the local and regional transit system.
Policy 3.7 The City of Commerce, together with the local transit provider and MTA, will provide brochure racks at city hall and community centers.
Policy 3.8 The City of Commerce will continue to implement the city’s transportation demand management (TDM) measures to improve the efficiency of the City’s circulation network.
Policy 3.9 The City of Commerce will require major employers to adopt TDM plans pursuant to the city’s adopted TDM ordinance.
Policy 3.10 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with regional transportation agencies to establish routes, stops, and stations in Commerce for the proposed regional mass transit system.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 105 City of Commerce
Policy 4.1 The City of Commerce will work with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department to establish a roadway and traffic safety inspection program.
Policy 4.2 The City of Commerce will evaluate the feasibility of forming assessment districts, development fees, or other measures to acquire funds needed for street and trafficrelated improvements.
Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will require that the cost of new transportation-related improvements be borne by the developments that create the need for such improvements.
Policy 4.4 The City of Commerce will evaluate the feasibility of levying license fees for all trucks using city roads to pay for the cost of associated road repairs.
Policy 4.5 The City of Commerce will initiate discussions with Caltrans regarding the placement of a freeway interchange at the Slauson Avenue/Interstate 710 crossing.
Policy 4.6 The City of Commerce will consider a project to provide access to Sheila Street from Pacific Way west of Arrowmill Avenue.
Policy 4.7 The City of Commerce will install concrete paving on Washington Boulevard between Indiana Street and the Santa Ana Freeway.
Policy 4.8 The City of Commerce will widen Sheila Street as needed to accommodate existing and anticipated truck traffic along this route.
Policy 4.9 The City of Commerce will evaluate the feasibility of the widening of Ferguson Drive between Gerhart Avenue and Garfield Avenue.
Policy 4.10 The City of Commerce will consult with Caltrans in considering the feasibility of constructing a direct ramp connection from the Long Beach Freeway to the adjacent rail yards as a means to reduce truck traffic on local streets.
Policy 5.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that adequate off-street parking and loading facilities are provided for businesses and residences in the city.
Policy 5.2 The City of Commerce will actively enforce existing curbside parking laws, particularly in regard to truck and bus parking along major roadways (all high-profile vehicles, including trucks, buses, and sport utility vehicles, should be parked at least a minimum of 20 feet from intersections in order to maintain clear visibility for vehicles entering all roadways).
Policy 5.3 The City of Commerce will require all new developments to provide on-site parking in compliance with existing zoning regulations.
Policy 5.4 The City of Commerce will continue to enforce other parking regulations as they apply to existing development.
Policy 5.5 The City of Commerce will continue to enforce and monitor parking ordinance regulations that will prohibit the parking of inoperable and service vehicles on residential streets. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
106 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Policy 5.6 The City of Commerce will develop a program to limit on-street parking in residential neighborhoods that may include, but not be limited to, the issuance of residential parking permits.
Policy 5.7 The City of Commerce will consider issuing street parking permits as a means to promote the use of garages for parking.
Policy 5.8 The City of Commerce will examine the feasibility of establishing an overnight parking ordinance and/or a street-cleaning program that will serve to restrict on-street parking in residential neighborhoods.
Policy 6.1 The City of Commerce will ensure that all future transportation facilities that will provide a regional benefit do not have a significant adverse impact on the community and that any such impacts must be mitigated to the fullest extent possible.
Policy 6.2 The City of Commerce will oppose any regional public transportation improvement that does not first consider the potential impacts of such facilities on the local community in which the facility will be located.
Policy 6.3 The City of Commerce will take a proactive role in meeting with regional planning agencies to ensure that the local community’s voice is heard in the planning for future regional transportation facilities.
(b) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Since adoption of the General Plan EIR, the City of Commerce has adopted guidelines to help ensure that land use development projects comply with the latest requirements of the CEQA regarding VMT. The guidelines provide the City with standardized criteria and established thresholds of significance to be used for analyzing transportation impacts for CEQA.
Future development projects on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to prepare City review to ensure no significant VMT impacts would occur. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As such, future development projects would also be subject to General Plan policies intended to reduce the amount of VMT in the City. Finally, the mixed-use component of the proposed project is intended to reduce VMT from operation of future developments. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant VMT impact and no mitigation is required.
(c) Circulation Design Hazards. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Policies would ensure that significant impacts from increased hazards due to design features would not be substantial. For these reasons, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. Development of the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not involve any unusual design features. Future development projects on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to submit design plans to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. Development of the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not require closure or reconfiguration of any roadways, nor would it result in features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Existing public streets and controlled intersections would be utilized by future development projects on the sites 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 107 City of Commerce
identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments. The proposed mixed-use designation and zoning overlays would not create substantial hazards by introducing incompatible uses into the project area. Lastly, future development projects would also be subject to General Plan policies intended to prevent circulation design hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to design hazards.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Community Development Element
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to implement specific standards for new commercial developments located adjacent to residential neighborhoods in order to ensure that adequate buffers are provided so that negative impacts such as noise, light pollution, truck use, and traffic may be mitigated.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce shall prevent the further intrusion of industrial and commercial development into the Bandini-Rosini, Northwest, Rosewood, and Southeast Planning Areas.
Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will prevent the further intrusion of residential dwelling uses into the existing industrial and commercial districts in the city.
Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will ensure that commercial and industrial development provide sufficient landscaped buffers and other design features to separate new non-residential uses located in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.7 The City of Commerce will promote site plans for new development located in the vicinity of Washington Boulevard that encourages primary access from Washington Boulevard for those businesses located along the roadway (as opposed to the use of alleyways). (d) Emergency Access. The General Plan EIR noted that the Los Angeles County Fire Department would review all new development plans and any new development would be required to conform to applicable emergency access requirements including, but not limited to, building setbacks, minimum access widths, no parking zones, etc. For these reasons, the General Plan EIR determined that the circulation system under the approved General Plan would provide for safe access to all portions of the City and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments. Future development projects on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to submit design plans to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with all design requirements. Per state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space would be provided around any proposed buildings for emergency personnel and equipment to access. Future development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to comply with the California Fire Code in terms of emergency access. Lastly, future development projects would also be subject to General Plan policies intended to prevent emergency access impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
108 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Community Development Element
Policy 1.3 The City of Commerce will continue to implement specific standards for new commercial developments located adjacent to residential neighborhoods in order to ensure that adequate buffers are provided so that negative impacts such as noise, light pollution, truck use, and traffic may be mitigated.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce shall prevent the further intrusion of industrial and commercial development into the Bandini-Rosini, Northwest, Rosewood, and Southeast Planning Areas.
Policy 1.5 The City of Commerce will prevent the further intrusion of residential dwelling uses into the existing industrial and commercial districts in the city.
Policy 1.6 The City of Commerce will ensure that commercial and industrial development provide sufficient landscaped buffers and other design features to separate new non-residential uses located in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.7 The City of Commerce will promote site plans for new development located in the vicinity of Washington Boulevard that encourages primary access from Washington Boulevard for those businesses located along the roadway (as opposed to the use of alleyways).
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR determined that transportation-related impacts were less than significant. The proposed project would not result in greater development capacity than was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Future development projects would be required to prepare transportation assessments and implement appropriate mitigation to ensure transportation-related impacts remain less than significant.
The proposed project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 109 City of Commerce
3.20 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k), or
No Not
Analyzed No No No
b) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the resource
to a California Native
American tribe.
No Not
Analyzed No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Listed or Eligible Resources. All of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments have been previously disturbed by urban development. None of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments contains any of the historic resources identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. (b) Significant Resources. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was signed into law in 2014 and added the abovelisted thresholds to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, at the time the General Plan EIR was certified in 2008, AB 52 was not in place and the General Plan EIR did not evaluate this threshold. AB 52 requires a Lead Agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
110 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a project site, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The legislature declared that AB 52 “shall apply only to a project that has a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015”. Since the proposed project does not require a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration, AB 52 is not applicable to the proposed project. In addition to AB 52, SB 18 consultation for the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments was completed as part of the Housing Element adoption process. SB 18 requires public notice to be sent to tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s SB 18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas affected by proposed local public land use planning changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment to a general or specific plan. The Lead Agency is required to notify tribes within 14 days of deeming a development application complete subject to CEQA to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project.
All future discretionary development proposals on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to perform evaluation on a project-by-project basis and would incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary, to ensure impacts on historical resources are not significant. In addition, all future projects would be subject to General Plan policies intended to preserve important cultural resources in the City. Additionally, all future discretionary development projects would be subject to Tribal coordination and consultation requirements of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and, as applicable, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which would ensure that significant impacts to Native American historical and archaeological resources would not occur.
If human remains are discovered during grading or other ground disturbing activities associated with development of the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments, the project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et. seq. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If buried features (i.e., human remains, hearths, or cultural deposits) are present during ground-disturbing activities, they would be handled in a timely and proper manner according to standard requirements. These standard requirements would ensure that discovered human remains are properly treated.
Evaluation on a site-by-site basis, compliance with established health and safety regulations, and implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that future development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would note result in significant impacts to Tribal resources.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 111 City of Commerce
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Resource Management Element
Policy 2.1 The City of Commerce will strive to preserve the history of the City and any historical places in the City, such as the railroad station and the rubber trees in the vicinity of Olympic and Goodrich Boulevards.
Policy 2.2 The City of Commerce will evaluate other potential significant sites in the community, and will continue to recognize the City’s cultural and historical resources.
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will document local historic sites and promote the public’s awareness of these resources.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will explore opportunities for the development of a City museum and cultural center.
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR determined that potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of standard conditions of approval and existing regulations. The proposed project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. Compliance with established regulations and standards would ensure that the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant impacts than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
112 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.21 – Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction
of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during
normal, dry and multiple
dry years?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Result in a
determination by the
wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the project that
it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s
projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Generate solid waste
in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction
goals?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Comply with federal,
state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 113 City of Commerce
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) New or Expanded Utility Infrastructure.
Water
The General Plan EIR noted that future development would require connections and water delivery services via existing water lines. The General Plan EIR found that the ultimate development permitted under the previous General Plan would consume 13,464,512 gallons of water on a daily basis, while under the current General Plan build-out, the total water consumption would be 13,416,650 gallons per day, a decrease of 47,862 gallons per day or -0.3%. The General Plan EIR noted that future development would be required to comply with water conservation requirements set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as well as the City's Water Conservation Ordinance. The General Plan EIR also found that there are a number of General Plan policies that would be effective in mitigating the impacts of future development on water supply infrastructure. Compliance with these state and local requirements would reduce impacts on imported water supplies. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that no significant adverse impacts on water supplies would result with implementation of the General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. For this reason, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
The General Plan EIR found that the potential development under the previous General Plan build-out would generate 3,906,025 gallons of effluent on a daily basis, while under the existing General Plan, the total effluent generation would be 5,515078 gallons per day, an increase of 1,599,053 gallons per day or 40.9%. However, given the actual available treatment capacity of 385 million gallons per day, the General Plan EIR determined that the development contemplated under the General Plan would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Additionally, the General Plan EIR noted that there are a number of General Plan policies that would be effective in mitigating the impacts of future development on wastewater treatment infrastructure. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that no significant adverse impacts on wastewater treatment would result with implementation of the General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. For this reason, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
The General Plan EIR noted that the City’s land area is largely paved or otherwise covered with impervious surfaces. When considering the City in its entirety, it was found that limited changes in the overall percolation rates occur with implementation of the General Plan. As a result, it was determined that no additional storm water infrastructure would be required to accommodate the future demand that may arise as part of the General Plan’s implementation. Further, it was noted that any new development would be required to comply with Federal Clean Water Act requirements, and to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
114 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
Control Board (LARWQCB). Additionally, the General Plan EIR found that future development projects would be required to comply with the City's storm water management guidelines. Finally, it was noted that there are a number of General Plan policies that would be effective in mitigating the impacts of future development on stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to stormwater drainage would be less than significant.
Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the proposed project results in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. Development of the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not increase the net area of impermeable surfaces; therefore, increased discharges to the City’s existing stormwater drainage system would not occur. In addition, development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would include construction of accompanying stormwater drainage improvements where needed. Stormwater would be collected on-site in storm drains, retained on site if necessary, and conveyed to the City’s storm drainage system as capacity allows. The drainage improvements would be constructed in accordance with the NPDES and the LARWQCB’s requirements. Permits to connect to the existing stormwater drainage system would be obtained prior to development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments. All drainage plans are subject to City review and approval prior to issuance of construction permits. For this reason, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant.
Electricity and Natural Gas Service
The General Plan EIR noted that The General Plan EIR found that future development under the General Plan would not involve any uses or activities that would preclude energy conservation, including electricity and natural gas. In addition, it was found that all future development would be required to implement energy conservation measures pursuant to Title 24 requirements. Finally, it was noted that implementation of General Plan policies would be effective in further reducing energy consumption.
Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan’s implementation would not result in any significant adverse impacts on natural gas and electricity infrastructure and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. Future development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would include accompanying electricity and natural gas connections. Project developers would be required to construct all natural gas and electricity improvements in accordance with existing standards and guidelines. The proposed project is within the scope of the General Plan. For this reason, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant.
Telecommunications
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to telephone and cable television services would be less than significant with implementation of the General Plan.
The proposed project does not require the provision of telephone or cable television services future development projects would include telecommunication improvements, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an impact on telecommunications facilities. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 115 City of Commerce
Conclusion
Potentially significant impacts could occur if development of the project results in or requires relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. The proposed project is within the scope of the General Plan. Because the General Plan EIR determined that existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities would have sufficient capacity at buildout, and because the proposed project would result in less development capacity than was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities. In addition, because existing electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities serve the General Plan area, expansion or construction of these facilities would not be required. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations and General Plan policies.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Resource Management Element
Policy 1.1 The City of Commerce will do its part in the conservation and protection of air, water, energy, and land in the Southern California region.
Policy 1.4 The City of Commerce will encourage the conservation of water resources in residential, commercial, and industrial developments through the use of drought- tolerant plant materials and water-saving irrigation systems.
Health & Safety Element
Policy 2.3 The City of Commerce will ensure that the public and private water distribution and supply facilities have adequate capacity to meet both the domestic supply needs of the community and the required fire flow.
Policy 2.4 The City of Commerce will encourage City water purveyors to meet regularly with Fire Department officials to discuss the condition and capabilities of the City’s water system.
Policy 4.1 The City of Commerce will continue to cooperate with the efforts of other agencies and special districts involved in monitoring the City’s water and sewer systems.
Policy 4.2 The City of Commerce will contribute toward the maintenance of a wastewater treatment system sufficient to protect the health and safety of all residents and businesses.
Policy 4.3 The City of Commerce will continue to request local water purveyors to provide the City with periodic reports concerning water quality.
(b) Sufficient Water Supplies. As discussed in 4.21(a) above, the General Plan EIR found that sufficient water supplies would be available at buildout of the General Plan during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially significant impacts could occur if development of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments resulted in insufficient water supplies available to serve the developments and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
116 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
proposed project is within the scope of the General Plan. Because the General Plan EIR determined that existing and future water supplies would have the capacity to serve the General Plan at buildout, and because the proposed project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR, there would be sufficient water supplies to support the proposed project. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant. (c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity. As discussed in 4.21.a above, the General Plan EIR determined that the development contemplated under the General Plan would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Additionally, the General Plan EIR noted that there are a number of General Plan policies that would be effective in mitigating the impacts of future development on wastewater treatment infrastructure. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that no significant adverse impacts on wastewater treatment would result with implementation of the General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. For this reason, the proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant.
(d) Solid Waste Infrastructure. The General Plan EIR noted that the development possible under the previous General Plan would generate 913,139 pounds of solid waste on a daily basis, while the development under the existing General Plan buildout would generate 856,830 pounds per day, which is approximately 56,309 pounds less than that generated by development possible under the previous General Plan, or a decrease of 6.7%. The General Plan EIR also noted that the majority of the solid waste collected in the City would continue to be taken to the Commerce incinerator for disposal, thus reducing the impacts of development on landfill capacity. Finally, the General Plan EIR found that compliance with source reduction and recycling programs of the City would further reduce the potential adverse impacts on landfill capacity. As a result, the General Plan EIR determined that no significant adverse impacts would occur as a result of General Plan implementation.
The proposed project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. For this reason, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant. (e) Solid Waste Regulations. The General Plan EIR noted that all development under the General Plan would comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. It was further noted that compliance with source reduction and recycling programs of the City would further reduce the potential adverse impacts on landfill capacity. Therefore, with adherence to existing regulations, the General Plan EIR determined there would be a less than significant impact relative to solid waste regulations.
The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts related compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations than those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Impacts would be less than significant.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 117 City of Commerce
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR concluded that utility and service demands from buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies. Since the proposed project is within the scope of the General Plan, and because the proposed project would not result in greater development capacity than was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would also have less than significant impacts related to utilities and services. The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
118 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.22 – Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
b) Due to slope,
prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of
wildfire?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
c) Require the installation
or maintenance of
associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or
other utilities), that may
exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
d) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
No Not
Analyzed No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Impairment of Emergency Plans. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. According to the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 119 City of Commerce
Fire Protection (CALFIRE), the City and sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are not designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Therefore, impacts related to impairment of emergency plans would not occur and no mitigation is required.
(b) Pollutant Concentrations from Wildfire. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to exposure of project occupants to pollution concentrations from wildfire. According to the latest FHSZ maps prepared by the CALFIRE, the City and sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are not designated as a VHFHSZ in an LRA. Therefore, impacts related to pollutant concentrations from wildfire would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. (c) Installation or Maintenance of Associated Infrastructure. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. According to the latest FHSZ maps prepared by the CALFIRE, the City and sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are not designated as a VHFHSZ in an LRA. Therefore, impacts related to installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would be less than significant and no subsequent environmental analysis and no mitigation are required.
(d) Post-Fire Slope Instability or Drainage Changes. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. According to the latest FHSZ maps prepared by the CALFIRE, the City and sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are not designated as a VHFHSZ in an LRA. The project area is not subject to flooding or liquefaction.
Therefore, impacts related to post-fire slope instability or drainage changes would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to wildfire. The proposed project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. The City and sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments are not designated as a VHFHSZ in an LRA.
As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation is required. 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
120 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
3.23 – Mandatory Findings of Significance
Effect
Examined
in the
General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion
in the
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Does the project have
the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal
community, reduce the
number or restrict the
range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important
examples of the major
periods of California history
or prehistory?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Does the project have
impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Does the project have
environmental effects
which will cause
substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project In Relation to the General Plan EIR
(a) Significant Biological or Cultural Impacts. There are no endangered or threatened species on or supported by the project parcels. As stated in Section 3.4, development of the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels or restrict the movement/distribution of a rare or endangered species.
Development of the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not result in the conversion of any vacant, undisturbed land to urban uses as the entire General Plan area is built out. The proposed project would not affect any threatened or endangered species or habitat.
There is no natural habitat or sensitive natural communities within the City that could affected by the proposed project. There are no known unique ethnic or cultural values associated with the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments, nor are there any Native American, religious, or sacred uses associated with the sites. There are also no structures present that would be 3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 121 City of Commerce
eligible for listing in either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, so they are not considered historical resources under CEQA, and thus there would be no significant impacts resulting from the development of the project on these resources. Standard conditions of approval and General Plan policies have been identified to mitigate potential impacts associated with the discovery of unanticipated subsurface historical, archaeological, tribal cultural, and/or paleontological resources (respectively) during excavation operations. Adherence to regulatory requirements and existing General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts associated with cultural, historic, or paleontological resources to a less than significant level. (b) Cumulative Impacts. The General Plan EIR did not identify any potentially substantial cumulative impacts that could occur as a result of General Plan implementation. Because the proposed project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR, the potential cumulative environmental effects of the proposed project would fall within those already identified and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no cumulative impacts greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR would result from either the construction or occupation of the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments as a result of project implementation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. As detailed in the preceding responses, development of the proposed sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not result, either directly or indirectly, in adverse effects to human beings. Short- and long-term impacts are addressed by existing General Plan policies, and no significant impacts are anticipated to occur with the implementation of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
3 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
122 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
Housing Element Sites Rezoning, GPA, and ZTA Project 123 City of Commerce
4 References
4.1 – List of Preparers
City of Commerce (Lead Agency)
Department of Community Development
2535 Commerce Way
Commerce, California 90040
(323) 722-4805 Ext. 2811
Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development
MIG (Environmental Analysis)
6809 Indiana Avenue, Suite 203
Riverside, California 92506
951-787-9222
Bob Prasse, Director of Environmental Services
Cameron Hile, Senior Analyst
4.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted
None
5 – References
124 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
August 18, 2025
4.3 – Bibliography
California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Web:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp [Accessed July 2025].
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Los Angeles County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Web: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparednessand-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022 [Accessed July 2025].
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highways Maps. Web:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-iscenic-highways [Accessed July 2025].
California Environmental Protection Agency. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Web: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed July 2025].
California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Active CDO and CAO. Web:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed August 2025].
California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action Pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Web:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed August 2025].
CalRecycle. Identify Disposal Facility Capacity Shortfalls. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/facility/disposalgap.aspx [Accessed August 2025].
California Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Web: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ [Accessed August 2025].
California Water Resources Control Board. List of Solid Waste Disposal Sites. Web:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed August 2025].
City of Commerce (City), 2008a. City of Commerce 2020 General Plan. January 2008.
City of Commerce (City), 2008b. City of Commerce General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 21001101128). January 2008.