AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 17, 2023
UNT
IL FURTHER NOTICE, MEETINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 361,
WHICH ALLOWS COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE FROM A REMOTE LOCATION WITHOUT LISTING A PHYSICAL LOCATION. TO PROVIDE COMMENTS DURING A MEETING: YOU MAY ATTEND T HE MEETING, SEND AN EMAIL TO:
[email protected], OR JOIN THE ZOOM MEETING BY CALLING: (669) 900-6833 OR USING THE ZOOM APP WITH THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://us02web.z oom.us/j/7095732685; MEETING ID: 709 573 2685. THE MEETING MAY BE VIEWED THROUGH ZOOM, FIOS CHANNEL 32 OR CHARTER CHANNEL 3, OR ON THE CITY'S WEBPAGE AT:
https://www.norwalk.org/city-hall/meeting-agendas-393.
CLOSED SESSION MEETING
5:00 PM
RE
GULAR MEETING
6:00 PM
NORWALK CITY HALL/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE Ana Valencia, Mayor
Margarita L. Rios, Vice Mayor
Tony Ayala, Councilmember
Jennifer Perez, Councilmember
Rick Ramirez, Councilmember
Public Comment: The public is encouraged to address City Council on any matter listed on the agenda or on any other matter within its jurisdiction subject to the rules of decorum described in Section 2.08.020 of the Norwalk Municipal Code. If you wish to address City Council, please complete the card that is provided at the rear entrance to Council Chambers and hand the card to the Sergeant at Arms.
City Council will hear public comment on items listed on the agenda during discussion of the matter and prior to a vote. City Council will hear public comment on matters not listed on the agenda during the Oral Communications period.
P
ursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future City Council meeting.
P
lease adhere to the following procedures when addressing the City Council:
♦ Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
♦ Comments should be directed to the City Council as a whole and not directed to individual Councilmembers.
A
mericans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Clerk’s department, (562) 929-5720. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting. Ask the City Clerk if you desire to use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
N
ote: Any writings and/or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after it has been posted will also be made available for public inspection.
Writings and/or documents are available for inspection in the City Clerk’s Department, City Hall, 12700 Norwalk Boulevard dur ing regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday – Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., every other Friday; telephone (562) 929-5720. You may also contact the City Clerk via e-mail at [email protected].
City Council, October 17, 2023 Page 2 of 6
CLOSED SESSION MEETING – 5:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Valencia
ROLL CALL
Theresa Devoy, CMC
City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
CLOSED SESSION
I. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.8 The Artesia Service Area of the Norwalk Municipal Water System; Negotiating on behalf of the City is Jesus M. Gomez; Negotiating Party : Golden State Water Company; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment.
II. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPE RTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.8: Property: Front Street properties, Assessor Property Numbers 8056 -015-014, 8056-015-016, 8056-015-900 and 8056-015-901; Negotiating Parties: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager, on behalf of the City and Arturo Sneider, Primestor Development Inc.; Under Negotiation: Exchange Agreement.
III. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9(d)(1): City of Whittier, a Charter City; et al. v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, etc., et al.; Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STCP03579.
IV. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9(d)(1): Proposed Class Action Settlements City of Camden, et al., v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, et al., No. 2:23-cv-03230-RMG City of Camden, et al., v. 3M Company, No. 2:23- cv-03147-RMG.
RECESS
REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Valencia
INVOCATION
April Reutter
Pray Norwalk
City Council, October 17, 2023 Page 3 of 6
FLAG SALUTE
Rick Ramirez
New Harvest Christian School
ROLL CALL
Theresa Devoy, CMC
City Clerk
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
a. Report of City Council Travel
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
I. City Council to proclaim October as Down Syndrome Awareness Month in the City of Norwalk.
II. City Council to proclaim October as Code Compliance Month in the City of Norwalk.
III. Introduction of new Norwalk Sheriff Station Captain Rick Conti and Recognition of the NET Team.
IV. City Council to recognize Sheriff’s Department Lieutenant Noe Garcia for five years of service.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
1. Sheriff’s Captain Quarterly Report.
2. 1st Responder Appreciation Luncheon Recap video.
3. Hispanic Heritage Month Recap video.
4. Arturo Sanchez Sr. Halloween Parade Recap video.
5. Biweekly Review video.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are considered routine matters which may be enacted by one motion and roll call vote.
Any item may be removed from the consent calendar and considered separately by City Council.
1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL ORDINANCES ON THE AGENDA Staff recommends City Council waive reading in full of all ordinances on the agenda and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.
2. MEETING MINUTES
Staff recommends City Council approve the minutes of the meeting of October 3, 2023. 825-04 City Council, October 17, 2023 Page 4 of 6
3. PAYROLL FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 17, 2023 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2023 Staff recommends City Council approve gross payroll in the amount of $1,157,903.69; the payroll check numbers 38013 - 38016 and the voucher numbers 3223789 – 324276 in the total net amount of $855,752.79 for the pay period September 17, 2023 – September 30, 2023.
4. COMMERCIAL DEMANDS
Staff recommends City Council approve the warrant register period September 26, 2023 through October 9, 2023, in the total amount of $4,670,300.97. 640
5. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY
Staff recommends City Council deny the claim filed by Armando Hidalgo.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION SYNOPSIS – OCTOBER 11, 2023
No action is required.
7. AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 6 - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR PROJECT NO. 7933 - ANALYZING THE FEASIBILITY OF STRIPING MODIFICATIONS ON EXCELSIOR DRIVE, ENGINEER’S REPORT NO. 23-17
Staff recommends City Council approve Amendment No. 6 to Willdan Engineering’s Traff ic Engineering Services Agreement in the amount of $53,304 to provide services for Project No. 7933, Analyzing the Feasibility of Striping Modifications on Excelsior Drive; and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment on behalf of the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
8. PROJECT NO. 7929.1 - ACCEPT WORK FOR LOCAL STREETS REHABILITATION PROGRAM – PHASE 2 ZONE 19 (CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTS) – ENGINEERS REPORT 23-19 Staff recommends City Council accept the work of CJ Concrete Construction in the amount of $700,412 for Project No. 7929.1 – Local Streets Rehabilitation Program – Phase 2 Zone 19 (Concrete Improvements).
9. AWARD ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE SERVICES for PROJECT NO. 7359 - HERMOSILLO PARK REHABILITATION and PROJECT NO. 7607 - STORMWATER CAPTURE AND INFILTRATION PROJECT Staff recommends City Council award an agreement to Dudek in the amount of $81,650 to provide Environmental Review and California Environmental Quality Act Compliance services for Project No. 7607 - H ermosillo Park Rehabilitation and Project No. 7359 - Stormwater and Infiltration Project; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any amendments, provided there is funding in the budget and it is within the City Manager’s signing authority, on behalf of the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
APPOINTMENTS
10. ADVISORY BODY APPOINTMENTS
Staff recommends City Council make appointments to fill the vacancies on the various Advisory Bodies for two-year terms expiring on December 31, 2024.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. RESOLUTION NO. 23 -64 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022 -03 TO AMEND THE GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ORDINANCE NO. 23-1743 - ZONE CHANGE NO. 2022-05 TO AMEND THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL (C -1) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -1) AT 13310 ROSECRANS AVENUE
Staff recommends City Council:
City Council, October 17, 2023 Page 5 of 6
a. adopt Resolution No. 23 -64, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF NORWALK APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-03 FOR 13310 ROSECRANS AVENUE;
b. introduce by title only Ordinance No. 23-1743, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NORWALK SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION APPROVI NG ZONE CHANGE NO. 2022-05 FOR 13310 ROSECRANS AVENUE, and schedule for adoption; and c. approve the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program with adoption of the project.
RESOLUTIONS
12. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 23 -62 DECLARING THE CITY -OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12124 FIRESTONE BOULEVARD EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(F)(1)(C) AND APPROVING AN EXCHANGE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NORWALK AND FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP Staff recommends City Council:
a. find that the Exempt Surplus Land determination and the approval of the Exchange Agreement is exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S ection 15061(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 – Class 11 Accessory Structures (small parking lots) to existing commercial uses and Section 15312 – Surplus Government Property Sales and none of the exceptions to the Categorical Exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply; b. adopt Resolution No. 23- 62, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK DECLARING THE CITY -OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12124
FIRESTONE BOULEVARD EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(F)(1)(C) AND APPROVING AN EXCHANGE AGREEMENT AND JOINT
ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NORWALK AND FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP; and
c. authorize the City Manager to prepare, execute, or records (cause to be recorded) any documents required under the terms of the Exchange Agreement and such other ancillary documents, on behalf of the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney that are reasonably necessary to consummate the Exchange Agreement and effectuate the intent of Resolution No. 23-62.
REPORTS
13. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PROPOSED ART AT THE NORWALK
FITNESS VILLAGE
Staff recommends City Council accept the Art in Public Places recommendation and approve the artwork proposed for the Norwalk Fitness Village center as shown in the exhibits.
14. ADOPT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES PLAN UPDATE Staff recommends City Council adopt the Economic Development Opportunities Plan Update.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
City Council, October 17, 2023 Page 6 of 6
ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated October 12, 2023.
Theresa Devoy, CMC
City Clerk
20231003
825-04
MINUTES OF THE CLOSED SESSION AND REGULAR MEETINGS
NORWALK CITY COUNCIL
NORWALK, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 3, 2023
CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Vice Mayor Rios called the hybrid meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Norwalk City Hall, 12700 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, California, and via videoconference pursuant to Assembly Bill 361. Responding to roll call in person were Councilmembers Ayala, Perez , and Ramirez . Vice Mayor Rios and Mayor Valencia participated via videoconference. Also present were Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager ; Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney; and Theresa Devoy, City Clerk.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
There were no persons wishing to address City Council on the matters to be discussed in closed session.
CLOSED SESSION
City Council immediately convened to closed session for discussion on the following matter:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9(d)(1): City of Norwalk vs. City of Cerritos, et al., Case Number 22STCV33737.
RECESS
City Council recessed at 5:15 p.m. pending the commencement of the regular meeting.
REGULAR MEETING
Vice Mayor Rios called the hybrid meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Norwalk City Hall, 12700 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, California, and via videoconference pursuant to Assembly Bill 361. Responding to roll call in person were Councilmembers Ayala, Perez , and Ramirez , and Vice Mayor Rios . Mayor Valencia participated via videoconference. Also present were Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager ; Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney; and Theresa Devoy, City Clerk.
The invocation was delivered by George Bojorquez, New Creation Church, followed by the flag salute, led by Rosalie Ramirez, New Harvest Christian School.
Minutes of the Closed Session and Regular Meetings
Norwalk City Council
October 3, 2023
2 CLOSED SESSION REPORT
The City Attorney indicated there was no reportable action taken on the matter discussed in closed session.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Perez announced the Senior Center, Pathway to Services, Child Development, and Youth Intervention newsletters have been distributed, and encouraged all to participate; reported on her attendance at the California Contract Cities Association Fall Summit. Councilmember Ramirez requested the City consider joining the lawsuit to block the new zero bail policy. Vice Mayor Rios reported on her attendance at the Paint the Town P ink Kickoff hosted by the Starbucks located at Firestone and Pioneer Boulevard, thanked all who attended, and requested the C ity and residents continue to raise awareness, donate, support the cause , and wished all good health and wellness .
Welcomed dignitaries in attendance and thanked Allan Perdomo, Recreation and Park Services Director, and staff for the upcoming events geared towards Hispanic Heritage Month. Mayor Valencia reported on her attendance at the Meet the Mayor event hosted at So Cal P izza; thanked the owner, city staff , and colleagues for participating ; shared she attended Norwalk ’s first ever Citizens A cademy; visited various schools within the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District; the Mayors Clergy meeting, and thanked staff for discussing upcoming projects within the C ity; reported on her attendance at theThinkers 4 Autism Fall Fun Festival; announced the next Meet the Mayor event will be Thursday, October 12, at Tamaleman House; invited all to attend the Arturo Sanchez Halloween parade October 14, and thanked Camille Moreno, City Clerks Department, for assisting in obtaining a new passport.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
City Council proclaimed October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Norwalk and shared a video.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
A check was presented by Marcelle Greenidge on behalf of Bajans and Friends for Health and Education to Angel Tree. . The City Manager shared his attendance at the International City/County Management Association Annual C onference. Videos were shared highlighting the Kids and Cops Footgolf Tournament, Ready for Anything: Go-bag Public Service Announcement, and the “Bi-weekly Review.”
Minutes of the Closed Session and Regular Meetings
Norwalk City Council
October 3, 2023
3 CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are considered routine matters which may be enacted by one motion and roll call vote. Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Ayala seconded to approve consent calendar as recommended. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Councilmembers Ayala, Perez, and Ramirez, Vice Mayor Rios and Mayor Valencia
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MEETING MINUTES
City Council approved the minutes of the meeting September 19, 2023. 825-04
PAYROLL FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 3, 2023 – SEPTEMBER 16, 2023
City Council approved gross payroll in the amount of $1,159,681.99; the payroll check numbers 38004 - 38012 and the voucher numbers 323304 – 323788 in the total net amount of $858,136.15 for the pay period September 3, 2023 – September 16, 2023. 630
COMMERCIAL DEMANDS
City Council approved the warrant register period September 12, 2023 through September 25, 2023, in the total amount of $3,182,676.16. 640
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY
City Council denied the claims filed by Mariel Flores Arriola and Jose Quinones. 830-01/17
PLANNING COMMISSION SYNOPSIS - SEPTEMBER 27, 2023
No action was taken. 320
APPOINTMENTS
ADVISORY BODY APPOINTMENTS
Councilmember Perez moved and Vice Mayor Rios seconded to confirm Councilmember Perez’ appointment of Louis Heard to the Public Safety Commission. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
Minutes of the Closed Session and Regular Meetings
Norwalk City Council
October 3, 2023
4 AYES: Councilmembers Ayala, Perez, and Ramirez, Vice Mayor Rios and Mayor Valencia
NOES: None
ABSENT: None 200
PUBLIC HEARINGS
RESOLUTION NO. 23 -59 – APPROVING SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND RESOLUTION NO. 23 -60 – APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE ADOPTED FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 BUDGET
Vice Mayor Rios opened the public hearing to consider approving the Substantial Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs and changes to activity funding levels.. The City Clerk presented a report on the legal requisites for notice of hearing.
John P. Ramirez, Director of Community Development , provided a report. There being no persons wishing to testify in this matter, Vice Mayor Rios closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Ramirez moved and Councilmember Perez seconded to:
a. adopt Resolution No. 23-59, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NORWALK APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN; and
b. adopt Resolution No. 23-60, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2023/24
ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, in the amount of $615,267.00. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Councilmembers Ayala, Perez, and Ramirez, Vice Mayor Rios and Mayor Valencia
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
315
Minutes of the Closed Session and Regular Meetings
Norwalk City Council
October 3, 2023
5 RESOLUTION NO. 23 -57 – SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF, AND ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT FUNDS AND RESOLUTION NO. 23 -58 – BUDGET AMENDMENT –
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE FUNDS AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR HOMELESS
ASSISTANCE
Vice Mayor Rios opened the public hearing to consider approving the Substantial Amendment to the F iscal Year 2019/20 Annual Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus Aid, Relief, And Economic Security Act Funds and reallocation of funds. The City Clerk presented a report on the legal requisites for notice of hearing. Mr. Ramirez provided a report. There being no persons wishing to testify in this matter, Vice Mayor Rios closed the public hearing. City Council discussion ensued with a request for more information on how the funding is currently being spent and the plan for future spending . City Council directed staff to bring this item back for further discussion. ITEM CONTINUED TO A MEETING IN NOVEMBER.
315
Councilmember Ramirez left the meeting before the following item.
REPORTS
RESOLUTION NO. 23 -61 – AUTHORIZING THE USE OF PROGRESSIVE DESIGN - BUILD PROCUREMENT METHOD FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; AND
ADOPTION OF A CONFLICT -OF-INTEREST POLICY FOR DESIGN -BUILD PROJECTS, ENGINEER’S REPORT NO. 23-18
Following a brief report provided by Glen Kau, Director of Public Services/City Engineer, Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Ayala seconded to adopt Resolution No. 23- 61, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT DELIVERY
METHOD FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY FOR DESIGN BUILD PROJECTS. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Councilmembers Ayala and Perez, Vice Mayor Rios , and Mayor Valencia
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Ramirez
DRAFT SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Richard Rojas, Deputy City Manager, provided a report. City Council discussed the Draft and agreed that it could be adopted and modified as needed in the future if necessary.
Minutes of the Closed Session and Regular Meetings
Norwalk City Council
October 3, 2023
6 Brian Tindall spoke in favor of the matter, there being no other persons wishing to speak, Vice Mayor Rios moved and Councilmember Perez seconded to approve the Sustainability Plan as presented. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Councilmembers Ayala and Perez, Vice Mayor Rios , and Mayor Valencia
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Ramirez
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Addressing City Council in person was Jack Cornejo.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
____________________________
THERESA DEVOY, CMC
CITY CLERK
ATTEST:
____________________________
MARGARITA L. RIOS
VICE MAYOR
City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Jana Stuard, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Moises Mata, Financial Analyst
SUBJECT: PAYROLL FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 17, 2023 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2023 Background:
The City’s gross payroll cost for the period September 17, 2023 – September 30, 2023 totals $1,157,903.69.
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Citizens Advised:
N/A
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
N/A
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council approve gross payroll in the amount of $1,157,903.69; the payroll check numbers 38013 - 38016 and the voucher numbers 3223789 – 324276 in the total net amount of $855,752.79 for the pay period September 17, 2023 – September 30, 2023.
Attachments:
N/A
CITY OF NORWALK
FINAL WARRANT REGISTER
September 26, 2023 through October 9, 2023
Item
Count
Vendor Name
Description
Check
Number
Check Total
1 ADELA AMAYA
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191030
$500.00
2 ALYSIA CHOI
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191031
$1,000.00
3 BARR & CLARK INC
LEAD BASED PAINT TESTING
191032
$320.00
4 SULLY MILLER CONTRACTING CO
HOT MIX
191033
$272.36
5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF JUSTICE
EMPL BACKGROUND CHECK SVCS
191034
$288.00
6 DISTRICT LODGE 947, IAMAW
EMPLOYEE UNION DUES
191035
$5,027.70
7 CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
EMPL/INCOME VERIFICATION
191036
$941.06
8 CERTIFIX INC
PRE-EMP FINGERPRINTING
191037
$242.00
9 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY
CONDITION OF TITLE
191038
$4,078.80
10 CITY OF DOWNEY
ANIMAL CONTROL SVCS
191039
$360,104.50
11 CLINICAL LAB OF SAN BERNARDINO INC
LAB SVC WATER TESTING
191040
$1,424.80
12 MCKENNA MOTORS
REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT
191041
$9,000.00
13 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES INC
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SVCS
191042
$26,129.10
14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SNACK SHACK AR0279398
191043
$179.75
15 DEWEY SERVICES INCORPORATED
PEST CONTROL
191044
$486.00
16 EDGESOFT INC
SOFTWARE SERVICES
191045
$40,000.00
17 ENRIQUE ARIAS
CITATION REFUND
191046
$45.00
18 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
P/R DED: 09/22/23
191047
$418.00
19 LA GATEWAY REGION INTEGRATED
LSGR SHARED COSTS
191048
$141,257.45
20 GREENCYCLE
GREEN WASTE RECYCLING
191049
$2,484.17
21 GUADALUPE MARTINEZ BECERRA
CITATION REFUND
191050
$45.00
22 HONESTY TORRES
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191051
$500.00
23 ELIZABETH VILLANUEVA
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191052
$1,000.00
24 JOSE GUZMAN
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191053
$500.00
25 JOSEPH WOOD
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191054
$1,000.00
26 LUIS ANGEL GOMEZ
CITATION REFUND
191055
$45.00
27 M & M EMBROIDERY DESIGN INC
UNIFORM PURCHASE
191056
$88.00
28 MA SOCORRO SULIGUIN
RE-ISSUE CK#190505
191057
$500.00
29 MARB CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT
191058
$1,702.88
30 MARIA FIGUEROA
REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT
191059
$1,000.00
31 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL INC
IDIS ACTIVITY #1445
191060
$1,920.00
32 NADA BUS INC
MORONGO CASINO
191061
$4,070.00
33 JOE'S SWEEPING INC
BUS STOP MAINTENANCE
191062
$20,543.22
34 NORWALK-LA MIRADA SCHOOL DIST
CONTRIBUTION/MR
191063
$1,000.00
35 ONWARD ENGINEERING
DESIGN SVCS
191064
$49,595.00
36 P & G WINDOW TINTING INC
GLASS & WINDOW SVCS
191065
$890.00
37 PARKING CONCEPTS INC
PARKING MGMNT SVCS
191066
$12,903.92
38 PARKS COFFEE CALIFORNIA
SUPPLIES AND SVCS
191067
$1,631.93
CITY OF NORWALK
FINAL WARRANT REGISTER
September 26, 2023 through October 9, 2023
Item
Count
Vendor Name
Description
Check
Number
Check Total
39 JOHN PAUL RAMIREZ
REFRESHMENTS REIMBURSEMENT
191068
$105.98
40 RIV-OR COUNTIES PUMP CO INC
IRRAGATION PUMP SYSTEM
191069
$1,988.78
41 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC USA
MISC EQUIPMENT REPAIR
191070
$5,946.17
42 CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
LITTLE LAKE PARK REC PROGRAM
191071
$30,174.46
43 SCOTT FAZEKAS & ASSOCIATES
PLAN CHECK SVCS
191072
$797.50
44 SONIA LAREZ
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191073
$1,000.00
45 SUPERIOR PRINTING INC
HOUSING CHECKS
191074
$195.49
46 TACHENG PAUL LEE
CITATION REFUND
191075
$40.00
47 TERRA REALTY ADVISORS INC
CONSULTANT SVCS
191076
$4,064.15
48 L V CROWN LLC
LIGHTING SUPPLIES
191077
$9,391.10
49 TRI WEST MECHANICAL INC
REPAIRS
191078
$1,786.87
50 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SO
CA
USA SERVICE
191079
$507.44
51 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ND
CAL CARD CHGS/SEP 2023
191080
$181,805.49
52 WAXIE'S ENTERPRISES LLC
CUSTODIAL/MISC SUPPLY
191081
$2,764.50
53 WILFREDA FRANCINE CHIN
CITATION REFUND
191082
$45.00
54 WILLDAN ENGINEERING
DESIGN SVCS
191083
$7,104.00
55 YVETTE RIVERA OR GIL IVAN
CITATION REFUND
191084
$60.00
56 NEW HARVEST CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
CHILD CARE /AUG 23
191085
$1,900.00
57 ALEXANDRIA ROSALIND MATA GARCIA
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
191086
$613.78
58 IRMA GABRIELA PONCE
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
191087
$219.47
59 MADISYN RENEE BIACAN CASTILLO
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
191088
$592.97
60 MARIA INES TICAS
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
191089
$1,579.54
61 MARIA SILVA DE RIOS
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
191090
$926.69
62 MARISA RAFAELA ZAMUDIO
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
191091
$588.20
63 NADINE MCGUIRE
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
191092
$2,215.55
64 MICHELLE ANN SANDOVAL
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
191093
$686.76
65 OSCAR ROBERTO CORTEZ
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
191094
$4,787.17
66 RAQUEL SILVA
CHILD CARE /AUG 23
191095
$565.71
67 ROSALINDA M JAIMEZ
CHILD CARE ST2/AUG 23
191096
$643.57
68 STEPHANIE NOEMY TAMYO
CHILD CARE ST2/AUG 23
191097
$789.77
69 VANESSA NATALI CARDONA
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 24
191098
$512.03
70 4LEAF INC
CONSULTING SVCS
191099
$1,440.00
71 AMBROS CONSTRUCTION INC
ONE WAYS REHAB PROG
191100
$27,743.12
72 ANDREW ARELLANO
MAILING LABELS REFUND
191101
$147.88
73 ASHLEY RAMIREZ
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191102
$500.00
74 SULLY MILLER CONTRACTING CO
HOT MIX
191103
$843.11
75 BUENO GROUP INC
ONE WAYS REHAB PROGRAM
191104
$17,635.50
CITY OF NORWALK
FINAL WARRANT REGISTER
September 26, 2023 through October 9, 2023
Item
Count
Vendor Name
Description
Check
Number
Check Total
76 CITY OF NORWALK
UTILITY ASST/SOC SVCS
191105
$500.00
77 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC
OFFSITE RECORD STORAGE
191106
$35.77
78 CYNTHIA FUENTES
PARKS REFUND
191107
$1,035.00
79 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
CITY PROSECUTOR SVCS
191108
$6,526.69
80 DATA TICKET INC
ADMIN CITE SVCS
191109
$600.00
81 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC
UTILITIES/C-WIDE
191110
$7,626.86
82 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY
UTILITIES/C-WIDE
191111
$23,406.49
83 WW GRAINGER INC
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
191112
$1,489.10
84 GREENCYCLE
GREEN WASTE RECYCLING
191113
$4,134.67
85 JAVIER LOPEZ
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191114
$1,000.00
86 LA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
CUPA AR0007526
191115
$4,730.00
87 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT
LAW ENFORCEMENT SVCS/JUL 2023
191116
$1,419,371.01
88 LESLIE MEDINA
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191117
$1,000.00
89 LIBERTY UTILITIES CORP
UTILITIES/C-WIDE
191118
$9,355.69
90 LIBERTY UTILITIES CORP
UTILITY ASST/SOC SVCS
191119
$548.25
91 LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
COURT SURCHARGE FEES
191120
$19,732.50
92 MARIA DURAN
NASC DEPOSIT REFUND
191121
$300.00
93 MELISSA MARTINEZ
SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
191122
$1,000.00
94 OCTAVIO EMMANUEL GOMEZ
SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
191123
$1,000.00
95 REVIZE LLC
WEB DESIGN SVCS
191124
$13,330.00
96 F & S FOOD SERVICES INC
MAYORS CLERGY MEETING
191125
$1,969.95
97 TRC INVESTMENTS LLC
EMERGENCY BOARD-UP
191126
$2,487.87
98 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON COMPANY
UTILITIES/C-WIDE
191127
$5,844.83
99 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY
EXEC MGMT LTD/OCT 2023
191128
$1,968.68
100
RELIANT UNIFORMS CORP
TACTICLE VEST COVER
191129
$292.16
101
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
UTILITIES/C-WIDE
191130
$362.17
102
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
UTILITY ASST/SOC SVCS
191131
$645.70
103
THERESA A CLARK
MGMT WELLNESS PROGRAM
191132
$500.00
104
TYNISA BOYD
REIMBURSE OVERPAYMENT
191133
$4.00
105
US ARMOR CORPORATION
TAILOR MADE BALISTIC VEST
191134
$764.88
106
PHASE II SYSTEMS, A CA CORP
HR RETIRE CONTRIB/SEP 2023
191135
$38,960.64
107
VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES
UTILITIES/C-WIDE
191137
$3,820.50
108
VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES
UTILITIES/C-WIDE
191138
$4.98
109
ABC BUS INC
BODY REPAIR/PAINTING SVCS
191139
$1,119.88
110
AIRESPRING INC
BROADBAND C-WIDE/SEP 2023
191140
$844.71
111
ALTEC INC
REPAIRES AND INSPECTIONS
191141
$2,334.50
112
AMERICAN MOVING PARTS LLC
HEAVY DUTY BRAKE PARTS
191142
$2,575.49
113
AMERICAN WATERWORKS INC
PREVENTATIVE MAINT/REPAIRS
191143
$295.00
CITY OF NORWALK
FINAL WARRANT REGISTER
September 26, 2023 through October 9, 2023
Item
Count
Vendor Name
Description
Check
Number
Check Total
114
ANDREW ARELLANO
APA CONFERENCE REIMBURSEMENT
191144
$284.07
115
SAUL RAMIREZ
AUDIO/HALLOWEEN PARADE
191145
$1,290.00
116
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORATION
ASSOC
APTA CLASS TUTION
191146
$7,500.00
117
B & W COMMUNICATIONS INC
RADIO EQUIP REPAIR SVCS
191147
$115.76
118
TROOPK7 INC
BOX MEALS/KIDS & COPS
191148
$1,491.68
119
CONTINENTAL BATTERY COMPANY
AUTOMOTIVE AND BUS BATTERIES
191149
$547.64
120
CORODATA SHREDDING INC
CITY WIDE SHREDDING
191150
$142.82
121
CUMMINS INC
MAJOR BUS COMPONENTS
191151
$16,016.60
122
HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE CENTER INC
EMPL ASSISTANCE P ROGRAM
191152
$1,044.12
123
HONEYCOTT INC
BEE/INSECT REMOVAL
191153
$85.00
124
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LP
INSECT/PEST REMOVAL
191154
$250.00
125
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
CC UNION DUES & COPE PMTS/AUG 2023
191155
$1,063.06
126
THERESA DEVOY
LEAGUE CA CITIES CONF/REIMB
191156
$50.97
127
DEWEY SERVICES INCORPORATED
PEST CONTROL SVCS
191157
$600.00
128
FALCON FUELS INC
UNLEADED FUEL
191158
$41,493.64
129
FIRST TRANSIT INC
DIAL-A-RIDE SERVICES
191159
$98,846.68
130
FUEL PROS INC
FUELING STATION
191160
$300.00
131
LA GATEWAY REGION INTEGRATED
ADMIN COST SHARE
191161
$3,772.89
132
GILLIG LLC
OEM PARTS
191162
$7,448.63
133
JESUS M GOMEZ
LEAGUE CA CITIES CONF/REIMB
191163
$992.10
134
WW GRAINGER INC
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
191164
$655.18
135
HANNAH HSU
REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT
191165
$1,050.00
136
HANSON DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
SUPPLY/DEL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
191166
$731.22
137
I COPY INC
COPY CHARGES/C-WIDE
191167
$247.13
138
ILIANNA PADILLA
APA CONF REIMB
191168
$461.97
139
ISLAS TIRES INC
NEW TIRES
191169
$366.58
140
JANELLE PERALTA
ATHENS SCHOLARSHIP
191170
$1,000.00
141
JTB SUPPLY COMPANY, INC
LIGHT/ANCHORS SIGNAL
191171
$1,748.78
142
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT
LAW ENFORCEMT SVCS/JUL
191172
$32,406.05
143
MARITERE R BELLAS
BOOK READING 10/5/23
191173
$350.00
144
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
MISC PARTS
191174
$178.76
145
NAN MCKAY & ASSOCIATES INC
PIH ALERT SUBSCRIPTION
191175
$419.00
146
JOE'S SWEEPING INC
CITY WIDE STREET SWEEPING SVCS
191176
$96,934.01
147
NICOLE NAONE
PARKS DEPOSIT REFUND
191177
$500.00
148
NORWALK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CONTRIBUTION/JP
191178
$500.00
149
NORWALK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CONTRIBUTION/AV
191179
$600.00
150
NORWALK PRINTERS INC
BUSINESS CARDS
191180
$99.67
CITY OF NORWALK
FINAL WARRANT REGISTER
September 26, 2023 through October 9, 2023
Item
Count
Vendor Name
Description
Check
Number
Check Total
151
WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT
WATER REPLENISHMT FEES/MAR-MAY 2023
191181
$55,482.58
152
PITNEY BOWES INC
RED INK/ CARTRIDGE/POSTAGE MACHINE
191182
$292.81
153
PRENTIS WALKER
NASC REFUND DEPOSIT
191183
$1,000.00
154
ROBERT THEODORE DRIESLEIN
E-WASTE BANNER
191184
$1,221.25
155
ICC GENERAL CODE INC
ONLINE MAINT OF NMC
191185
$827.00
156
MOBILE RELAY ASSOCIATES
RADIO RELEASE SVCS
191186
$5,948.00
157
REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK
TERM OF DECLARATION
191187
$100.00
158
RIO HONDO COMM COLLEGE DISTRICT
ENROLLMENT/COURSE FEE
191188
$50.00
159
SALPY OFELIA KABAKLIAN-SLENTZ
LEAGUE CA CITIES CONF/REIMB
191189
$60.50
160
SAMUEL HERNANDEZ
REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT
191190
$1,000.00
161
SATISH GORE
REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT
191191
$1,267.00
162
SECTRAN SECURITY INC
CASH CARRIER SVCS
191192
$1,680.43
163
WM CURBSIDE LLC
USED OIL PICKUP
191193
$354.75
164
MAGED MIKE SOLIMAN
APA CONF REIMB
191194
$586.62
165
SOUTH BAY FORD LINCOLN INC
OEM FORD PARTS
191195
$730.51
166
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON COMPANY
UTILITES/C-WIDE
191196
$14,043.56
167
SAINT LINUS CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONTRIBUTION/JP
191197
$600.00
168
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES
CONSULTING SVCS
191198
$17,598.65
169
THE DOWNEY PATRIOT INC
LEGAL AD #23-51
191199
$1,064.25
170
PAPER DEPOT DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION
PAPER SHREDDING SVCS
191200
$625.00
171
THE PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY
PREFABRICATED BLDG
191201
$16,890.00
172
THINKERS 4 AUTISM
CONTRIBUTION/MR
191202
$250.00
173
L V CROWN LLC
STEEL POLE
191203
$2,232.65
174
ARGO ENTERPRISES INC
CABINET/FIRST AID SUPPLIES
191204
$5,339.96
175
VERNOLAS TOWING INC
ON CALL TOWING SVCS
191205
$962.50
176
WESTERN STATES CONVERTERS &
ALLISON DIAGNOSTIC SOFTWARE
191206
$986.86
177
WILLDAN ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING SVCS
191207
$738.00
178
Z&K CONSULTANTS INC
CONSTRUCTION MGMT
191208
$136,037.00
179
ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION SVCS
GROUP
ONE WAYS REHAB PROGRAM
191209
$146,383.84
180
AMBROS CONSTRUCTION INC
ONE WAYS REHAB PROGRAM
191210
$10,835.49
181
MUNISERVICES LLC
UUT REVENUE & AUDIT SVCS
191211
$7,298.49
182
BUENO GROUP INC
ONE WAYS REHAB PROGRAM
191212
$29,848.00
183
DISTRICT LODGE 947, IAMAW
EMPLOYEE UNION DUES
191213
$5,068.04
184
CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
EMPL/INCOME VERIFICATION
191214
$202.84
185
CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST
IMPORTED & RECYCLED WATER
191215
$135,510.19
186
CJ CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC
CONSTRUCTION/#2/#7929
191216
$91,562.90
187
CRYSTAL ARGUETA
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191217
$500.00
CITY OF NORWALK
FINAL WARRANT REGISTER
September 26, 2023 through October 9, 2023
Item
Count
Vendor Name
Description
Check
Number
Check Total
188
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
P/R DED: 10/06/23
191218
$431.00
189
GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY
UTILITES/C-WIDE
191219
$9,711.14
190
JOHNSON CONTROLS US HOLDINGS INC
ALARM MONITORING
191220
$1,805.98
191
JOSEPHINE CASTILLO
NASC DEPOSIT REFUND
191221
$970.00
192
JULIETA ZALVALA
NASC DEPOSIT REFUND
191222
$500.00
193
LIBERTY UTILITIES CORP
UTILITES/C-WIDE
191223
$9,729.69
194
M & M EMBROIDERY DESIGN INC
STAFF CITY SHIRTS
191224
$280.50
195
MARCELLE GREENIDGE
REFUND PARKS DEPOSIT
191225
$250.00
196
MARIA AVILA
CLASS INSTRUCTOR
191226
$180.00
197
MCT TECHNOLOGY INC
CONTRACT SVCS - SOFTWARE
191227
$163.54
198
NADA BUS INC
SANTA ANITA RACE TRACK
191228
$1,275.00
199
NANCY SILVA
REFUND NASC DEPOSIT
191229
$1,000.00
200
PARKS COFFEE CALIFORNIA
SUPPLIES AND SVCS
191230
$674.57
201
PLANETBIDS INC
LICENSING FEES
191231
$31,008.00
202
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
UTILITES/C-WIDE
191232
$44.59
203
ARGO ENTERPRISES INC
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
191233
$315.77
204
WENDY LEON
REFUND PARKS DEPOSIT
191234
$500.00
205
WILFREDO PETEROS
REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT
191235
$500.00
206
ROSIE LATREVIA BAILEY
CHILD CARE ST1/AUG 23
191236
$552.76
207
THERESA MARIE MENDOZA
HOMEMAKING/SR GRANT
V16155
$70.00
208
DORELL EVETTE JOHNSON
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
V16156
$1,430.56
209
SHANNA SUE HUNTER
CHILD CARE /AUG 23
V16157
$13,651.77
210
SHELCO ENTERPRISE LLC
CHILD CARE ST2/AUG 23
V16158
$1,027.91
211
KARLA YAMILETH ALFARO
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
V16159
$2,447.72
212
INGRID KING
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
V16160
$1,771.90
213
ADNIL EDUCATIONAL & CONSULTING SVC
CHILD CARE ST2/AUG 23
V16161
$1,125.00
214
LOPEZ FAMILY HOME CHILD CARE INC
CHILD CARE /AUG 23
V16162
$8,083.02
215
NATALLY KRISTINE AGUILAR
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
V16163
$371.17
216
ROSELIA CALDERON
CHILD CARE /AUG 23
V16164
$6,967.73
217
SHARIE MARIE BEITZ
CHILD CARE /AUG 23
V16165
$598.99
218
TAYLOR GENEVA SALHUS
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 23
V16166
$1,179.84
219
JACQUELINE VALDEZ
CHILD CARE ST2/AUG 23
V16167
$1,920.42
220
DORA VILLARREAL
CHILD CARE ST3/AUG 25
V16168
$1,883.55
221
MARIO ENRIQUE MERA
MGMT SUPPORT SVCS
V16169
$18,562.50
222
ASSET PERFORMANCE GROUP LLC
PARKING CIATION PROCESSING
V16170
$12,379.17
223
CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
ANNUAL SUBSCRPTION
V16171
$48,066.00
224
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE CO
EMPLY ADDTL INS/SEPT23
V16172
$1,520.88
225
ALEGEUS
EMPLOYEE FSA/AUG 23
V16173
$7,701.52
CITY OF NORWALK
FINAL WARRANT REGISTER
September 26, 2023 through October 9, 2023
Item
Count
Vendor Name
Description
Check
Number
Check Total
226
CALPERS
CALPERS MEDICAL/SEPT 2023
V16174
$448,500.04
227
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
PERS CONTRB/PPE062522
V16175
$175,306.88
228
CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSTMENT UNIT
CHILD SUPPT/PPE 091623
V16176
$892.00
229
DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA
FT COBRA/SEPT 2023
V16177
$20,209.62
230
DELTACARE USA
DENTAL COBRA/SEPT 2023
V16178
$1,192.86
231
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT
LEVY PROCEEDS/092223
V16179
$632.00
232
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT
STATE TAX/PPE 091623
V16180
$34,753.92
233
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN
HRLY MEDICAL INS/SEP 2023
V16181
$15,713.52
234
EMPOWER/MASS MUTUAL
DEFER COMP/PPE091623
V16182
$31,116.78
235
PAYMENTUS
PYMNT PROCESS/AUG 23
V16183
$1,838.85
236
TEXAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
LIFE INS DEDUCT/SEP23
V16184
$12,153.82
237
UNITED STATES TREASURY-IRS
PAYROLL TAX/PP091623
V16185
$128,911.73
238
VISION SERVICE PLAN (CA)
VSP FT ADJ/SEPT 23
V16186
$3,866.22
239
ODILIA C ROSALES
HOMEMAKING/SR GRANT
V16187
$315.00
240
THERESA MARIE MENDOZA
HOMEMAKING/SR GRANT
V16188
$52.50
241
LORENA ORTEGA
HOMEMAKING/SR GRANT
V16189
$70.00
CITY OF NORWALK
FINAL WARRANT REGISTER
September 26, 2023 through October 9, 2023
*****Total Warrants**** $4,670,300.97
Notes:
Voided Check(s):
I hereby certify that the claim of demand covered by the above listed warrants have been audited as to accuracy and the funds are available for payment.
Jana Stuard, Finance Director
191136
City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Theresa Devoy, City Clerk
SUBJECT: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY
Background:
A claim against the City was filed by Armando Hidalgo. Upon review, the City’s claims administrator has recommended denial of the claim.
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Citizens Advised:
N/A
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
N/A
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council deny the claim filed by Armando Hidalgo.
Attachments:
N/A
City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: John Ramirez, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION SYNOPSIS – OCTOBER 11, 2023 Background:
At its meeting of October 11, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the following applications and took action as outlined below and in the attached Synopsis:
Planning Commission Action Final – None.
Planning Commission Action Not Final
•Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03 and Director Approval Request No. 2023-08 •Zoning Text Amendment No. 2023-01 and Zone Change No. 2023-01 •Zoning Text Amendment No. 2023-02
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Citizens Advised:
Notice of the Planning Commission’s decision was mailed to the applicant on October 12, 2023.
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation: N/A
Recommended Action:
No action is required.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Synopsis
Planning Commission Synopsis, October 11, 2023
SYNOPSIS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 11, 2023
UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, MEETINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 361, WHICH ALLOWS PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE FROM A REMOTE LOCATION WITHOUT LISTING A PHYSICAL LOCATION. TO PROVIDE COMMENTS DURING A MEETING: YOU MAY ATTEND THE MEETING, SEND AN EMAIL TO: [email protected] OR JOIN THE ZOOM MEETING BY CALLING 1-(669) 444-9171 OR USING THE ZOOM APP; MEETING ID: 929 283 6465# DURING THE MEETING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM.
THE MEETING MAY BE VIEWED ON FIOS CHANNEL 32 OR CHARTER CHANNEL 3 OR ON THE CITY’S WEBPAGE AT: https://www.norwalk.org/city-hall/meeting-agendas-393.
SPECIAL MEETING
NORWALK CITY HALL/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AND VIA VIDEO/TELECONFERENCE
6:00 P.M.
Rosa Barragan, Chair
Linda Lopez, Vice Chair
Kim Apodaca, Planning Commissioner
Gabriel P. Garcia, Planning Commissioner
Luis Navas, Planning Commissioner
Public Comment: Comments may be made in person, submitted via email at: [email protected], or through the video/teleconference during the designated time on any item on the agenda or on any other matter within the jurisdiction subject to the rules of decorum described in Norwalk Municipal Code §2.08.020. The maximum time allowed is three minutes.
Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The Planning Commission may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Planning Commission meeting.
Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the Community Development Department, (562) 929-5744. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting. Ask the Secretary if you desire to use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
Note: Any writings and/or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda after it has been posted will also be made available for public inspection.
Writings and/or documents are available for inspection, by request in the Community Development Department, City Hall, 12700 Norwalk Boulevard during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday – Thursday; telephone (562) 929-5744. You may also contact the City Clerk via e-mail at [email protected].
Planning Commission Synopsis, October 11, 2023 Page 2 of 3 CALL TO ORDER6:00 P.M.
FLAG SALUTEChair Barragan
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERSCommissioner Apodaca, Commissioner Garcia, Commissioner Navas, Vice Chair Lopez and Chair Barragan.
1. MEETING MINUTES – Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 27, 2023.
Planning Commission Action: Approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2023-03
DIRECTOR APPROVAL REQUEST NO. 2023-08
Crystal Cyprian and Joy Cyprian, Joy’s Children’s Learning Center (“Applicant”); a request to permit a child care facility within an existing 2,785 square foot building and 2,797 square foot building for ancillary storage on a 0.37 acre site. The subject property is generally known as 11004 Adoree Street, located on the southeast corner of Adoree Street and Studebaker Road (also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”) 8050-026-001), in the Commercial and Office (C and O) zone. The project includes a request for:
(1) Conditional Use Permit: To permit a child care facility within an existing 2,785 square foot single-story building; and
(2) Director Approval Request No. 2023-08: To allow an eighteen (18) percent reduction (three spaces) from the required number of parking spaces.
(3) Environmental: Consider and find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 23-26 to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit “A”; and
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 23-27 to approve Director Approval Request No. 2023-08 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit “A”; and (3) Consider and find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Planning Commission Action: By a vote of 3-2, directed staff to prepare resolutions for denial for Planning Commission consideration at the meeting of October 25, 2023.
3. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2023-01
ZONE CHANGE NO. 2023-01
To amend various sections of Title 17 of the Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) as it relates to the Automobile Parking (“P”) zone, and to remove the zoning designation of Automobile Parking (“P”) on real property located throughout the City of Norwalk. Environmental: Consider and find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 23-28, to recommend approval to City Council for Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 2023-01; and
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 23-29, to recommend approval to City Council for Zone Change (ZC) No. 2023-01; and
(3) Consider and find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Planning Commission Action: Approved staff’s recommendation by a vote of 5-0.
Planning Commission Synopsis, October 11, 2023 Page 3 of 3
PUBLIC HEARING
4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2023-02
A request initiated by city staff to amend various sections of Title 17 of the Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) to streamline the Precise Development Plan (PDP) process by authorizing the Director of Community Development to make final decisions and/or recommend Planning Commission approval of Precise Development Plans. Environmental: Consider and find that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 23-30 to recommend approval to City Council for Zoning Text Amendment No. 2023-02 providing the Community Development Director authority to initiate and make decisions on Precise Development Plans; and
(2) Consider and find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
Planning Commission Action: Approved staff’s recommendation by a vote of 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Development Services Manager Arabe shared that an application has been submitted for a Raising Cane’s drive-through restaurant at the former CVS building at 12666 Studebaker Road, and that the project is anticipated to come before the Planning Commission next month.
ADJOURNMENT 6:55 P.M.
City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Glen W.C. Kau, P.E., Director of Public Services/City Engineer Mario Mera, Engineering Division Manager
Jessica Rodriguez, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 6 - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR PROJECT NO. 7933 - ANALYZING THE
FEASIBILITY OF STRIPING MODIFICATIONS ON EXCELSIOR DRIVE, ENGINEER’S REPORT NO. 23-17
Background:
Serving as the City’s Traffic Engineer, Willdan Engineering has been essential in their traffic engineering review of and recommendations for the many projects that are occurring throughout the City in various capacities to ensure impacts are identified, addressed and mitigated. City staff is requesting Willdan Engineering provide traffic engineering services to analyze the feasibility of implementing striping modifications and improvements for Excelsior Drive.
The scope of work includes determining if modifying the striping on Excelsior Drive between Studebaker Road and Pioneer Boulevard is feasible. The feasibility study will include an analysis to determine if a protected left turn signal phasing is necessary in all directions of Excelsior Drive at Pioneer Boulevard and on Studebaker Road at Foster Road. City staff also requested that the mid-block crosswalk located east of Elmcroft Avenue be reviewed to determine if there is an opportunity to relocate the crossing to the intersection and to determine if replacing the standard traffic signal heads to a pedestrian hybrid beacon is appropriate.
Based on the above information and review by staff, staff recommends amending Willdan’s current traffic engineering service agreement to provide services for Project No. 7933, Analyzing the Feasibility of Striping Modifications on Excelsior Drive in the amount of $53,704.
City Council October 17, 2023
Amendment No. 6 to Traffic Engineering Service Agreement to Provide Services for Project No. 7933
Page No. 2
6 0
9 Fiscal Impact:
Project expenditures are funded through Fiscal Year 2023/24 approved/available Measure M Bond proceeds. No General Fund Monies are used for this project. Unexpended funds will be available for reprogramming.
Citizens Advised:
N/A
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
The recommended action will further the City’s Strategic Plan Goal 2: Work in Partnership with Our Community to Achieve Safe and Livable Neighborhoods; Objective 1- Re-invest in existing and aging infrastructure.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council approve Amendment No. 6 to Willdan Engineering’s Traffic Engineering Services Agreement in the amount of $53,304 to provide services for Project No. 7933, Analyzing the Feasibility of Striping Modifications on Excelsior Drive; and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment on behalf of the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Attachments:
N/A
City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Glen W.C. Kau, P.E., Director of Public Services/City Engineer Jana Stuard, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Mario Mera, Engineering Division Manager
Jessica Rodriguez, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: PROJECT NO. 7929.1 - ACCEPT WORK FOR LOCAL STREETS REHABILITATION PROGRAM – PHASE 2 ZONE 19 (CONCRETE
IMPROVEMENTS) – ENGINEERS REPORT 23-19
Background:
On August 16, 2022, City Council awarded a contract to CJ Concrete Construction (Santa Fe Springs) in the amount of $688,400 and included a contingency of $103,260 for the subject project. The streets for this project are part of Zone 19 and are shown on the attached map.
The work scope included for concrete removals/repairs at specific location curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and upgraded access ramps at intersection corners to current standards. Additional work in the amount of $12,012 was required on both curb and gutters and sidewalks to properly complete repairs. Final project costs are $700,412.
The project was completed satisfactorily on September 14, 2023.
Fiscal Impact:
The project was funded through Measure M funds that were included in the approved Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget. No General Fund monies were used for the project. Unexpended funds in the amount of $91,248 are available for reprogramming.
Final Project Accounting for Project No. 7929.1, Local Streets Rehabilitation Program – Phase 2 Zone 19 (Concrete Improvements) are as follows:
City Council October 17, 2023
Accept Project No. 7929.1 - Local Streets
Rehabilitation Program – Phase 2 Zone 19 (Concrete
Improvements
Page No. 2
6 1
0 Construction Contract $ 688,400 Contingency Used for Additional Work $ 12,021 Final Project Cost: $ 700,412
Citizens Advised:
N/A
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
The recommended action will further the City’s Strategic Plan Goal 2: Work in Partnership with Our Community to Achieve Safe and Livable Neighborhoods; Objective 1- Re-invest in existing and aging infrastructure.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council accept the work of CJ Concrete Construction in the amount of $700,412 for Project No. 7929.1 – Local Streets Rehabilitation Program – Phase 2 Zone 19 (Concrete Improvements).
Attachments:
Location Map
SW
SWDA
SW
GR
SW
SWSW
AVE
SHOEMAKER AVEROSECRANS AVE N
LOCATION MAP
LOCAL STREET REHABILITATION PROGRAM PHASE II
CITY PROJECT NO. 7929.2 - ZONE 19
1 City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Glen W.C. Kau, P.E., Director of Public Services/ City Engineer Mario Mera, Engineering Division Manager
Run Chen, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: AWARD ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE SERVICES FOR PROJECT NO. 7359 - HERMOSILLO PARK REHABILITATION AND PROJECT NO. 7607 - STORMWATER CAPTURE AND INFILTRATION PROJECT
Background:
The Hermosillo Park Rehabilitation and Hermosillo Regional Stormwater Capture and Infiltration Projects (the “Hermosillo Park Projects”) significantly overlap in project scope and schedule. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Categorical Exemption was recorded on September 17, 2019 for the Hermosillo Park Upgrade/Improvement Project. This exemption does not provide coverage for the Stormwater components of the currently proposed Hermosillo Park Projects.
The City applied for and received Measure W Funds for the stormwater capture - infiltration project from the Lower San Gabriel River Watershed Management Program (LSGR WMP) Group. The project will capture dry-weather flows at two locations. The first proposed location is from an existing storm drain on Horst Avenue adjacent to the park. The second proposed location is within the park from an existing Los Angeles County Flood Control District storm drain culvert. Up to 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) of dry weather flows from the storm drain and 50 cfs from the storm drain culvert combined are to be diverted and stored in an underground infiltration gallery/detention basin. The underground basin provides storage for up to 11.8 acre- feet of flow, approximately the size of six Olympic size swimming pools. These improvements are to be constructed in the northerly half of the park, and includes for the appurtenant diversion piping, pumps, and a treatment system to provide recycled water for onsite irrigation.
Improvements under the stormwater capture and infiltration project will also restore the surface turf grass, provide for irrigation, landscaping and lighting for the soccer field overlaying the detention basins.
City Council October 17, 2023
Project Nos. 7607 and 7359 – Approve Agreement for
Compliance Services
Page No. 2
6 2
4 The City is required to conduct CEQA review and make appropriate filing of the findings and declarations in accordance to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 1500 et. seq. A request for proposal (RFP) for Professional CEQA consultants to provide Environmental Review and CEQA compliance services was issued on September 5, 2023.
On September 19, five proposals were received from the following firms:
1. UES
2. Dudek
3. Impact Sciences
4. Michael Baker International
5. Ultrasystems
Proposals were evaluated based on qualifications of the firm, proposed team and organization, related project experience, project approach, and detailed work plan. Dudek was ranked number one based upon the firm’s highest average score from the evaluation team.
Dudek’s proposed costs for the requested services is $81,650. Environmental review and CEQA compliance services are anticipated to be completed within 6 months. The firm’s team consists of a project manager, CEQA Specialist, air quality, biologist, archaeologist, hazards, noise, and GIS specialists and support staff. To ensure Dudek’s work progress and timely completion of submittals, the firm will be monitored by the City Engineer via the Engineering Division to protect the City’s interests.
The proposed fee does not include CEQA filing costs, filing of CEQA notices and determinations with State Clearinghouse will be performed by Engineering Division staff.
Fiscal Impact:
The City has available grant proceeds consisting of Measure W and Proposition 68 monies. No General Fund monies will be used for the project.
Citizens Advised:
N/A
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
The recommended action will further the City’s Strategic Plan Goal 2: Work in partnership with all of our communities to achieve safe and livable neighborhoods.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council award an agreement to Dudek in the amount of $81,650 to provide Environmental Review and California Environmental Quality Act Compliance services for Project No. 7607 - Hermosillo Park Rehabilitation and Project No. 7359 - Stormwater and City Council October 17, 2023
Project Nos. 7607 and 7359 – Approve Agreement for
Compliance Services
Page No. 3
6 2
4 Infiltration Project; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any amendments, provided there is funding in the budget and it is within the City Manager’s signing authority, on behalf of the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Attachments:
N/A
City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Theresa Devoy, City Clerk
SUBJECT: ADVISORY BODY APPOINTMENTS
Background:
With the exception of the Planning Commission (which is commensurate with the appointing Councilmember’s term) and five members of the Art in Public Places Commission (which is established in the Norwalk Municipal Code), Advisory Body terms are for two years following a City election. Advisory Body terms are from January 1, of odd years to December 31, of even years.
There are vacancies on several Advisory Bodies: Art in Public Places (4), Historical Heritage (3), Parks & Recreation (1), Public Safety (1), and the Youth Commission (all 15). The Youth Commission does not have any members at this time. The age range for the Youth Commission is between 13 to 18 years of age. Each City Councilmember has three appointments.
Two of the vacancies on the Art in Public Places Committee are appointed based on Norwalk Municipal Code §15.44.060, and require consensus of the entire City Council. Those positions are: one at-large Community Representative and one Outside Authority with Expertise in Art.
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Citizens Advised:
Terms of office are posted.
City Council October 17, 2023
Advisory Bodies Page No. 2
6 2
8 Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
N/A
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council make appointments to fill the vacancies on the various Advisory Bodies for two-year terms expiring on December 31, 2024.
Attachments:
Advisory Body List
COMMISSIONER TERMS As of 10/17/2023
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\10-17-2023.pdf Page 1 “Vacancies “at-a-glance”
AYALA PEREZ RAMIREZ RIOS VALENCIA
Historical Heritage
Youth (3)
Historical Heritage
Youth (3)
Art in Public Places
Historical Heritage
Public Safety
Youth (3)
Parks & Recreation
Youth (3)
Art in Public Places
Youth (3)
Members of all City boards, commissions or committees shall be for at least six months prior to appointment, residents of the City of Norwalk, business owners in the City of Norwalk, or property owners in the City of Norwalk.
Commissioner Advisory Body Appointee Present Term
Ang, David Community Promotion Commission Valencia 1/17/23-12/31/24 Brammer, Lisa Community Promotion Commission Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 Leon, Armida Community Promotion Commission Ramirez 2/7/23-12/31/24 Sanchez Jr, Arturo Community Promotion Commission Rios 1/17/23-12/31/24 Trejo, Mandie Community Promotion Commission Perez 1/17/23-12/31/24 Vacant Historical Heritage Commission Ayala -12/31/24
Vacant Historical Heritage Commission Perez -12/31/24
Vacant Historical Heritage Commission Ramirez -12/31/24 Corona, Gina Historical Heritage Commission Perez 1/17/23-12/31/24 Greenidge, Marcelle Historical Heritage Commission Valencia 3/21/23-12/31/24 Hardy, Marlene Historical Heritage Commission Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 Hidalgo, Ericka Historical Heritage Commission Rios 2/7/23-12/31/24 Hernandez, Alex Historical Heritage Commission Ramirez 2/7/23-12/31/24 Pavon, Claudia Carolina Historical Heritage Commission Valencia 1/17/23-12/31/24 Scantlebury, Margaret Historical Heritage Commission Rios 8/1/23-12/31/24 Vacant Parks & Recreation Commission Rios -12/31/24
Berberabe, Francisco Parks & Recreation Commission Perez 1/17/23-12/31/24 Carbajal, Maria Parks & Recreation Commission Valencia 1/17/23-12/31/24 Garcia, Steve Parks & Recreation Commission Ramirez 2/7/23-12/31/24 Hernandez, Alejandra Parks & Recreation Commission Rios 1/17/23-12/31/24 Juan, Victor Parks & Recreation Commission Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 King, David Parks & Recreation Commission Perez 1/17/23-12/31/24 Martinez, Briana Parks & Recreation Commission Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 Napier, Monique Parks & Recreation Commission Ramirez 1/17/23-12/31/24 Valenzuela, Don Parks & Recreation Commission Valencia 1/17/23-12/31/24 Apodaca, Kimberly Planning Commission Perez 12/13/22-12/31/26 Barragan, Rosa Planning Commission Rios 4/7/20-12/31/24 Garcia, Gabe Planning Commission Valencia 4/7/20-12/31/24 Lopez, Linda Planning Commission Ayala 12/13/22-12/31/26 Navas, Luis Planning Commission Ramirez 4/21/20-12/31/24 Vacant Public Safety Commission Ramirez -12/31/24
Fernandez-Silva, Ray Public Safety Commission Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 Greenidge, Marcelle Public Safety Commission Valencia 4/18/12-12/31/24 Heard, Louis Public Safety Commission Perez 10/3/23-12/31/24 COMMISSIONER TERMS As of 10/17/2023
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\10-17-2023.pdf Page 2 Commissioner Advisory Body Appointee Present Term
Hoskins, Patricia Public Safety Commission Valencia 1/17/23-12/31/24 Knieling, DiAnn Public Safety Commission Rios 1/17/23-12/31/24 LeGaspi, Richard Public Safety Commission Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 Peňa, Petra Public Safety Commission Ramirez 2/7/23-12/31/24 Rodriguez, Dr. Stephanie Public Safety Commission Perez 1/17/23-12/31/24 Rosoff, Michael Public Safety Commission Rios 1/17/23-12/31/24 Clemente, Cynthia Senior Citizens Commission Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 Contreras, Rachel Senior Citizens Commission Rios 1/17/23-12/31/24 Diosdado, Helen Senior Citizens Commission Valencia 1/17/23-12/31/24 Mesa, Martha Senior Citizens Commission Ramirez 1/17/23-12/31/24 Serrano, Esperanza Senior Citizens Commission Perez 1/17/23-12/31/24 Acosta, Scherise Social Services Commission Ramirez 1/17/23-12/31/24 Barth, Phyllis Social Services Commission Perez 1/17/23-12/31-24 Free, Espie Social Services Commission Valencia 7/5/23-12/31/24 Garcia, Andrea Social Services Commission Ramirez 9/19/23-12/31/24 Greenidge, Marcelle Social Services Commission Perez 3/21/23-12/31/24 LeGaspi, Richard Social Services Commission Valencia 1/17/23-12/31/24 Reyes-Castro, Elfega Arely Social Services Commission Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 Santos, Alondra Social Services Commission Rios 2/7/23-12/31/24 Stodola, Mary Social Services Commission Rios 1/17/23-12/31/24 Tasker, Angela Social Services Commission Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 Vacant Youth Commission Ayala -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Ayala -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Ayala -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Perez -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Perez -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Perez -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Ramirez -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Ramirez -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Ramirez -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Rios -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Rios -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Rios -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Valencia -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Valencia -12/31/24
Vacant Youth Commission Valencia -12/31/24
Commissioner Advisory Body Appointed Present Term
Apodoca, Kim Art in Public Places Committee City Rep Appointed by Perez 1/17/23-12/31/24 LeGaspi, Natalie Art in Public Places Committee City Rep Appointed by Rios 1/17/23-12/31/24 Matus, Hannah Art in Public Places Committee City Rep Appointed by Ayala 1/17/23-12/31/24 Vacant Art in Public Places Committee City Rep Appointed by Ramirez -12/31/24 Vacant Art in Public Places Committee City Rep Appointed by Valencia -1231/24 Art in Public Places Advisory Committee
NMC §15.44.060 A: Designation
Vacant Art In Public Places Committee Outside Auth w/Expertise in Art Indefinite Vacant Art in Public Places Committee Community Rep Indefinite Stefenhagen, Gordon Art in Public Places Committee Bus./Community College Rep Indefinite Lopez, Linda Art in Public Places Committee Planning Rep 12/13/22-12/31/26 Juan, Victor Art in Public Places Committee P&R Appointee 1/17/23-12/31/24 City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: John P. Ramirez, AICP, Director of Community Development Jill Ann Arabe, AICP, Development Services Manager
Manraj Bhatia, PhD, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 23-64 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-03 TO
AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND
ORDINANCE NO. 23-1743 - ZONE CHANGE NO. 2022-05 TO AMEND THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) AT 13310 ROSECRANS AVENUE
Background:
The City received an application from Touraj Kavandi, on behalf of NFT Real Estate LLC (Applicant) to permit the development of three single-family homes at 13310 Rosecrans Avenue.
The 0.39-acre subject site is located on the southwest corner of Rosecrans Avenue and Marilla Avenue. It has been vacant and undeveloped for many years and is surrounded by commercial uses to the west and east (across Marilla Avenue), single family homes to the south, and commercial and industrial establishments to the north (across Rosecrans Avenue) in the City of Santa Fe Springs.
On September 13, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the aforementioned project. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission, with a 5-0 vote, approved Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2022-04, and recommended approval to City Council for General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2022-03 and Zone Change (ZC) No. 2022-05.
Discussion
The applicant is requesting approval of GPA No. 2022-03 to amend the General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential and ZC No. 2022-05 to amend the Zoning Map from Restricted Commercial (C-1) to Low Density Residential (R-1).
City Council October 17, 2023
General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03 and Zone
Change No. 2022-05 – 13310 Rosecrans Avenue
Page No. 2
6 1
7 The proposed project would facilitate the development of three single-family homes on an underutilized site. City Council approval of GPA No. 2022-03 and ZC No. 2022-05 would affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of TPM No. 2022-04.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), with a related Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared and circulated for the project. Based on the analysis, the project would have no impact or less than significant impact concerning all environmental issue areas, except in the area of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, for which the project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The 20-day public comment period for the IS/MND began on July 10, 2023 and ended on July 31, 2023. The IS/MND and related MMRP is on file at the City of Norwalk Community Development Department, 12700 Norwalk Boulevard, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning (562) 929-5744. During the public review period, public comments were received from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and addressed and incorporated in the IS/MND and related MMRP. The IS/MND and related MMRP for this project is posted online at the City’s website: https://www.norwalk.org/city-hall/departments/community- development/planning/rosecrans-marilla-homes.
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Citizens Advised:
On February 28, 2023, the applicant’s team held a community meeting at the Norwalk Arts and Sports Complex. Eight community members were in attendance and the feedback was positive.
Suggestions included adding vines on the block wall along Rosecrans Avenue and raising the block wall height to eight feet along Rosecrans Avenue and the commercial building, which have been incorporated into the project.
The public hearing notice was posted at the City’s three designated posting places and published in The Norwalk Patriot on October 6, 2023. The public hearing notice was also posted online and mailed to 85 property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius of the project site. Email notifications were sent to residents who attended the community meeting and the City’s social media accounts also promoted notification of the project for the hearing. As of the writing of this report, staff has received no public comments.
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
The recommended actions will further the City’s Strategic Plan Goals 2 and 3 to work in partnership with our community to achieve safe and livable neighborhoods and to create and sustain a resilient and economically prosperous city.
City Council October 17, 2023
General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03 and Zone
Change No. 2022-05 – 13310 Rosecrans Avenue
Page No. 3
6 1
7 Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council:
a. adopt Resolution No. 23-64, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-03 FOR 13310 ROSECRANS AVENUE;
b. introduce by title only Ordinance No. 23-1743, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NORWALK SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2022-05 FOR 13310 ROSECRANS AVENUE, and schedule for adoption; and
c. approve the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program with adoption of the project.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 23-64 (General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03)
2. Ordinance No. 23-1743 (Zone Change No. 2022-05)
3. Final IS/MND and MMRP
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 13, 2023 Attachment No. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 23-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-03 FOR 13310
ROSECRANS AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City has received General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) No. 2022- 03, a request from Touraj Kavandi with NFT Real Estate LLC (“Applicant”) to amend the General Plan to change the land use designation of 13310 Rosecrans Avenue (“Subject Site”); also known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APNs”) 8070-02-001, -002, -003, - 030, and -031, from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential to facilitate the development of the Subject Site with three (3) single-family residential homes (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, Zone Change (“ZC”) No. 2022-05 and Tentative Parcel Map (“TPM”) No. 2022-04 were received in conjunction with this request; and WHEREAS, Section 17.02.105 of the Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) requires a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission to City Council on General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on September 13, 2023, to consider GPA No. 2022-03, at which time oral and documentary evidence related to the Project were received and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 23-24 approving TPM No. 2022-04 and adopted Resolution No. 23-22 and 23-23 recommending that the City Council approve GPA No. 2022-03 and ZC No. 2022-05; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project including GPA No. 2022-03; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the IS/MND, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potential environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND was posted and the public comment period began on July 10, 2023 and ended on July 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider GPA No. 2022-03, at which time oral and documentary evidence related to the Project were received.
Resolution No. 23-64 Page 2 of 4
2 8
5 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as substantive findings in this Resolution.
Section 2.The General Plan contains a thorough inventory, assessment, and analysis of social, physical, and economic issues related to the long-range development of the community. The City Council has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.
It will improve the economic development of the property and surroundings and is consistent with the overall intent of the General Plan.
Section 3.The proposed General Plan Amendment will be in the public interest and reflects the current and contemplated land uses of the property as well as providing consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map.
Section 4.The City Council of the City of Norwalk hereby approves GPA No. 2022-03 amending the General Plan and Land Use Map to reflect changes contained in Exhibit “A”.
Section 5.The City Council of the City of Norwalk hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project.
Section 6. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix her signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Norwalk and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed assistant, is directed to attest thereto.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 17th day of October 2023.
_______________________________
ANA VALENCIA
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
THERESA DEVOY, CMC
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 23-64 Page 3 of 4
2 8
5 2
EXHIBIT “A”
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-03
1) Change the General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential for the property located at 13310 Rosecrans Avenue, also known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APNs”) 8070- 02-001, -002, -003, -030, and -031.
Resolution No. 23-64 Page 4 of 4
2 8
5 2
Attachment No. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 23-1743
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK
SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2022-05 FOR 13310 ROSECRANS AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City has received Zone Change No. 2022-05, a request by Touraj Kavandi on behalf of NFT Real Estate LLC (“Applicant”) to rezone 13310 Rosecrans Avenue (“Subject Site”); also known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APNs”) 8070-02- 001, -002, -003, -030, and -031 from Restricted Commercial (C-1) to Single Family Residential (R-1) to facilitate the development of the subject site with three (3) single- family residential homes (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) No. 2022-03 and Tentative Parcel Map (“TPM”) No. 2022-04 were received in conjunction with this request; and WHEREAS, Section 17.02.290.C of the Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing upon the initiation of a Zone Change; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.02.290.D of the NMC requires a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission to City Council on Zone Change No. 2022-05; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 2022-05; and
WHEREAS, State planning law requires consistency between Zoning and the General Plan; therefore zone change applications must be processed to have consistent land use designations with the General Plan Map; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study (“IS”) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were prepared for the Project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project including Zone Change No. 2022-03; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the IS/MND, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potential environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND was posted and the public comment period began on July 10, 2023 and ended on July 31, 2023; and Ordinance No. 23-1743 Page 2 of 5
2 8
5 3
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance and considered all oral and documentary evidence presented hereto, as well as all documents and information in the administrative record.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1.The City Council for the City of Norwalk finds and declares that the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and incorporates said recitals fully into this Ordinance as substantive findings.
Section 2.The proposed Zone Change is in compliance with the NMC and the Norwalk General Plan. It is consistent with General Plan objectives to promote a positive image for the City and provide for a diversity of housing types.
Section 3.The City Council has determined that the existing zoning designation must be revised to adequately address issues related to the current and future social, physical and economic environment in the City of Norwalk in order to create consistency with surrounding developments and general plan designation.
Section 4.The proposed Zone Change will be in the public interest since it will reflect current and contemplated land uses on the site and create consistency between the General Plan Map and Zoning Map.
Section 5.The City Council hereby approves Zone Change No. 2022-05 amending the Zoning Map as indicated in Exhibit “A”, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 6.The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Final IS/MND and related MMRP prepared for the proposed Project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearing on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the Final IS/MND and related MMRP adequately address the expected environmental impacts of the proposed Project. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the proposed Project will have a significant impact on the environment.
Section 7.The City Council hereby approves the Final IS/MND and related MMRP for Zone Change No. 2022-05, and directs that a Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the Clerk of the County of Los Angeles in the manner required by law. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, including but not limited to: exhibits attached hereto, and any public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. The Final IS/MND is available for viewing at the City’s Community Development Department, Planning Division located at 12700 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, CA 90650.
Ordinance No. 23-1743 Page 3 of 5
2 8
5 3
Section 8. Severability. If any section, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared unconstitutional or invalid.
Section 9. Certification. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance to be published or posted as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ______ 2023 ______________________________
ANA VALENCIA
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
THERESA DEVOY, CMC
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 23-1743 Page 4 of 5
2 8
5 3
EXHIBIT “A”
ZONE CHANGE NO. 2022-05
1) Change the Zoning Designation from Restricted Commercial (C-1) to Single Family Residential (R-1) zone for the property located at 13310 Rosecrans Avenue, also known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APNs”) 8070-02-001, - 002, -003, -030, and -031.
Ordinance No. 23-1743 Page 5 of 5
2 8
5 3
Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
Rosecrans Marilla Project
JULY/AUGUST 2023
Source: Google Earth Pro, June 20, 2023
Prepared for the:
City of Norwalk
Community Development Department, Room 12
12700 Norwalk Boulevard
Norwalk, California 90650
https://www.norwalk.org/city-hall
Contact: Manraj G. Bhatia
[email protected]
(562) 929-5710
Prepared by:
4LEAF Inc.
2126 Rheem Drive
Pleasanton CA 94588
4leafinc.com
(925) 462-5959
Contact: Bret McNulty
[email protected]
(805) 722-5585
SCH# 2023070158
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ROSECRANS/MARILLA HOMES
Lead Agency: City of Norwalk, Community Development Department; 12700 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, CA 90650
Project Applicant: Touraj Kavandi, NFT Real Estate LLC, 6051 Maywood Ave, Huntington Park, CA 90255
Public Review Period: Monday, July 10, 2023 to Monday, July 31, 2023 Project Location: 13310 Rosecrans Avenue, City of Norwalk, CA 90650 Description: The project applicant proposes to merge five (5) existing parcels into three (3) parcels to allow for the development of three (3) single family homes. The proposal involves : a General Plan Amendment (GPA), to amend the General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential ; a Zone Change (ZC), to Amend the Zoning classification from Restricted Commercial (C-1) to Single Family Residential (R- 1); and a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM), to permit the conversion of five existing parcels into three parcels to accommodate three single family homes.
Environmental Review Information: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Norwalk, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the proposed project. The public comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration will begin on July 10, 2023 and end on July 31, 2023. Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Norwalk, this notice is to advise you that the City intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project described above. A public hear ing date will be scheduled and noticed separately.
Public Review/Comment: Interested persons are invited to review the MND at:
https://www.norwalk.org/city-hall/departments/community-development/planning/rosecrans-marilla- homes. Additionally, copies of the MND are available for review at the following locations during normal business hours:
City of Norwalk
Community Development, Room 12
Norwalk, CA 90650
Norwalk Library
12350 Imperial Highway
Norwalk CA, 90650
The
City will accept written comments regarding the MND and this notice through the close of business on July 31, 2023 . Please send your written comments to Manraj Bhatia, PhD, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department, Room 12, 12700 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, CA 90650 or by email to [email protected].
More I
nformation: Questions concerning the matter should be directed to Manraj Bhatia, PhD, AICP, Senior Planner at (562) 929-5710 or [email protected].
Dated this 7th day of July 2023.
Rosecrans Marilla Residential Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
August 22, 2023
Mitigation (MM)# Mitigation
Timing
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Funding
Description
MM CULT-1:
UNDISCOVERED
HUMAN REMAINS
During grading
and prior to
issuance of a
building permit.
MM CULT1 Shall
be written on
the grading
plans.
City of Norwalk
Community
Development
Department
Applicant/
Owner prior to
issuance of a
grading permit.
In the event that human remains are discovered during grading and construction, all work shall be stopped, and the Community Development Department, City Coroner, and the tribes identified during the consultation process pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21080.3.shall be notified. Any human remains discovered shall be inspected by the City Coroner to establish their origin in coordination with the Community Development Department and Native American tribe(s) regarding the disposition of the remains. The confidentiality requirements in PRC section 21082.3 shall be followed for any remains determined to be Native American. The Coroner and Community Development Department will coordinate the disposition of any human remains determined to be non-native in origin.
MM TRC-1:
RETAIN A NATIVE
AMERICAN
MONITOR PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT
OF GROUND
DISTURBING
ACTIVITIES
An executed
monitoring
agreement shall
be submitted to
the City of
Norwalk
Community
Development
Department
prior to issuance
of a grading
permit.
MM TRC-1 Shall
be written on
the grading
plans.
City of Norwalk
Community
Development
Department
Applicant/
Owner prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
A. The project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native
Rosecrans Marilla MMRP
Mitigation (MM)# Mitigation
Timing
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Funding
Description
American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh Nation from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
MM TRC-2:
UNANTICIPATED
DISCOVERY OF
TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCE OBJECTS
(NONFUNERARY/
NON-CEREMONIAL)
An executed
monitoring
agreement shall
be submitted to
the City of
Norwalk
Community
Development
Department
prior to issuance
of a grading
permit.
MM TRC-2 Shall
be written on
the grading
plans.
City of Norwalk Applicant/
Owner prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.
C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.
E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
Comment Letter A
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Comments on the Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rosecrans Marilla Single Family Development Project
SCH #2023070158
DOC 6985529.D18 A Century of Service
July 31, 2023
Ref. DOC 6970445
VIA EMAIL [email protected]
Ms. Manraj Bhatia, PhD, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Norwalk
Community Development Department
12700 Norwalk Boulevard, Room 12
Norwalk, CA 90650
Dear Ms. Bhatia:
NOI Response to Rosecrans Marilla Single Family Development Project The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the subject project located in the City of Norwalk on July 12, 2023.
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 18. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:
1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ South Whittier Outfall Sections 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3 Relief Trunk Sewer, located in Rosecrans Avenue and Marilla Avenue. The Districts’ 42-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 22.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of
10.3 mgd when last measured in 2018.
2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 243.1 mgd, or the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average recycled flow of 17.5 mgd.
3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project site, described in the MND as three single family homes, is 780 gallons per day. For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.
4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
SEE FOLLOWING
PAGES for
RESPONSES TO
THESE COMMENTS
Ms. Manraj Bhatia 2 July 31, 2023
DOC 6985529.D18 A Century of Service
connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727.
5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the developmen t of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service but is to advise the developer that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the developer of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts’ facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2743, or [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Mandy Huffman
Environmental Planner
Facilities Planning Department
MNH:gd
A-5
City of Norwalk
Response to
Comment Letter A
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Comments on the Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rosecrans Marilla Single
Family Development Project
SCH #2023070158
August 22, 2023
Mandy Huffman, Environmental Planner
Facilities Planning Department
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90601-1400
Subject: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Comments on the City of Norwalk Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rosecrans Marilla Single Family Development Project SCH #2023070158
Dear Ms. Huffman:
The City of Norwalk (City) received your letter dated July 31, 2023 , responding to the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the subject project. The City appreciates receiving your comments and has provided your comments below for reference along with our responses. Your comments and our responses will be included in the Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for consideration by the City’s decision-makers.
Comment A-1
The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ South Whittier Outfall Sections 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3 Relief Trunk Sewer, located in Rosecrans Avenue and Marilla Avenue. The Districts’ 42 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a capac ity of 22.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of
10.3 mgd when last measured in 2018.
Response to Comment A-1
Comment A-1 describes the sewer system and capacity serving the proposed project. The description does not include a comment on project or environmental review and requires no response.
Comment A-2
The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currentl y processes an average flow of 243.1 mgd, or the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average recycled flow of 17.5 mgd.
Ana Valencia, Mayor
Margarita L. Rios, Vice Mayor
Tony Ayala, Councilmember
Jennifer Perez, Councilmember
Rick Ramirez, Councilmember
Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
Response to Comment A-2
Comment A -2 identifies the location and maximum capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities that will serve the proposed project. The comment is informational and does not require a response.
Comment A-3
The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project site, described in the MND as three single family homes, is 780 gallons per day. For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.
Response to Comment A-3
This comment identifies 780 gallons per day the average waste water flow from the three family homes that will be built at the project sit e. The comment also provides weblinks to the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Will Serve program. The applicant will be required to obtain a Will Serve letter from the Los Angeles County Wastewater Districts prior to the City issuing any grading, building, or occupancy permits for the project as a condition of project approval.
Comment A-4
The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of was tewater discharged from connected facilities.
This connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will dete rmine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727.
Response to Comment A-4
See response to Comment A-3 which addresses Comment A-4.
Comment A-5
In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial.
The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service but is to advise the developer that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the developer of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts’ facilities.
Response to Comment A-5
See response to Comment A-3 which addresses Comment A-5. Your comments have been forwarded to the applicant to ensure an understanding of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts requirements for new developments.
The City thanks the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts for commenting on the NOI for approval of an Initial Study and Mitigation for the Rosecr ans Marilla Residential Project .
Should you have any questions , please feel free to contact me at (562) 929 -5710 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Manraj G. Bhatia, Ph.D., AICP
Senior Planner
City of Norwalk
Community Development Department
i
JULY/AUGUST 2023
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview and Location .......................................................................................... 1
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ........................................................... 1
1.3 Public Review Process ....................................................................................................... 1 2 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................................... 2
2.2 Environmental Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) .......................... 2 3 Initial Study Checklist .................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................ 13
3.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 19
3.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 24
3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 26
3.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 27
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 31
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................. 32
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 36
3.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 39
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ii
JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 40
3.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 41
3.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 43
3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 44
3.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 45
3.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 46
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 49
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 53
3.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................. 55
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 57 4 References and Preparers ...........................................................................................................59
4.1 References Cited ...............................................................................................................59
4.2 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................60 1 JULY/AUGUST 2023
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview and Location
The Rosecrans Marilla project ( proposed project ) proposes to merge five existing parcels located in the City of Norwalk (City) into three parcels to allow for the development of three single family residences. The project requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the existing land use designation of the site from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Low Density Residential” and requires a Zone Change to amend the existing “Restricted Commercial” (C - 1) zoning designation to “Single Family Residential” (R-1). The project also proposes approval of a Tentative Parcel Map.
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The City is the lead agency with approval authority for the proposed project. The City of Norwalk has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document for assessing the potential impacts of this project, consistent with CEQA.
1.3 Public Review Process
The IS and proposed MND will be circulated for public review for a period of 20 days, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a). The City of Norwalk will provide public notice at the beginning of the public review period before the Planning Commission, who will consider public and agency comments to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the project and this environmental docum ent. The City Council with review the Planning Commission recommendation and public input to make a final decision regarding the project. 2 JULY/AUGUST 2023
2 Summary of Findings
2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. All of the impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation measures identified in the following checklist. The environmental factors checked below would require mitigation measures be provided.
Aesthetics Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and
Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise Population and
Housing
Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
2.2 Environmental Determination (To be completed by
the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fi nd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fi nd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATE D NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3 JULY/AUGUST 2023
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one e ffect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is require d, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Date:
Authorized Representative
07/10/2023
4 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3 Initial Study Checklist
1. Project title:
Rosecrans Marilla single family development project
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Norwalk Community Development Department
12700 Norwalk Boulevard, Room 12,
Norwalk, California 90650
3. Contact person and phone number:
Manraj G. Bhatia, Senior Planner, (562) 929-5710
4. Project location:
13310 Rosecrans Avenue,
Norwalk, California
5. Assessor Parcel Numbers:
8070-023-001, 8070-023-002, 8070-023-003, 8070-023-030, and 8070-023-031
6. Project proponent name and address:
Touraj Kavandi
7. General plan designation:
Neighborhood Commercial
8. Zoning:
Restricted Commercial (C-1)
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
None
10. Have California Native American tribes t raditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5 JULY/AUGUST 2023
determination of significance of impacts to tri bal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Background
Pursuant to the following requirements of the California Government and Public Resources Codes, the City mailed 12 letters to representatives of 9 separate tribes, as detailed below.
SB 18 (2004)
This bill amended the California Government Code (CG) re quiring a planning agency during the preparation or amendment of the general plan, to consult with California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving specified places, features, and objects that are located within a city or county jurisdiction. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provides a list of tribes who have expressed an interest to cities and counties who request consultation. Invitations to consult were sent by the City of Norwalk regarding the proposed project on April 5, 2023. • G
abrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleño Tongva Indians
• Gabrieleño Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrieleño Tongva Tribe
• Gabrieleño Tongva Nation
• Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation- Belardes • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A • Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
California tribes have 90 days to request consultation pursuant to GC § 6352.3(a)(d).
As of July 5, 2023, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is the only tribe to request consultation.
AB 52 (2014)
This bill amended sections of the Public Resources Code (PRC) related to CEQA review to specify that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The bill requires a lead agency [City of Norwalk] to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6 JULY/AUGUST 2023
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. Consultation invitations were sent by the City regarding the proposed project to the following tribes on March 29, 2023:
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
California tribes have 30 days to request consultation pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1(d).
As of April 28, 2023, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians –Kizh Nation is the only tribe to request consultation. Following consultation, on June 20, 2023, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation presented project applicable mitigation measures to the City of Norwalk consistent with the consultation process detailed in PRC 21080.3.2(b).
Purpose
The purposes of an Initial Study, as detailed in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) § 15063(a)(1) and (3)(Initial Study), “Following preliminary review, the Lead Agency shall conduct an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Further,
“All phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study of the project. An initial study may rely upo n expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, or other substantial evidence to document its findings. However, an initial study is neither intended nor required to include the level of detail included in an EIR.” Project Description
The Initial Study Project Description differs from the project application as it will not only detail the project described in the application, but it must also establish a baseline to inform the assessment of its potential effects on the environment and existing uses. Further, the Initial Study will,
• Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether there is ample evidence in the public record to support a Negative Declaration, and
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7 JULY/AUGUST 2023
• Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts and thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND as detailed in CEQA Guidelines.
• Should an impact be identified and supportable findings that a feasible mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than significant, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be prepared.
Project Location & Site Characteristics
The proposed project site consists of 0.39 acres located at 13310 Rosecrans Avenue in the City of Norwalk, California. The City of Norwalk ( City) is in the southeastern portion of Los Angeles County (Figure 1 below).
Figure 1 – Project Location and View
Source: Google Earth and Google Maps, 2023
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8 JULY/AUGUST 2023
The project site is comprised of five (5) parcels identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 8070-023-001, 8070-023-002, 8070-023-003, 8070-023-030, 8070-023-031. The City of Norwalk General Plan (General Plan) Land Use Map designates the project site as “Neighborhood Commercial” and on the City of Norwalk Zoning Map (Zoning Map), the project site is zoned “Restricted Commercial “(C-1).
The project site is bound by Rosecrans Avenue to the north and Marilla Avenue to the east.
Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5). Local access is provided by Rosecrans Avenue and Marilla Avenue. Local transit access is available for the project site via a Metro Express bus stop located approximately one-eighth (1/8) of a mile east of the project site at Rosecrans Avenue and Carmenita Road. Additional local transit access is available by the Norwalk Transit System (NTS), with a bus stop located approximately one -half (1/2) of a mile west of the project site at Rosecrans Avenue and Shoemaker Avenue. NTS provides bus service between the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station and the Metro G reen Line Studebaker station in Norwalk.
The five parcels that comprise the project site are vacant and undeveloped. The topography of the site is level and consists primarily of ruderal grasses which are regularly disked. There are no trees, natural vegetation, or water bodies onsite. Adjacent land uses include commercial to the east and west of the site along Rosecrans Avenue, commercial and industrial to the north, and residential to the south. John Glenn High Sc hool is located approximately one (1) mile northwest of the project site.
Project Components
The project is proposing to merge five existing parcels into three parcels to allow for the future development of three single family residences . No land disturban ce or grading is currently proposed. Requested project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Parcel Map. The project components are discussed in more detail below.
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
The project req uires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the existing land use designation of the site from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Low Density Residential .” In addition, the project requires a Zone Change to amend the existing “Restricted Commercial” (C-1) zoning designation to “Single Family Residential” (R-1). In the Norwalk General Plan, the Low-Density Residential classification of land use has a permitted density of one (1) unit per 5,000 square feet (sf) of land area. As such, the proposed project site with 17,136 sf of total land area could support up to three (3) single family residences at buildout.
Tentative Parcel Map
The project would require approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to permit the conversion of five (5) existing parcels into three (3) pa rcels to accommodate the development of three single family homes (refer to Figure 3 Tentative Parcel Map). The required minimum lot size in the
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9 JULY/AUGUST 2023
R-1 zone district is 5,000 sf. As proposed, the lot sizes associated with the TPM range from a minimum lot size of 5,459 sf to a maximum lot size of 6,221 sf.
New Housing Development
As previously mentioned, no land disturbance or grading is proposed at this time. Approval of the requested entitlements would allow for the development of up to three (3) single -family residential units on the project site. The residences would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code development standards for the R -1 zone district and conform to the City’s applicable design principles.
Project Entitlements and Required Approvals
As the Lead Agency under CEQA, the City has discretionary authority over the proposed project. The project would be subject to various permits and approvals, including, but not limited to:
• General Plan Amendment to change the existing General Plan land use designation of the project site from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Low Density Residential.” • Change of Zone to change the zoning of the project site from “Restricted Commercial” (C-1) zoning designation to “Single Family Residential” (R-1). • Tentative Parcel Map to convert the existing five (5) parcels into three (3) parcels to allow for future residential uses.
• CEQA Clearance; and
• Issuance of subsequent approvals:
o Site Development Review; and
o Applicable grading and building permits.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, 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?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. A scenic vista refers to a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of high value to the community and identified in the general plan or zoning ordinance . The City General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas in the city and the general plan EIR determined that there are no scenic vistas in the city that require special consideration, as such the project would have no impact to a City designated vista.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11 JULY/AUGUST 2023
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site (Caltrans 2022, Norwalk 1996). State Route 1 is the closest eligible scenic highway to the project site and is located approximately 11.75 miles south (Caltrans 2022). State Route 91 is the closest officially designated scenic highway and is about 6 miles southeast of the project site. Due to the distance between the project site and these highways, existing and intervening development, and topography, the proposed project’s development would not be visible from these highways. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no impact would occur.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project 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?
Less than Significant Impact . The City is entirely built out and urbanized, an d the area surrounding the project site and vicinity are developed with commercial, residential, and industrial uses. The project site and surrounding area contain visual elements. The proposed project would result in incremental changes to the urban area and replace an empty lot along a developed corridor to single family home consistent with surrounding uses. During development plan and building review by the City, the standards in Zoning Ordinance Section
17.05.090 (Development standards for single -family dwelling units ) provides guidance for housing development materials. Zoning Section 7.02.240 (C) (Standards and Review Criteria Zoning Section and 17.09.1510 (Development objectives) would ensure the project would have a less than significant conflict with applicable zoning.
Although the future development of new single-family residences would incrementally change the visual character of the project site and immediate surroundings , implementation of existing General Plan and Zoning regulations would ensure the project would not conflict with the scenic quality in the urban area.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact . Nighttime light and glare impacts affect a project’s exterior lighting on adjacent uses and areas. Glare can also be generated by light reflecting off passing cars and large expanses of glass windows or other reflective surfaces. Excessive sunlight and glare can impair vision, cause annoyance, affect sleep patterns, and generate safety hazards when experienced by drivers. A significant impact may occur if lighting as part of the proposed project exceeds adopted thresholds for light and glare. The project site and surrounding area are developed and contain many existing sources of nighttime illumination and daytime and nighttime glare. Mandatory compliance with the standards Zoning Section 17.09.1510 (Development objectives) during development plan and building permit review requires that
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12 JULY/AUGUST 2023
all night lighting shall be designed to prevent direct light and glare onto the adjacent streets and properties.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 Dept. 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:
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 non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
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))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14 JULY/AUGUST 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
a- e) Would the project 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 non -agricultural use? Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The California Department of Conservation (DOC 2018) has designated the site as “Urban and Built -Up Land” (DOC 2018). The site does not contain any land identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2018). Thus, there would be no impact related to converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. b) No Impact. The City of Norwalk does not contain any areas zoned for agricultural uses (Norwalk 2020). The project site is currently zoned Restricted Commercial and is in an urban area. No portion of the project site is subject to a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2017).
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an existing zone for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. c) Would the project 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 Impact. The City of Norwalk is urbanized and there are no forest lands or timberland in the city limits. The project site is currently zoned Restricted Commercial and is not zoned or used for forest land or timberland (Norwalk 2020). The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause the rezoning of, forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impact would occur.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15 JULY/AUGUST 2023
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
No Impact. The project site is within an urbanized area of the city and does not contain forest land. Future development of the project site would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The proposed proj ect would allow for the future development of single-family residences in an urban area surrounded by commercial and residential uses. No Farmland or forest land occur in or around the project site. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program characterizes the project site as “Urban and Built-Up Land” (DOC 2023). The development of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural uses nor the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No impact would occur.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 16 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. 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:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
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?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant. The project is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In 2022, SCAQMD completed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which is a regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air. The 2022 AQMP represents a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, regional air qualit y modeling, regional growth projections, and the impact of control measures. The 17 million residents of the greater Los Angeles area , including the City of Norwalk, have historically suffered from some of the worst air quality in the nation. The region has the worst levels of ground-level ozone (smog) and among the highest levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
The air pollution levels in the region exceed both National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards for both these air pollutants as well as Greenhouse Gas emissions which have been associated with climate change. The health impacts associated with the high levels of air pollution cause respiratory and cardiovascular disease, exacerbate asthma, and can lead to premature death (SCAQMD; 2023).
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 17 JULY/AUGUST 2023
The AQMP identifies broad sector wide strategies and implementation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions in the air basin. The district organized the Residential and Commercial Buildings Working Group to advise and coordinate with SCAQMD during preparation of the AQMP implementation. Ultimately, the region’s approach to re ducing air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions is expanding mobility choices by locating housing, jobs, and transit closer together and increasing investment in complete streets (pedestrian, bicycle, and mobility access along roads) . Emissions from the project would be limited due to its size.
Construction of the project would result in temporary impacts to air quality from construction equipment and vehicles traveling to the site. Long-term occupancy would result in incremental contribute pollutants th rough automobile trips. The proposed project does not conflict with implementation of the AQMP through consistent with the objective of locating housing next to commercial uses and transit.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net in crease of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant. The region has the worst levels of ground-level ozone (smog) and among the highest levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Yet, emissions from the project would be limited due to its limited scope (three single family homes). Construction of the project would result in temporary impacts to air quality from construction equipment and vehicles traveling to the site. Long -term occupancy would result in incremental contribute pollutants through automobile trips. The proposed project does not conflict with implementation of the AQMP through consistent with the objective of locating housing next to commercial uses and transit.
Additionally, the State of California
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant. The uses adjacent to the project site could be affected by changes to air quality during construction. Mobile sources of air pollutants during construction could include light and medium-duty trucks for construction crews. In addition, equipment used for grading and preparation of the site for installation of home foundations have the potential to create dust and air pollutants odors from the use of internal combustion engine. Construction equipment may include gas generators for powering tools. Pollutant emissions during occupancy of the project could include NOx emissions f rom water heaters, cooking stoves, heating and air conditioning units , refrigerators, as well as wood burning fireplaces and outdoor barbeques. City of Norwalk Municipal Code Title 15 ( Buildings and Construction) integrates and implements and enforces the California Building Code Title 24 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards) apply to the installation of high efficiency appliances and low emission insultation and building materials, and Title 15 implements the California Mechanical Code regulations alterations, repairs and replacement of residential and commercial mechanical and gas systems, including equipment, appliances, fixtures, including ventilating, heating, cooling, air-conditioning, and refrigeration . Both programs are implemented during construction through building inspections and prior to occupancy to ensure that air emissions related to the project would be as low as feasible.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 18 JULY/AUGUST 2023
d) Would the project result in other emissions ( such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant. The three single family homes would be compatible with the surrounding uses in that odors can be anticipated to be similar to existing homes. These odors include those from daily periodic cooking, cleaning, yard care, and vehicle uses.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 19 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
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?
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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?
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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 20 JULY/AUGUST 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species i dentified 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?
Less than Significant. The project site is an infill parcel surrounded on all sides by commercial and residential development. The site is located in an area that was used for agricultural uses and has remained fallow as the City has developed around it . The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) a nd U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identify 35 species inclusive of species categorized as candidate, sensitive, or special status species as having a potential for existing in the immediate region.
DFG Designated Special Status Species - City of Norwalk Scientific Name Common Name
Achalarus toxeus Coyote Cloudywing
Aliciella triodon coyote gilia
Bromus tectorum Cheat Grass, Downy Brome
Calochortus elegans Cat's Ear
Calochortus tolmiei Pussy Ears
Canis latrans Coyote
Ceanothus ferrisiae Coyote ceanothus
Chenopodium multifidum Cut-leaf Goosefoot
Chenopodium urbicum City Goosefoot
Cottea pappophoroides Cotta-grass
Cucurbita palmata Coyote Melon
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 21 JULY/AUGUST 2023
DFG Designated Special Status Species - City of Norwalk Scientific Name Common Name
Eryngium petiolatum Coyote-thistle
Cowhead Lake Gilia triodon Cowhead Lake tui chub
Gila bicolor vaccaceps Coyote Gily-flower
Grindelia laciniata Cut-leaf Gumweed
Mimosa aculeaticarpa Cat's-claw Mimosa
Mimulus laciniatus cut-leaved monkeyflower
Monardella villosa Coyote-mint
Monardella villosa ssp. franciscana Coyote-mint [sp]
Monardella villosa ssp. globosa robust monardella
Monardella villosa ssp. obispoensis Coyote-mint [sp]
Monardella villosa ssp. villosa Coyote-mint [sp]
Monardella villosa ssp. sheltonii Coyote Wildmint
Nicotiana attenuata Tobacco [g]
Potentilla millefolia var. millefolia Cut-leaf Cinquefoil Potentilla millefolia var. klamathensis Cut-leaf Cinquefoil Rubus laciniatus Cut-leaved Blackberry
Rudbeckia laciniata Greenhead Coneflower
Salix exigua Narrow-leaved Willow
Sicyos laciniatus Cut-leaf Bur-cucumber
Capnia coyote A Stonefly
Thalassarche cauta Shy Albatross
Polygala barbeyana Barbey's Milkwort
Polygala scoparioides Broom Milkwort
Sphinx smithi A Sphinx Moth
Source: CDFW, 2023
According to the CDFW, of the 35 species, the Department has two records of Canis latrans, (Coyote) within the City of Norwalk. Since the project site is surrounded by urban uses , it is isolated and does not provide connectivity to the nearest habitat located approximately 5 miles away) in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Further, the site is mowed regularly leaving it unsuitable for special status species to forage or nest. Given site conditions and its
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 22 JULY/AUGUST 2023
location in an urban area. the project will have a less than significant impact to CDFW or USFWS designated special status species.
b) Would the project 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service? No Impact. No sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat occur on the project site. The project site is located in a densely developed u rban area surrounded with commercial and residential buildings, Rosecrans Avenue parking lot, a parking structure, and a landscaped lawn. Therefore, no impact to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur from the proposed project.
c) Would the project 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?
No Impact. No state or federally protected wetlands and no jurisdictional waters are present on-site. Therefore, future development of the project site will result in no impact to state or federally protected wetlands.
d) Would the project 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? Less than Significant. The project site is located in the midst of the highly developed Los Angeles and San Gabriel regions. The California Department of Fish an d Wildlife (CDFW) identifies the City of Norwalk and the surrounding cities as Urban. CDFW recognizes that isolated undeveloped urban site s, including the project site, provide very low quality habitat that is unsuitable for resident and migratory wildlife species. (CDFW BIOS, 2023). Due to the intensity of surrounding housing, commercial, and road development, the project would have a less than significant impact on habitat suitable for established resident or migratory wildlife. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project site currently has ruderal grasses and there are no trees onsite. The project site is not a park or open space area that is regulated by city policies or ordinances. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that apply to projects located within this are of the City of Norwalk.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 23 JULY/AUGUST 2023
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 24 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. The project site is vacant land with no known prior development other than use for agriculture. As such there would be no potential for the project to affect a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). Neither would the project affect a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code. Nor has the project site been identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code. As such, the project would not result in an effect that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource that would have a significant effect on the environment. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant. As detailed in a. above, no disturbance of the site has been documented by the City that would le ad to a conclusion that significant archaeological resources are located onsite. No record of archaeological resources has been documented during development of the surrounding land uses that would lead the City to expect such resources to be found during development of the project. As such, the project would result in less than significant adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 25 JULY/AUGUST 2023
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed above in b, no disturbance at the site or documented during development of surrounding uses has demonstrated the potential for human remains to be located onsite . However, there is a potential for unknown human remains to be located onsite that are associated with historic use of the site including Native Americans. Therefore, mitigation measure CULT -1 shall be included in the conditions of project approval and require that in the event that human remains are discovered during grading and construction, all work shall be stopped, and the Community Development Department, City Coroner, and tribal representatives shall be notified to ascertain the disposition and of any discovery. A potential project related impact to previously undiscovered human remains would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, below.
MITIGATION MEASURE CULT-1: UNDISCOVERED HUMAN REMAINS
In the event that human remains are discovered during grading and construction, all work shall be stopped, and the Community Development Department , City Coroner, and the tribes identified during the consultation process pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21080.3.shall be notified. Any human remains discovered shall be inspected by the City Coroner to establish their origin in coordination with the Community Development Department and Native American tribe(s) regarding the disposition of the remains. The confidentiality requirements in PRC section 21082.3 shall be followed for any remains determined to be Native American. The Coroner and Community Development Department will coordinate the disposition of any human remains determined to be non-native in origin
.
Mitigation Timing:
• During grading and prior to issuance of a building permit.
Party Responsible for Implementation and Monitoring:
• The Community Development Department.
Party Responsible for Funding Mitigation:
• Project Applicant/Owner prior to issuance of a grading permit.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 26 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
a-b) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. Neither federal or state law n or the State CEQA Guidelines establish thresholds that define when energy consumption is considered wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary. Construction methods required by City building codes (Title 24) improve energy efficiency of the homes to the extent practicable using current technology. However, it would not adequately address unanticipated energy use occurring during construction. Such variables, include weather, supply chain issues, market conditions, and variable associated with occupancy of the homes. Additionally, energy would be required to transport people and goods to and from the project site and construction use of energy may continue for between 6-12 months. Nonetheless, compliance would result in energy-efficient structures to the extent practicable using current technology. The amount of energy required to construct and operate the 3 homes is not anticipated to exceed what the City has assumed for development of these types of uses throughout the city. The developer or applicants may choose to take advantage of available energy saving programs and funding at the time of development.
Impacts would be less than significant and there would be no additional significant effect.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 27 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
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?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 28 JULY/AUGUST 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
a) Would the project 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.
Less than Significant Impact. The nearest known earthquake fault on the most recent Alquist- Priolo map proximate to the project site is the Whittier fault which is located approximately 6 miles northeast of the project site. The City requires that all projects located within the city limits to comply with the Norwalk Municipal Code which incorporates and implements Title 24 of the California Building Code which requires implementation of earthquake safety in building construction standards to reduce to less than significant the potential for building failures caused by earthquakes at known faults that would impact surrounding uses. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. Should an earthquake strike the Whittier fault, or other regional faults, the project site could be subject to significant ground shaking. The Norwalk Municipal Code Title 12, Chapter 12.08 (Construction and Maintenance) requires project grading and construction to comply with Title 24 building codes which require new and retrofitted buildings to be reviewed by the City and implement approved methods and materials which minimize the effects of ground shaking on buildings and foundations . Implementation of building standards and zoning setbacks will en sure the potential impacts of building failures from ground shaking that could affect adjacent land uses will be reduced to less than significant.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 29 JULY/AUGUST 2023
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area on the Alquist -Priolo map where the stability of foundation soils must be investigated, and countermeasures undertaken in the design and construction of buildings for human occupancy. Statutes require that cities and counties use these zones as part of their construction permitting process. The City requires that all projects located within the city limits comply with the Norwalk Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.08 (Construction and Maintenance) which requires, a ll work and improvements to conform to grades established by the City by ordinance, resolution, or minute order of the City Council, or by order of the City Engineer. As discussed in a, i above, the Norwalk Municipal Code implements Title 24 of the California Building Code which requires implementation of earthquake safety in grading and building construction standards to reduce the impacts of earthquakes and resulting ground failure and liquefaction to less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site has slopes less than 5% and is not located in an area with significant slopes identified on the Alquist -Priolo map. Also, the site located approximately 5 miles from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. As discussed in a, iii above, the Norwalk Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.08 (Construction and Maintenance) which requires, all work and improvements to conform to established grades to further ensure the potential impact from soils sliding are less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in a, above, the Norwalk Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.08 (Construction and Maintenance) requires, a ll work and improvements to conform to established grades and soil retention policies to ensure drainage of the site . This will result in a less than significant effect on soil erosion or result in the loss of topsoil. c) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in a. above, the site is located on soils subject to liquefaction which may result in significant damage to residential buildings during an earthquake. Norwalk Municipal Code implements Title 24 of the California Building Code which requires implementation of earthquake safety in grading and building construction standards to reduce the impacts of earthquakes and resulting liquefaction to less than significant.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 30 JULY/AUGUST 2023
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Norwalk Municipal Code implements Title 24 of the California Building Code which requires implementation of earthquake safety in grading and building construction standards thereby reduc ing the impacts from expansive soils to less than significant.
e) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the City limits and is required to connect to established water, sewer, and drainage systems. The City Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.03 (Develop ment Requirements) ensures development of the project complies with established standards during buildin g and grading permit review that will ensure proper connection to the existing sewer system. Therefore, the project will result in less than significant impact to soils.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact. The city implements the State of California uniform building code (Title 24) which requires provisions for discovery of archeological and paleontological resources during grading of the project site to ensure impact to undiscovered paleontological resource would remain less than significant. The project site is located on a vacant urban site, with no unique geologic features that would be affected by construction of the project.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 31 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
a ) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant. Construction equipment used during site development, including gas or diesel fueled human operated trucks, automobiles, grading machines, and generators emit greenhouse gas. Occupation of the se three homes would also result in an incremental increase greenhouse gas emission due to use of gas powered vehicles and household heating, cooling and appliance uses. The level of greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized to a less than significant impact due to the project location near commercial and industrial areas enabling residents a choice of transportation methods and work locations that would potentially reduce the emission of greenhouse gas emitted by commuting in gas powered vehicles. Implementation of building code (Title 24) requirements for use of energy efficient construction techniques and materials, when combined with the above factors would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the project to less than significant levels to the extent feasible.
b) Would the project generate c onflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant. The project location in an urban area with a mix of residential and commercial uses is consistent with the infill development goals of the SCAQMD and general plan and zoning ordinance regulations aimed at mitigating and reducing community -wide greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant effect on plans and implementation of mitigation for greenhouse gas emissions for residential uses as implanted by the City during development review.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 32 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site that 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?
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 working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 33 JULY/AUGUST 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
A
search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database was completed, and the project site is not included in or near any identified hazardous sites. The closest cleanup sites to the project site are located approximately 0.50 miles from the project site (DTSC 2023). However, these cleanups have all been completed and no further action is required.
The closest school to the project site is the J ohn Glenn High School (0. 50 miles northwest).
The nearest public airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport located approximately 5 miles southeast of the site.
a-b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Would the project 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 en vironment? Less than Significant Impact . Future construction of single -family residences at the project site would involve temporary use of hazardous materials, including fuel for construction equipment, and possibly paints, solvents and sealants. Storage, handling, and use of these materials would occur in accordance with state law and standard construction best management practices to minimize the potential for spill or release and ensure that any such spill or release would be controlled on site. This would include storing all hazardous materials inside buildings or under other cover, vehicle specifications for hazardous material transport and disposal, procedures for safe storage, and training requirements for those handling hazardous materials. Project construction contractors are required by state law to implement and comply with existing hazardous material regulations. Because these regulations are specifically designed to protect the public health through procedures for transporting, storing, and handling hazardous materials; improved technology in the equipment used to transport these materials; and quicker, more coordinated response times to emergencies, impacts related to the creation of significant hazards to the public through routine transport, u se, disposal, and risk of upset during construction would be less than significant.
It is anticipated that hazardous materials used during the future long-term operation of the project could include residential maintenance and cleaning chemicals, as well as other landscaping fertilizers. These materials are commonly used across all types of land uses, and
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 34 JULY/AUGUST 2023
the project is not expected to present any significant risks associated with their use. During operation, the project would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous materials in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations during project operation.
Therefore, impacts related to the creation of significant hazards to the public through routine transport, use, disposal, and risk of upset during project operations would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to the project site is John Glenn High School (0.50 miles northwest). As discussed above in items ‘a’ and ‘b’ the proposed project would not create any significant hazards related to transport, use, disposal, or upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials or their release into the environment. There would be no impact.
d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659 62.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (also known as the “Cortese List”) is a p lanning document used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials sites. The project site is not included on the Cortese List. In addition, according to the Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database, the closest cleanup sites are 0 .50 miles away, but these cleanups have all been completed and no further action is required. Thus, there would be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airp ort 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 working in the project area? No Impact. The closest public airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport located approximately 5 miles southeast of the site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or airport used by the public . There would be no impact.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project would not interfere with any adopted emergency or evacuation plans.
The Norwalk Office of Emergency Management works directly with the Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff ’s departments and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to identify disaster risks and hazards and develo p strategies to prepare, respond, and recover from devastating events. Emergency Management staff are active in advocating the
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 35 JULY/AUGUST 2023
importance of whole community preparedness through presentations, events, and outreach efforts. Community Preparedness programs h ave been developed specifically for Norwalk residents, schools, and businesses to educate and empower the community. The City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in February 2022. The LHMP aims to identify the City of Norwalk’s top hazards, asses s the risks to the residents, buildings, and critical facilities; and develop mitigation strategies to reduce the risk of exposure and allow a swift and organized recovery should a disaster occur.
The future development of residential uses at the project site would increase the number of people at the project site and increase the volume of vehicles entering and leaving the project site. However, future development associated with the proposed project would not interfere with the daily operations of emerge ncy responders. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to implementation of emergency or evacuation plans. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. A wildland fire hazard area is typically characterized by areas with limited access, rugged terrain, limited water supply, and combustible vegetation. The City of Norwalk and the project site are in a local area and are not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CALFIRE 2011). The project site is in an urbanized area. The future development of single - family residences at the project site would not expose structures or residences to substantial hazards from wildland fires. Therefore, there would be no impact related to wildland fires.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 36 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
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 on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
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
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 37 JULY/AUGUST 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
a -c, e) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality ? Would the project substantially decrease groundwater suppli es or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Further, Would the project 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: Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site? Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? 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? Impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. The project is vacant land surrounded by urban development.
The project is required to comply with the City’s grading and building ordinances which require installation of water and drainage connections to minimize the project s effects on water quality standards established in the Zoning Section 17.09.1510 (Development objectives) during development plan and building permit review with the Regional Water Quality Control District (RWQCD) standards for development that avoid significant impacts related to drainage, runoff from the site that could impact off-site uses or exceed stormwater plans or facilities in the City. The project is required to connect to the City water supply system, would not directly use ground or surface waters, and would incrementally result in increased water use. However, the project is consistent with the water use planning required by buildout in the City. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impact to water quality, supplies, and management and not impede implementation.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact. The project is located approximately 7.1 miles from the Pacific Ocean and is not identified in the City general plan as being located in a tsunami hazard area
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 38 JULY/AUGUST 2023
or next to a lake subject to seiche conditions that would result in a release of pollutants and would have a less than significant impact from related release of pollutants from inundation of the project site.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 39 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
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?
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact . Implementation of the proposed project would allow for the potential future development of three single-family residences on the site. Implementation of the proposed project would not obstruct access to any existing areas or buildings surrounding the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mit igating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is currently designated in the general plan and zoning ordinance for commercial land use. Rezoning of the site would allow for development of three single family homes consistent with the residential uses on three sides of the property. Therefore, development of residential uses on the project site would result in a less than significant impact by creating a conflict with adopted land use plan s, polic ies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect on the environment.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 40 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
a) Would the project 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?
No Impact . The California Geological Survey (CGS) Mineral Resources Project provides information about California’s nonfuel mineral resources. The classification of these mineral resources is a joint effort of the state and the local governments. It is based on geologic factors and requires that the State Geologist classify the mineral resources area as one of the four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), Scientific Resource Zones (SZ), or Identified Resource Areas (IRAs), The project site is not identified in by the California Geological Survey Mineral Resources Project or in the City General Plan. Therefore, little likelihood exists for their presence (CGS 1981). Based on the project site’s location, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources and No impact would occur.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is designated not indicated in the City general plan, or any special plan or other land use plan in the City as being a mineral resource recovery site and no mineral extraction operations currently occur on the project site or within its immediate vicinity.
Therefore, the proposed project would not impact the availability of a locally important mineral resource and no impacts would result.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 41 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
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?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
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?
a - b) Would the project 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 applica ble standards of other agencies? Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant. Temporary construction noise and groundborne vibration is regulated by the general plan noise regulations for construction that requires projects adjacent to noise sensitive uses to be conditioned to submit a noise mitigation plan during building and engineering review. The noise plan will identify noise mitigating methods, such as limited time of construction, temporary noise attenuating fencing, location of construction equipment next to existing uses, use of current technology and noise suppression equipment.
Nuisance noise related to occupancy of the three single family homes is also regulated by the City noise regulations in Title 9, Article III (Noise) which requires night time noise in residential
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 42 JULY/AUGUST 2023
zones to not exceed 45 ambient decibels (dbA) and daytime noise of 55 dbA. These noise standards are enforced through the code enforcement functions of the C ity’ Community Development Department . Therefore, potential noise and groundbourne vibration due to construction and occupancy of the project would be less than significant with implementation of City noise regulations.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private air strip or airports identified in the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. The closest municipal airport to the project site is Long Beach Municipal Airport, approximately 7.1 miles from the project site and result in a less than significant impact by exposing people to excessive noise.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 43 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Signi ficant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
a) Would the project 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)?
No Impact. The project site is undeveloped. Approval of the project would allow for the future development of three single-family residences on the project site. The addition of three residences would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area or through the extension of road or infrastructure and there would be no impact. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site is undeveloped. Approval of the project would allow for future single-family residential uses on the project site. The project would not result in the displacement of people or housing. and no impact would result.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 44 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) 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:
v) Fire protection?
vi) Police protection?
vii) Schools?
viii) Parks?
ix) Other public facilities?
a) 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:
Less than Significant Impact. The construction of the project’s three single family homes, due the moderate addition of approximately 9 persons adjacent to existing homes would not result the need for new or physically altered facilities for fire and police protection, schools, parks, or other facilities that would result in a significant impact to established service levels. Prior to construction, the project applicant would be required to pay any required services fees to emergency service providers, schools, and parks. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 45 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Les s Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION
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?
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?
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The project would result in the addition of three homes and approximately 9 new residents. The additional use of existing parks or other recreational facilities would not experience a significant increase in use that would result in substantial or accelerated physical deterioration and would result in less than significant impact. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the constructio n or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project does not include or require construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities and therefore would have no adverse physical effect on the environment.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 46 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
The City of Norwalk is in the process of adopting new Transportation Impact Guidelines and now relies on Vehicle Miles Travelled ( VMT) as the measure for determining a project significant transportation impact under the CEQA process.
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743)
SB 743, approved in 2013, mandated a change in the way transportation impacts are determined according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has directed the use of VMT as the replacement for automobile delay-based Level of Service (LOS) for the purposes of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA. As of December 2018, the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to CEQA Guidelines to incorporate SB 743 (i.e., VMT). OPR published an updated Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA in December 2018.
Statewide application of the new guidelines went into effect on July 1, 2020. The OPR Technical Ad visory guidelines include the following main components for assessment of development projects.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 47 JULY/AUGUST 2023
• Analysis Methodologies – Identification of potential thresholds that can be considered when establishing thresholds of significance for VMT assessment and recommendations of analysis methodologies for VMT impact screening and analysis
• Mitigation – Types of mitigation that can be considered for VMT mitigation which may apply to small residential projects include improving or increasing access to transit or incorporating affordable housing into the project.
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact. Approval of the project entitlements would allow the project to be consistent with existing plans and policies applicable to the area. Future development of three single family homes would be consistent with the general plan and zoning policies applicable to single family homes immediately adjacent to the project and would, therefore have a less than significant effect on transportation plans, ordinances and polices. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (b)(1), finds that g enerally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. Public Resources Code section 21155 section a high -quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. According to
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) ? Less than Significant Impact. The project is located with frontages to both Rosecrans Avenue and Marilla. Avenue. Rosecrans Avenue is designated a secondary roadway in the General Plan and has five (5) separated lanes adjacent to the project. Marilla Avenue primarily serves residential uses adjacent to the project site. The proposed project site plans identify three residential driveways accessing Marilla Avenue. No direct driveway access is proposed to Rosecrans Avenue. The project is subject to the City Municipal Code Title 16, Chapter 16.03 (Development Requirements) require all subdivisions to provide for All such streets and alleys shall be graded and improved to an approved width and grade and shall include necessary surface improvements, including curbs, gutters, sidewalks to be constructed to City standards and subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading and building permits. With implementation of City development standards, the project would have a less than significant impact related to hazards from intersections and roadway access.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 48 JULY/AUGUST 2023
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and Marilla Avenue. During building permit review, public safety review of the site would ensure adequate road widths to ensure adequate emergency access to the site and surrounding uses. With City permit review implemented, the project would result in less than a less than significant effect upon emergency access.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 49 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significa nt
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. 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 California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
Cal
ifornia Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead
ag
ency, 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
Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 50 JULY/AUGUST 2023
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 California Native American tribe, and that is:
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)? No Impact. The project site is a vacant infill site with no record of previous development. The site is not identified in the City General Plan as a historically significant site, nor designated on a local register of historically significant by the City. The city ha s designated the D.D.
Johnston-Hargitt home at 12426 Mapledale Street, and the Gilbert Sproul home at 12237 Sproul Street as historic sites and have been converted to museums Neither of these two historic homes are located adjacent to the project site. As such, the project will have no impacts to registered historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
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.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The California Office of Historic Preservation, Register of Historical Resources identifies the Johnston, Darius David House, and the Paddison Ranch Buildings in the City as historical resources. The project site is not on or adjacent to either of these resources. Additionally, the project is not located on or adjacent to site with an identified resource of significance to a California Native American Tribe.
During grading and construction of the project, unearthing of heretofore undiscovered resources or human remains of significance to a California Native American tribe may be unearthed. As discussed in Section V.c above, implementation of mitigation measure CULT-1 requires that yet to be discovered human remains, including those that could be considered significant to a California Native American Tribe are to be protected upon discovery during construction at the site. Further, to ensure protection of potential Tribal Cultural Resources during ground disturbance at the site, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation has provided Mitigation Measures TRC-1 and TRC-2 to ensure that a tribal representative is on site dur ing grading and construction related ground disturbance to ensure proper disposition of any tribal human remains or tribal cultural resources discovered onsite.
Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on historic resources, including resources of significance to a California Native American tribe, with mitigation measures CULT- 1, TCR-1, and TCR-2, implemented during construction.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 52 JULY/AUGUST 2023
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.
C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.
E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
Mitigation Timing:
• An executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City of Norwalk Community Development Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Party Responsible for Implementation and Monitoring:
• The Community Development Department, City of Norwalk.
Party Responsible for Funding Mitigation and Monitoring:
• Project Applicant/Owner prior to issuance of a grading permit.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 53 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
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?
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
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?
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?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 54 JULY/AUGUST 2023
a -b) Would the project 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 ? Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. The project would include construction of three single family homes on an infill site that is located along public roads with existing water, sewer, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. The project would need to obtain will ser ve letters from water and sewer providers . In addition, the City requires that grading and building permits development standards applied to the project and would, therefore, result in a less than significant impact. c) Would the project result in a deter mination 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? Less than Significant Impact. The project would add three single family residences adjacent to single family neighborhoods and would require an incremental and less than significant increase in the demand for wastewater treatment.
d-e) Would the project 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 ? Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. The project would add three single family residences adjacent to single family neighborhoods and would require an incremental and less than significant increase in the demand by generating solid waste in excess of State or local standards, capacity, nor impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, statutes, or regulations.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 55 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
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 a
wildfire?
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?
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?
Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the local government, state government, or the federal government. State Responsibility Areas (SRA) are the areas in the state where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. The SRA covers more than 31 million acres, to which the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a b asic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 56 JULY/AUGUST 2023
Local responsibility areas (LRA) include incorporated cities, cultivated agricultural lands, and portions of the desert. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government. CAL FIRE uses an extension of the SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis for evaluating fire hazard in LRAs.
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopt ed emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. According to CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP) Map, the project site is in the City of Norwalk and therefore in an LRA. The project site and the surrounding area are urbanized and do not contain wildland area that is subject to wildfire. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially impair any emergency response or evacuation plans, therefore, a less than significant impact would result.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located on a flat site surrounded by built out urban development located approximately 7.5 miles from mountainous areas not in a Very High FHSZ mapped by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 202 3). Since the project site is not in or near an SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, therefore a less than significant impact would occur no impact would occur.
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power line s, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment ? No Impact. The project site is not in a Very High FHSZ mapped by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 202 3).
Since the project site is not in or near an SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ requiring installation of infrastructure to manage fire risk. Additionally , the project location in an urbanized area would result in a location not associated with development that would exacerbate fire risks, and therefore, no impact would occur. d) Would the project 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 Impact. The project site is not in a Very High FHSZ mapped by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 202 3).
The project site does not include and is not adjacent to slopes or hillsides that could become unstable. Since the project site is not in or near an SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, no impact would occur.
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 57 JULY/AUGUST 2023
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential
to substantially 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, substantially 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?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
ROSECRANS MARILLA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 58 JULY/AUGUST 2023
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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? Less than Significant Impact . The project is located within an established urban area and is surrounded by urban development. The project (three single family homes)would not be located adjacent to habitat for fish or wildlife species; result in a use that would cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels. Nor would the project uses threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community or have a significant impact on a rare or endangered species or affect them directly or indirectly by restricting a range or habitat. The project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations in the City and would not project contribute significantly to the elimination of important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individuall y limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less than Significant Impact . The project’s three additional homes would have a less than significant overall impact, despite contributing incrementally to existing urban development.
Nonetheless, the project would have a less tha n significant impact to planned land uses in the City general plan. Therefore, when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current and future projects which are required to be consistent with the City land use plans, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to the environment. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impac t. The project would increase the housing supply in the City in a manner that is required to comply with development standards. Development standards implemented by the City during construction and occupancy of the new homes would insure less than significant adverse direct or indire ct effects to humans would occur. Further, while limited in scale, additional housing would have a positive effect by increasing the housing. For humans.
59 JULY/AUGUST 2023
4 References and Preparers
4.1 References Cited
California Code of R egulations, Ti tle 14, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ) sections 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L., as amended.
California Department of Conservation. 2023. Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map. 2023. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo. Accessed May 10, 2023.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, BIOS Data Mapping, Wildlife Movement Barriers, T
errestrial Connectivity mapping layers. apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/. Accessed May 1, 2023.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB , Rare Find 5 Data and Mapping. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and - Data.Accessed June 8, 2023.
California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazards, Maps, Reports, and GIS Data. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/sh . Accessed May 11, 2023.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Website, Tribal Consultation Process and Timeline. https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20220223-Tribal_Consultation_Checklist.pdf.
Accessed May 11, 2023.
California Native American Heritage Commission Website. https://nahc.ca.gov/2022/02/request-for-tribal-consultation-nahc-mediation-regulations/ Accessed May 1, 2023.
California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 –21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
City of Norwalk General Plan. 1996.
https://www.norwalk.org/city-hall/departments/community-development/planning .
Accessed May 12, 2023.
City of Norwalk Municipal Code.
https://library.qcode.us/lib/norwalk_ca/pub/municipal_code. Accessed May and June 2023.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. 2023. 60 JULY/AUGUST 2023
4.2 List of Preparers
City of Norwalk
Manraj G. Bhatia, PhD, AICP, Senior Planner
4Leaf, Inc.
Bret McNulty, Principal Planner
Kaitlin Roberts, Senior Planner
Carlina Rose, Assistant Planner
Planning Commission
Agenda Report
September 13, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: John P. Ramirez, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Manraj Bhatia, Senior Planner, PhD, AICP
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03/ Zone Change No. 2022-05/ Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-04 to permit the development of three (3) single-family homes on a 0.39-acre site. Environmental: Review and recommend adoption of the associated IS/MND to City Council. The subject property is 13310 Rosecrans Avenue, located on the southwest corner of Rosecrans Avenue and Marilla Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 23-22 to recommend approval to City Council for General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 23-23 to recommend approval to City Council for Zone Change No. 2022-05; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 23-24 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-04 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit “A”; and
4. Review and recommend adoption to City Council of the associated IS/MND.
AUTHORITY
Section 17.02.105 of the Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) requires a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission to City Council for General Plan Amendment (GPA) applications.
General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03 Page 2
Zone Change No. 2022-05 September 13, 2023
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-04
5 7
3 Section 17.02.290 requires a written recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission to City Council for Zone Change (ZC) applications.
Section 16.01.070 of the NMC requires the preparation of a tentative and final map for all subdivisions pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act.
Section 16.02.080 of the NMC requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing for any Tentative Parcel Map application.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The 0.39-acre project site has a General Plan designation of Neighborhood Commercial and zoning of Restricted Commercial (C-1) zone. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Rosecrans Avenue and Marilla Avenue (also known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APN”) 8070-023-001, -002, -003, -030, and -031). Surrounding the project site are commercial uses to the west and east (across Marilla Avenue), single family homes to the south, and commercial and industrial establishments to the north (across Rosecrans Avenue) in the City of Santa Fe Springs. The subject site has been vacant and undeveloped for many years.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Touraj Kavandi, NFT Real Estate LLC (Applicant), is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2022-03 to amend the General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential, Zone Change (ZC) No. 2022-05 to amend the Zoning Map from Restricted Commercial (C-1) to Single Family Residential (R- 1), and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2022-04 to reconfigure five (5) parcels into three (3) to accommodate the development of the three (3) single-family homes at the subject site.
The three (3) single family homes will be for sale and are proposed to be two-story construction with approximately 2,000 square feet living space per unit and attached two car garages.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Amendment
Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential
The site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial, which would not permit single-family residential development. In order to facilitate the development of single-family homes, the General Plan land use designation is proposed to change to Low Density Residential. Although commercial uses are concentrated along Rosecrans Avenue, the subject site has not been attractive for commercial redevelopment General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03 Page 3
Zone Change No. 2022-05 September 13, 2023
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-04
5 7
3 to occur. It has been vacant for several years and an eyesore for the neighborhood.
Amending the General Plan designation would result in greater compatibility with the neighborhood and along Marilla Avenue, which is predominantly residential. Redevelopment of the site with detached single-family homes would also be consistent with surrounding conditions.
Zone Change
C-1 to R-1
The site currently has a zoning of Restricted Commercial (C-1). To be consistent with the General Plan land use designation, the zoning is proposed to change to Single Family Residential (R-1). This would facilitate the redevelopment of the site into single-family homes that are of similar size and scale of existing homes along Marilla Avenue. Furthermore, the proposed development meets or exceeds all code requirements for the R-1 zone including lot area, lot width, setbacks, height, and parking requirements. The homes are designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood by proposing two-story structures and similar architectural styles, offsetting window openings with adjacent homes, and providing an eight (8) foot high block wall all along the westerly property line of the commercial use. The project also incorporates a 10-foot wide landscape buffer and eight (8) foot high block wall from Rosecrans Avenue to provide visual relief and noise attenuation for the single-family dwelling from the major street corridor. The landscape buffer will contain trees, shrubs, and climbing vines on the block wall and will be conditioned to be maintained by the property owner of the newly created lot. Staff recommends amending the land use designation and zoning to allow for the proposed project.
Tentative Parcel Map
The applicant is proposing a tentative parcel map to reconfigure five (5) parcels into three (3) to accommodate the development of three (3) detached single-family homes. The subdivision would consolidate and reorient the lots with frontages on Marilla Ave. It would comply with R-1 standards and result in two interior lots of 5,459 square feet (53 ft. x 103 ft.) and one corner lot of approximately 6,165 square feet (60 ft. x 103 ft.). Approval of the tentative parcel map would enable the applicant to develop the project and visually improve this prominent corner property of the neighborhood.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NMC REQUIREMENT PROPOSED
Minimum Lot Size 5,000 SF 5,459 – 6,165 SF
Minimum Lot Width 50’-0” 53’-0” – 60’-4”
Minimum Front Yard Setback 20’-0” 20’-0”
General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03 Page 4
Zone Change No. 2022-05 September 13, 2023
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-04
5 7
3 Minimum Side Yard Setback 5’-0” 5’-0”- 7’-11”
Minimum Street Side Setback 10’-0” 15’-4”
Minimum Rear Yard 20’-0” 41’-0” – 41’-5”
Maximum Building Height 35’-0” 26’-1” – 27’-1”
Minimum Parking Requirement 2 parking spaces in
garage
2 parking spaces in garage;
2 spaces in driveway
Required open space 500 SF 2,173 – 2,470 SF
Minimum unit size 800 SF 2,041 – 2,065 SF
The design of the three units meets or exceeds all residential development standards, provides sufficient on-site parking, is compatible with the neighborhood, incorporates high quality architecture and materials and would add additional housing units for the community.
The design incorporates hip roof style, front facing garages with stamped concrete driveways to accommodate two additional vehicles, entry porches providing privacy and articulation to the façade and large picture windows facing the front with stone or brick wainscoting all around the units.
Public Notification
The developer, NFT Real Estate, hosted a community meeting on February 28, 2023, at the Sproul Barn. The meeting was attended by about eight (8) people and the feedback was positive. Suggestions included adding vines on the block wall along Rosecrans Ave. and raising the block wall height to eight feet along the commercial building and corridor, which have been incorporated into the project. Public hearing notices were published in the Norwalk Patriot and posted at locations set forth in NMC Section 1.08.030 as well as mailed to 85 property owners within 500 feet of the property on September 1, 2023. Email notifications were sent to residents who attended the community meeting. As of the writing of this report, staff has received no public comments.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (IS)/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), with a related Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project. Based on the Environmental Checklist Form and supporting environmental analysis, the project would have no impact or less than significant impact concerning all environmental issue areas, except in the area of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, for which the project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The 20-day public comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration began on July 10, 2023 and ended on July 31, 2023. The General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03 Page 5
Zone Change No. 2022-05 September 13, 2023
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-04
5 7
3 IS/MND and related MMRP is on file at the City of Norwalk Community Development Department, 12700 Norwalk Boulevard, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning (562) 929-5744.
During the public review period, public comments were received from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, which has been addressed and incorporated in the IS/MND and related MMRP. The IS/MND and related MMRP for this project is posted online at the City’s website: https://www.norwalk.org/city-hall/departments/community- development/planning/rosecrans-marilla-homes
SUMMARY
The proposed development will enhance the surrounding area by revitalizing an undeveloped site, incorporate quality architecture, and add to the City’s housing stock. The project complies with applicable city codes, provides adequate parking, and includes wall and landscape buffers from the commercial corridor. The proposed project is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with General Plan goals to develop a range of well integrated housing types and to recognize and respect the neighborhood as an essential building block of the city. Development of these single family homes would add to the housing stock while keeping the character of the neighborhood intact. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, subject to conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. 23-22 (General Plan Amendment No. 2022-03) B. Resolution No. 23-23 (Zone Change No. 2022-05)
C. Resolution No. 23-24 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-04) D. Location and Vicinity Map
E. Final IS/MND and related MMRP
F. Architectural plan set dated August 24, 2023
G. Tentative Parcel Map dated July 28, 2023
H. Code Requirements Letter
City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Richard Rojas, Deputy City Manager
John P. Ramirez, AICP, Director of Community Development Sandra Duran, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 23-62 DECLARING THE CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12124 FIRESTONE BOULEVARD EXEMPT
SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54221(F)(1)(C) AND APPROVING AN EXCHANGE AGREEMENT AND JOINT
ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NORWALK AND
FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP
Background:
On July 6, 2021, City Council (“City”) approved the Heart of Norwalk Vision Plan, which envisions opportunities for new economic development within Front Street, Firestone Boulevard, and San Antonio Drive corridors. The properties of the proposed exchange are part of the Heart of Norwalk project area, which includes the City-owned parcels measuring approximately 0.57 acres identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 8056-015-901 and 8056-015-900 and located at 12124 Firestone Boulevard in the City of Norwalk, County of Los Angeles (“City Property”) and real property currently owned by Firestone Lofts, LP (“Developer”) measuring approximately 0.65 acres identified as APNs 8056-015-014 and 8056-015-016 and located at 13400 San Antonio Drive in the City of Norwalk, County of Los Angeles (“San Antonio Property”). City staff is working with the Arroyo Group to prepare a Specific Plan and create regulations and standards of how change can occur within the project area.
On February 7, 2023, City approved an Option Agreement for the exchange of real property for City-owned APNs 8056-015-900 and 8056-015-901 (“City Property”) and granted the exclusive right to exchange for real property APNs 8056-015-014 and 8056-015-016 (“San Antonio Property”), subject to further approval by the City and compliance with the California Government Code Sections 54220 et seq. (“Surplus Land Act”).
The exchange of the City Property and San Antonio Property is necessary for the City to
City Council October 17, 2023
Resolution No. 23-62 and Approving an Exchange Agreement Page No. 2 6 3
1 redevelop the San Antonio Property into a new public parking lot that will eliminate blight through redevelopment of the San Antonio Property, which is a blighted, vacant, and underutilized corner commercial property.
The City and Developer desire to exchange the City Property for the San Antonio Property in compliance with Surplus Land Act pursuant to the Exchange Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (“Exchange Agreement”) between City and Developer. The San Antonio Property is necessary for the City’s use for the development of a new parking lot that will service nearby commercial, residential, and recreational uses. The exchange is also necessary to facilitate the development of the City Property into a 76-unit affordable workforce housing and market rate project, which would eliminate the current blighted and underutilized uses; revitalize the Front Street commercial area, support the City and the State of California’s ongoing efforts to increase the supply of affordable and market rate housing, and furthers the City’s General Plan goals and objectives.
The proposed exchange is consistent with and will support and further the objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan and Firestone Boulevard Area Plan as follows:
• It will facilitate and provide additional affordable housing resources in support of the Firestone Boulevard Area Plan objective to encourage development of new housing units (Section 3.b); and
•It will enhance vehicular circulation and parking opportunities to support businesses and protect adjacent residential neighborhoods (Section C.4); and •It will support the Firestone Boulevard Area objective of upgrading the appearance of existing developments and policy of supporting and encouraging the renovation and enhancement of existing uses (Section C.7); and
•It is consistent with the circulation policy of providing adequate parking for commercial uses (Section C.7); and
•The development of affordable housing will help achieve many of the residential land use objectives of the General Plan including providing a diverse, balanced range of well- integrated housing types for all economic segments of the community (Section 4.b).
Environmental:
The Exempt Surplus Land determination and the approval of the Exchange Agreement are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to (i) CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the declaration of exempt surplus land and the approval the Exchange Agreement may have a significant effect on the environment (ii) CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 – Class 11 – Accessory Structures (small parking lots) to existing commercial uses and (iii) Section 15312 – Surplus Government Property Sales. None of the exceptions to the Categorical Exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
City Council October 17, 2023
Resolution No. 23-62 and Approving an Exchange Agreement Page No. 3 6 3
1 Fiscal Impact:
None at this time.
Citizens Advised:
N/A
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
The recommended action will further the City’s Strategic Plan 2021 Goal 3: Create dynamic neighborhoods that incorporate mobility, connectivity, and sustainability.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council:
a. find that the Exempt Surplus Land determination and the approval of the Exchange Agreement is exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 – Class 11 Accessory Structures (small parking lots) to existing commercial uses and Section 15312 – Surplus Government Property Sales and none of the exceptions to the Categorical Exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply; b. adopt Resolution No. 23-62, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NORWALK DECLARING THE CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12124 FIRESTONE BOULEVARD EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(F)(1)(C) AND APPROVING AN EXCHANGE
AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NORWALK AND FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP; and
c. authorize the City Manager to prepare, execute, or records (cause to be recorded) any documents required under the terms of the Exchange Agreement and such other ancillary documents, on behalf of the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney that are reasonably necessary to consummate the Exchange Agreement and effectuate the intent of Resolution No. 23-62.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 23-62
RESOLUTION NO. 23-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK DECLARING THE CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12124
FIRESTONE BOULEVARD EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(f)(1)(C) AND APPROVING AN
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NORWALK AND FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP
WHEREAS, the City of Norwalk, California (“City”) is the fee simple owner of two parcels measuring approximately 0.57 acres identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 8056-015-901 and 8056-015-900 and located at 12124 Firestone Boulevard in the City of Norwalk, County of Los Angeles (“City Property”); and
WHEREAS, Firestone Lofts, LP (“Developer”), a Delaware limited partnership, is the fee simple owner of two parcels measuring approximately 0. 65 acres identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 8056-015-014 and 8056-015-016 and located at 13400 San Antonio Drive in the City of Norwalk, County of Los Angeles (“San Antonio Property”); and
WHEREAS, City and Developer desire to exchange the City Property for the San Antonio Property in compliance with California Government Code Sections 54220 et seq. (“Surplus Land Act”) pursuant to the Exchange Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (“Exchange Agreement”) between City and Developer attached to this Resolution as Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, the San Antonio Property are necessary for the City’s use for the development of a larger, new public parking lot that will service nearby commercial, residential, and recreational uses;
WHEREAS, Developer intends to develop the City Property into a 76 -unit affordable workforce housing and market rate project; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 54221(f)( 1)(C) defines “Exempt Surplus Land” as surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary of the agency’s use; and
WHEREAS, the exchange of the City Property and San Antonio Property is necessary for the City to acquire and rede velop the larger San Antonio Property into a new public parking lot that will eliminate blight through redevelopment of the San Antonio Property, which are blighted, vacant, and underutilized corner commercial property; WHEREAS, the new parking lot will provide public parking for the Front Street commercial corridor and facilitate the development of 76-unit affordable workforce housing and market rate residential project that will assist in the revitalization of the Front Street Commercial area and the Firestone Boulevard Area Plan; Resolution No. 23-62 Page 2 of 36
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s General Plan, t he Firestone Boulevard corridor is designated for redevelopment in accordance with the Firestone Boulevard Area Plan, which includes providing a diversity of housing opportunities and sufficient parking resources to support the commercial, residential and public uses in the area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Surplus Land Act, the City Council must declare the City Property to be exempt surplus land and make certain findings prior to disposition of the City Property.
NOW, THEREFORE , THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals, above, are true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council finds that the Exempt Surplus Land determination and the approval of the Exchange Agreement are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to (i) CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the declaration of exempt surplus land and the approval the Exchange Agreement may have a significant effect on the environment (ii) CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 – Class 11 – Accessory Structures (small parking lots) to existing commercial uses, and (iii) CEQA Guidelines Section 15312 – Surplus Government Property Sales . None of the exceptions to the Categorical Exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
Section 3
. In accordance with the requirements of the Surplus Land Act , the City Council finds and declares that the City Property (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 8056- 015-901 and 8056- 015-900) are E xempt Surplus Land pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(C) as the City Property will be exchanged for San Antonio Property, which is necessary for the City’s use. The City is not required to issue a notice of availability or make the City Property available for acquisition by an affordable housing developer or sponsor or other local public entities. Pursuant to the Surplus Land Act, and in support of the determination that the City Property are Exempt Surplus Land, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The City will acquire the San Antonio Property, which are necessary for the City’s support the redevelopment of the Firestone Boulevard corridor and the Front Street commercial area which helps support the City’s ongoing efforts to combat urban blight and redevelop the area in accordance with the City’s General Plan and Firestone Boulevard Area Plan . Prior to the exchange, Developer will demolish the vacant structures on the San Antonio Property and construct a new public parking lot. In exchange, the Developer shall receive the City Property which shall be used for the development of a proposed 76- unit affordable workforce housing and market rate project (subject to approval of entitlements) that will help in activating the Front Street commercial area and further the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan . The exchange is necessary to facilitate the development of both the City Property and the San Resolution No. 23-62 Page 3 of 36
Antonio Property and eliminate the c urrent blighted and underutilized uses ; promote better, more revitalize the Front Street commercial area, support the City and the State of California’s ongoing efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing, and further the City’s General Plan goals and objectives.
The exchange will also provide additional parking along the Firestone Boulevard corridor to help support the existing and future commercial, entertainment, and recreational uses in the area. For the reasons included herein, the City finds that the San Antonio Property is necessary for the City’s use and the exchange constitutes a reasonable and equitable exchange.
B. The exchange of the City Property and San Antonio Property will support and further the objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan and Firestone Boulevard Area Plan in that:
• It will facilitate and provide additional affordable housing resources in support of the Firestone Boulevard Area Plan objective to encourage development of new housing units (Section 3.b); and
• It will enhance vehicular circulation and parking opportunities to support businesses and protect adjacent residential neighborhoods (Section C.4); and
• It will support the Firestone Boulevard Area objective of upgrading the appearance of existing dev elopments and policy of supporting and encouraging the renovation and enhancement of existing uses (Section C.7); and
• It is consistent with the circulation policy of providing adequate parking for commercial uses (Section C.7); and
• The development of affordable housing will help achieve many of the residential land use objectives of the General Plan including providing a diverse, balanced range of well -integrated housing types for all economic segments of the community (Section 4.b).
Section 4. Based on the findings include in this Resolution, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the City Property located at 12124 Firestone Boulevard in the City of Norwalk (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 8056 -015-901 and 8056-015-900) is Exempt Surplus Land pursuant to California Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(C) – as an exchange of land that is necessary for the City’s use.
Section 5
. The City Council further finds that the exchange of the City Property for the San Antonio Property is consistent with the City’s General Plan as set forth in this Resolution and hereby approves of the Exchange Agreement by and between the City and Developer attached as Exhibit A for the exchange of the City Property for the San Antonio Property, and hereby authorizes the City Manager to prepare, execute, or record Resolution No. 23-62 Page 4 of 36
(cause to be recorded) any documents required under the terms of the Exchange Agreement and such other ancillary documents, in a form approved by the City Attorney, that are reasonably necessary to consummate the Exchange Agreement and effectuate the intent of this Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and it shall go into effect immediately upon its adoption.
Section 7. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix her signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Norwalk and the City Clerk, or her appointed assistant, is directed to attest thereto.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 17th day of October 2023.
____________________________
ANA VALENCIA
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
THERESA DEVOY, CMC
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 5 of 36
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
by and between
THE CITY OF NORWALK,
a California municipal corporation
and
FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership
Dated as of _______________, 2023
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 6 of 36
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
This Exchange Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions ("Agreement") dated as of ________________, 2023 ("Effective Date "), is made and entered into by and between, THE CITY OF NORWALK , a California municipal corporation (the "City") and FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Lofts LP"). The City and Lofts LP are referred to collectively as "Parties" or individually as "Party."
RECITALS
A. City is the fee simple owner of that certain real property consisting of two (2) parcels measuring approximately 0.57 acres combined located at 12124 Firestone Blvd., City of Norwalk, County of Los Angeles, State of California having Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 8056-015-901 and 8056- 015-900 and any improvements thereon, as more particularly shown and described in Exhibit A (“City Property”) attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
B. Lofts LP is the fee simple owner of that certain real property consisting of two (2) parcels measuring approximately 0.65 acres located at 13400 San Antonio Drive, City of Norwalk, County of Los Angeles, State of California having Parcel Numbers 8056 -015-014 and 8056- 015-016 and any improvements thereon, as more particularly shown and described in Exhibit B (“Lofts LP Property”) attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The City Property and the Lofts LP Property are collectively referred to as the “Exchange Properties.”
C. In accordance with its adopted General Plan, the City desires to eliminate blight, promote the development of affordable housing, and neighborhood serving retail to meet the City’s existing and future needs and revitalize the Front Street commercial corridor.
D. In order to achieve and promote these community goals and policies, the City desires to exchange the City Property for the Lofts LP Property, which is necessary for the City’s use . The property exchange set forth in this Agreement allows for
(i) a public parking lot on the City Property to be demolished and converted into a multifamily residential building (the “ Residential Project ”), and (ii) a blighted, vacant commercial building on the Lofts LP Property to be demolished and converted into a public parking lot for residents of the new residential building and patrons of the Front Street commercial corridor.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the above Recitals are incorporated into this Agreement, and in consideration of the foregoing requirements and the covenants and promises hereinafter contained, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and Lofts LP agree as follows:
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 7 of 36
1. RecitalsThe Recitals set forth above are incorporated in this Agreement as if set forth in full.
2. The Transaction The purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate the following: (a) the City’s acquisition of title to the Lofts LP Property from Lofts LP; (b) Lofts LP’s acquisition of title to the City Property from the City; and ( c) the performance of the other obligati ons and duties of the Parties as set forth below in this Agreement (“Exchange”).
2.1 Real Property Exchange. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, City shall convey the City Property to Lofts LP, and Lofts LP shall accept the City Property. Subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, Lofts LP shall convey the Lofts LP Property to City, and City shall accept the Lofts LP Property.
No additional consideration shall be paid in connection with the Exchange under this Agreement, except as provided in Section 2.2 below.
2.2 Lofts LP’s Obligations as to Lofts LP Property. Lofts LP, at Lofts LP’s sole cost and expense, and in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, shall commence the Required Work, as defined in this Section 2.2 , in conjunction with and in accordance with the terms of the escrow instructions for the Parking Escrow, as defined in this Section 2.2. For purposes of this Agreement, the Required Work shall be deemed to have been commenced upon Lofts LP entering into a legally binding contract for the performance and timely completed of all of the Required Work. The work described in subsections (a) and (b) of this Section 2.2 collectively constitutes the “Required Work” to be performed by Lofts LP as follows:
(a) Demolition of Existing Structures . As a condition of the Exchange, Lofts LP shall, at Lofts LP’s sole cost and expense, and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations (including without limitation all state, federal, and local rules and regulations): (i) demolish and remove all existing structures and improvements located on the Lofts LP Property, (ii) dispose of all debris, materials, and excess soil, if applicable, in accordance with all applicable laws, and (iii) cap off all existing utilities.
(b) Parking Lot Construction. As a condition of the Exchange, Lofts LP shall, at Lofts LP’s sole cost and expense, and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations (including without limitation all state, federal, and local rules and regulations) design and construct a parking lot , stripping, and lighting on the Lofts LP Property and associated public improvements as shown and described in Exhibit C.
As of the Effective Date, Lofts LP and the City have established a separate escrow (the “Parking Escrow”) with Escrow Holder, as defined in Section 3 below, including a deposit of Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) by Lofts LP, to facilitate the completion of the Required Work by or on behalf of Lofts LP. The Parking Escrow funds will be held for the benefit of Lofts LP solely to complete the Required Work. Any interest earned on the Parking Escrow funds will accrue for the benefit of Lofts LP and to help
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 8 of 36
offset the escrow fee for the Parking Escrow. The Parking Escrow funds will be held until the earlier of, (a) commencement of the construction of the Required Work, or (b) the City authorizes the release of the funds in writing. Upon commencement of construction, Lofts LP shall be permitted to cause the release of the Parking Escrow funds back to Lofts LP or its designee (as progress payments for the Required Work until all funds have been expended for such purpose or the Required Work has been completed) upon written notice to the Escrow Holder. Lofts LP shall commence construction of the Required Work on or before eighteen (18) months following the closing of the Exchange Escrow (subject to, (a) force majeure or the acts of the City which delay the Required Work, and (b) the issuance of permits by the City for construction of the Required Work). The City shall have no responsibility for payment of any costs associated with the Required Work.
2.3 Entitlements for the Residential Project and Required Work. The City shall diligently process the issuance of all entitlements and permits submitted by Lofts LP as necessary to complete the Residential Project and the Required Work.
3. Escrow and Joint Escrow Instructions The escrow (the " Escrow") for the Exchange transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be established by Stewart Title Guaranty Company ("Escrow Holder") whose address 525 N. Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203, Attn: Andrea Mendoza for the delivery of the documents in accordance with the terms of this Agreement . The Escrow will be opened no later than ten (10) business days following the expiration of the appeal period in connection with the approval of the entitlements for the Residential Project and the Required Work. The Parties hereby agree to execute such additional instructions provided by Escrow consistent with this Agreement as may be reasonably required by Escrow Holder in order to perform its obligations as Escrow Holder hereunder and such other instructions as the parties agree or as required by the Parking Escrow.
4. Closing Date Escrow shall close (“Close of Escrow ”) (i) within ten (10) business days after the Parties send written notice to the other and Escrow Holder that each respective party has fully and timely complied with all conditions to closing as set forth in Section 7 (“City Conditions to Closing”) and Section 8 (“Lofts LP Conditions to Closing”) have been satisfied (or waived in writing by the appropriate Party) and when Escrow Holder has verified successful recording with the County Recorder for Los Angeles County of the Lofts LP Property Grant Deed and the City Property Grant Deed (defined in Section 5 below and collectively referred to as the “ Grant Deeds”); or (ii) on such earlier (or later) date as is agreed to by the Parties (“Closing Date”).
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 9 of 36
5. Delivery of DocumentsNo later than three (3) business days before the Closing Date , the Parties shall execute and deliver to Escrow all of the following documents reasonably necessary to perfect the conveyance of the Exchange Properties (“Transfer Documents”):
5.1 Delivery of Lofts LP Transfer DocumentsOne (1) original of a full reconveyance, duly executed by the trustee and notarized, under deed of t rust dated , made by Lofts LP, as trustor, and recorded as Instrument No. on in the Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California for the Lofts LP Property , to be recorded immediately prior to the Exchange.
(a) One (1) original of a grant deed, duly executed by Lofts LP and notarized, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, conveying the Lofts LP Property to the City , subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions , as defined in Section 6 below (“Lofts LP Property Grant Deed”).
(b) One (1) completed and executed (by Lofts LP as transferee of the Lofts LP Property) original of the Preliminary Change of Ownership Report in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F-1.
(c) One (1) completed and executed (by Lofts LP as transferor of the Lofts LP Property) original of the FIRPTA certificate in the form attached hereto as Exhibit G – 1.
(d) One (1) deed of trust , duly executed by Lofts LP and notarized, in favor of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (“LISC”), as beneficiary, to be recorded immediately following the Exchange, securing the City Property. (e) Such additional documents reasonably required by Escrow to consummate the Exchange, provided that any such request for such additional documents shall be made to Lofts LP in writing no later than three (3) business days prior to the Closing Date.
5.2 Delivery of City Transfer DocumentsOne (1) original of a grant deed, duly executed by the City and notarized, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, conveying the City Property to Lofts LP (“City Property Grant Deed”). (b) One (1) completed and executed (by City as transferee of the City Property) original of the Preliminary Change of Ownership Report in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F-2.
(c) One (1) completed and executed (by City as transferor of the City Property) origi nal of the FIRPTA certificate in the form attached hereto as Exhibit G – 2.
(d) Such additional documents reasonably required by Escrow to consummate the Exchange, provided that any such request for such additional
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 10 of 36
documents shall be made to City in writing no later than three (3) business days prior to the Closing Date.
5.3 Costs of Transfer Documents; Mutual Cooperation. The Parties shall each pay half the costs associated with filing, recording and otherwise finalizing the Transfer Documents . The Parties agree to cooperate with and assist each other as necessary in obtaining approvals and signatures required to finalize the Transfer Documents.
6. Conditions of TitlePromptly after the Effective Date, the Parties shall apply for title insurance commitment s (the “ Commitments”) for an Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance (the “ Title Policy”), issued by the Title Company and covering each of the Exchange Properties . The Exchange Properties shall be conveyed with c lear and marketable title subject only to the fol lowing exceptions (collectively “ Permitted Title Exceptions”): (a) grant deeds and all reservations thereunder, as applicable; (b) all liens for any applicable non-delinquent real property taxes and assessments; (c) all covenants, conditions, restrictions, encroachments, reservations, easements, rights, and rights -of- way that are apparent from visual inspection of the Exchange Properties; (d) any items and exceptions created by or with the written consent of both Parties, including documents to be recorded pursuant to this Agreement; and ( e) those title exceptions shown on the following Preliminary Title Reports for the Exchange Properties, as applicable: (i) for the City Property, Schedule B of the Preliminary Title Report issued by Stewart Title Guaranty Company (“Title Company”), dated _____________, 2023 (Title Order No.___________), attached hereto as Exhibit H – 1, and (ii) for the Lofts LP Property, Schedule B of the Preliminary Title Report issued by Title Company, dated _________________, 2023 (Title Order No. ________), attached hereto as Exhibit H –
2. 7. City Condition s to Closing The following shall constitute the conditions precedent to the City’s obligation to convey title to the City Property to Lofts LP (collectively, the "City Conditions"), each of which must be satisfied prior to the Closing Date:
7.1 PerformanceLofts LP shall have timely performed its duties and obligations under this Agreement required to be performed on or before the Closing Date.
7.2 Delivery of Documents . Lofts LP shall have timely deposited or caused to be deposited the Lofts LP Transfer Documents into Escrow (and Escrow Holder has recorded the Lofts LP Property Grant Deed).7.3 Required Work . Lofts LP shall have established the Parking Escrow for the Required Work on terms acceptable to the City.
7.4 Title Policy. Title Company is prepared to issue an Owner’s policy of title insurance to City for the Lofts LP Property subject only to the Permitted Exceptions.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 11 of 36
7.5 Representations and Warranties . All of the representations and warranties made by the Lofts LP in Section 10 of this Agreement or in any document, instrument or certificate that shall be delivered by the Lofts LP to City under this Agreement shall be true and correct as of the Closing Date.
7.6 Approval or Waiver of Conditions. In the event of failure of any of the City Conditions noted above, at the City' sole discretion at the time of such failure by written notice to Lofts LP and Escrow Holder, the City may elect to cancel the Escrow or waive the condition by taking no action and proceeding to Closing.
8. Lofts LP Conditions to ClosingThe following shall constitute the conditions precedent to Lofts LP ’s obligation to convey title to the Lofts LP Property to City (collectively, the " Lofts LP Conditions"), each of which must be satisfied prior to the Closing Date:
8.1 Performance. The City shall have timely performed its duties and obligations under this Agreement required to be performed on or before the Closing Date.
8.2 Delivery of Documents. City shall have timely deposited or caused to be deposited the City Transfer Documents into Escrow ( and Escrow Holder has recorded the City Property Grant Deed).
8.3 Title Policy. Title Company is prepared to issue an Owner’s policy of title insurance to Lofts LP for the City Property subject only to the Permitted Exceptions.
8.4 Release of LISC Funds. LISC shall have agreed in writing to release a second tranche of loan proceeds under its existing loan to Lofts LP immediately following the Exchange.
8.5 Representations and Warranties . All of the representations and warranties made by the City in Section 9 of this Agreement or in any document, instrument or certificate that shall be delivered by the City to Lofts LP under this Agreement shall be true and correct as of the Closing Date.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 12 of 36
8.6 Approval or Waiver of Conditions. In the event of failure of any of the Lofts LP Conditions noted above, at Lofts LP's sole discretion at the time of such failure by written notice to the City and Escrow Holder, Lofts LP may elect to cancel the Escrow or waive the condition by taking no action and proceeding to Closing.
9. The City 's Representations and Warranties The City makes the following representations, warranties and covenants to Lofts LP the survival of which are governed by Section 9.11, below:
9.1 Due Organization. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of the State of California, and is qualified to do and is doing business in the State of California.
9.2 Municipal Power and Authority . Subject to satisfying all City Requirements as defined in Section 9.4 below, the City has the right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder, and the persons(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the City have the right, power and authority to do so.
9.3 Enforceability. Subject to satisfying all City Requirements , this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of the City enforceable against the City in accordance with its terms. Neither this Agreement nor the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated hereby violates or shall violate any provisions of any agreement or document to which the City is a party or to which the City is bound.
9.4 City Requirements. The City's existence and operations within the State of California subject it to characterization as a public municipal corporation obligated to comply with local, state and federal laws, including the rules, regulations and requirements of securing appropriate approvals and undertaking as applicable, any public hearings prior to entering into certain types of agreements with private parties and the disposition and receipt real property interests, including but not limited to securing City Council approval of this Agreement and compliance with the California Surplus Land Act (collectively, the "City Requirements"). The City has fully analyzed the Exchange and has taken any pre- Closing actions necessary to ensure that City Requirements are satisfied. To the extent any City Requirements associated with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement apply post-Closing, the City shall fulfill any and all such obligations.
9.5 Title. The City hold fee title of the City Property and has good and marketable title subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions and otherwise has not alienated, encumbered, transferred, optioned, leased, assigned, or otherwise conveyed its interests or any portion of its interest in the City Property.
9.6 Mining Claims . City has no knowledge of any mining claims, patented or unpatented in existence that are superior to, conflict with, and/or diminish the value of the City Property.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 13 of 36
9.7 Solvency. The City is not involved with or subject to any insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings such that the Exchange c ould be subject to a challenge on this basis or otherwise deemed a preferential transfer or fraudulent conveyance.
9.8 Assessments. Any applicable taxes, penalties, and assessments by any levying authority associated with ownership of the City Property are paid whether in the public record or not; and will be current at Closing.
9.9 Litigation. There are no proceedings by any public or private agency, entity or individual, nor to the City's knowledge has any claim been threatened against or received by the City and the City has no knowledge of any such threat or challenge that may adversely affect its ability to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby.
9.10 No Untrue Statements or Omissions . Neither this Agreement nor any of the Exhibits hereto, nor any document, cer tificate, or statement referred to herein or furnished by the City to Lofts LP in connection with the Exchange contains any untrue statement of material fact or omits to state a material fact in any way concerning the City Property.
9.11 Survival of the City Representations and Warranties . The representations, warranties and covenants made by the City in this Section 9 are made as of the Effective Date and shall survive the Closing for a period of one (1) year and shall not merge into any instrument or conveyance delivered at the Close of Escrow . Each representation, warranty and covenant of the City that is to survive the Closing shall be deemed remade as of the Closing Date.
10. Lofts LP's Representations and Warranties Lofts LP makes the following representations, warranties and covenants to the City the survival of which are governed by Section 10.10, below:
10.1 Due Organization. Lofts LP is a duly organized Delaware limited partnership, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and qualified to do business and in good standing under the laws of the State of California.
10.2 Corporate Power and Authority . Subject to obtaining the requisite partner approvals of Lofts LP, Lofts LP has the right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder, and the persons(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of Lofts LP have the right, power and authority to do so.
10.3 Title. Lofts LP holds fee title of the Lofts LP Property and has good and marketable title thereto subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions and otherwise has not alienated, encumbered, transferred, optioned, leased, assigned, or otherwise conveyed its interests or any portion of its interest in the Lofts LP Property.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 14 of 36
10.4 Mining Claims. Lofts LP has no knowledge of any mining claims, patented or unpatented in existence that are superior to, conflict with, and/or diminish the value of the Lofts LP Property.
10.5 Assessments. Any applicable taxes, penalties, and assessments by any levying authority associated with ownership of the Lofts LP Property are paid whether in the public record or not; and will be current at Closing.
10.6 Enforceability. Subject to obtaining the requisite partner approvals of Lofts LP, this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of Lofts LP enforceable against Lofts LP in accordance with its terms. Neither this Agreement nor the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated hereby violates or shall violate any provisions of any agreement or document to which Lofts LP is a party or to which Lofts LP is bound.
10.7 Solvency. Lofts LP is not involved with or subject to any insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings such that conveying the Lofts LP Property could be subject to a challenge on this basis or otherwise deemed a preferential transfer or fraudulent conveyance.
10.8 Litigation. There are no proceedings by any public or private agency, entity or individual, nor to Lofts LP 's knowledge has any claim been threatened against or received by Lofts LP and Lofts LP has no knowledge of any such threat or challenge that may adversely affect its ability to consummate the Exchange.
10.9 No Untrue Statements or Omissions . Neither this Agreement nor any of the Exhibits hereto, nor any document, certificate, or statement referred to herein or furnished by Lofts LP to the City in connection with the Exchange contains any untrue statement of material fact or omits to state a material fact in any way concerning the Lofts LP Property.
10.10 Survival of Lofts LP Representations and Warranties . The representations, warranties and covenants made by Lofts LP in this Section 10 are made as of the Effective Date and shall survive the Closing for a period of one (1) year and shall not merge into any instrument or conveyance delivered at the Close of Escrow . Each representation, warranty and covenant of Lofts LP that is to survive the Closing shall be deemed remade as of the Closing Date.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 15 of 36
11. Mutual Indemnification.
11.1 By the City. The City hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Lofts LP and its partners, officers, directors, trustees, employees, agents, affiliates, successors and assigns free and harmless from and against any and all third -party claims, demands, losses, obligations, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, whether or not any action is filed or prosecuted) arising from or relating to the City's ownership of the City Property or this Agreement prior to Closing.
11.2 By Lofts LP. Lofts LP hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, directors, trustees, employees, agents, successors and assigns free and harmless from and against any and all third -party claims, demands, losses, obligations, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and court costs, whether or not any action is filed or prosecuted) arising from or relating to Lofts LP’s ownership of the Lofts LP Property or this Agreement prior to the Closing.
11.3 Survival. Subject to the provisions of Sections 9.11 and 10.10 of this Agreement, this Section 11 shall survive the Closing.
12. Deliveries and Actions at or Before Closing.
12.1 By the City. On or before the Closing Date or according to the timing otherwise specifically provided for in this A greement, the City shall deliver to Escrow Holder for use in processing the Exchange contemplated by this Agreement:
(a) all City Transfer Documents required to be signed and/or provided by the City pursuant to Section 5.2;
(b) a copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City, duly certified by the City's secretary, authorizing the City's execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement;
(c) recording and other costs associated with the City Transfer Documents; and
(e) any applicable recording fees with respect to the recordation of the Lofts LP Property Grant Deed.
12.2 By Lofts LP . On or before the Closing Date, or according to the timing otherwise specifically provided for in this A greement, Lofts LP shall deliver to Escrow Holder for use in processing the Exchange contemplated by this Agreement:
(a) all required Lofts LP Transfer Documents required to be signed and/or provided by Lofts LP pursuant to Section 5.1;
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 16 of 36
(b) a copy of a corporate resolution, duly certified by Lofts LP 's general partner, authorizing Lofts LP's execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement;
(c) recording and other costs associated with the Lofts LP Transfer Documents;
(d) except for costs associated with the Lofts LP Transfer Documents, one hundred percent (100%) of all fees and expenses in connection with the Close of Escrow under this Agreement and Exchange; and
(e) all Title Policy charges for t he City Property and Lofts LP Property.
12.3 By the Escrow Holder. Escrow Holder shall do the following:
(a) Thirty (30) days prior to the Closing, contact the County Recorder for Los Angeles County , to ascertain the amount of: (i) any current or past due taxes, penalties or assessments to be paid on the Exchange Properties so that such maybe be pro-rated and current at the Closing Date; and (ii) any fees or costs needed to perfect the City and Lofts LP Transfer Documents. After Escrow Holder secures such information, the Parties shall receive written notice of same to allow for the proper amount of funds to be deposited with Escrow according to each Party's obligations under this Section 12 no later than five (5) business before the Close of Escrow. (b) At Closing, record the Grant Deeds and provide written notice to the Parties that the Grant Deeds are recorded in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and transmit certified copies of the Grant Deeds to the Parties.
13. MiscellaneousAttorneys' Fees . In the event of any action between the Parties for enforcement or interpretation of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and expenses, including, without limitation, court costs , attorneys' fees and expert witness fees actually incurred, as awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction.
13.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the documents described and referred to herein, contains all of the agreements of the Parties with regard to the transactions contemplated herein, and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings and negotiations, whether written or oral.
13.3 Amendment. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing, duly executed by both Parties.
13.4 Counterparts; Facsimile Execution. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of whic h shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall be deemed to be one and the same document. Each Party agrees that each other Party may rely upon the facsimile
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 17 of 36
signature of any Party on this Agreement as constituting a duly author ized, irrevocable, actual, current delivery of this Agreement as fully as if this Agreement contained the original ink signature of the Party supplying a facsimile signature.
13.5 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any choice- of-law or conflicts -of-laws rule or principle. The Parties and Escrow Holder agree that all legal actions (including, without limitation, proceedings at law or in equity) arising out of this Agreement shall be commenced and maintained exclusively in the Los Angeles County Superior Court or any other appropriate court in Los Angeles County, California, or in the United States City Court for the Central City of California. The Parties and Escrow Holder hereby agree to submit to the jurisdiction of any and all such courts and further agree that venue shall be proper only in such courts.
13.6 Headings. The paragraph headings and captions in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not limit or define the contents of this Agreement.
13.7 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement, it being understood that the time for performance of each obligation, including, without limitation, the Closing, has been the subject of negotiation by the P arties.
Unless business days are expressly provided for, all references to "days" herein shall refer to consecutive calendar days. If any date or time period provided for in this Agreement is or ends on a Saturday, Sunday or federal, state or legal U.S. holiday, then such date automatically shall be extended to the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or federal, state or legal U.S. holiday.
13.8 Further Assurances . From time to time prior to and following the Closing, each P arty shall, if requested by the other Party, make, execute and deliver to such other Party any such additional deeds, assignments, and other instruments, documents and agreements as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to confirm the transfer to such other Party of all right, title and interest in and to the water rights transferred to such other Party pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, including any necessary consents to any such instruments and agreements by third parties.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 18 of 36
13.9 Notices. All notices, approvals, disapprovals or elections required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally, delivered by courier or mailed, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the intended recipient at the following addresses:
If to the City:
City of Norwalk
12700 Norwalk Blvd.
Norwalk, California 90650
Fax: (562) 929-5773
Attn: City Manager
with a copy to:
Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, Esq.
City Attorney
13181 Crossroads Parkway North
Suite 400, West Tower
City of Industry, CA 91746
Fax: (562) 692-2244
If to Lofts LP:
Firestone Lofts, LP
9950 Jefferson Boulevard, Building 2
Culver City, California 90232
Attn: Arturo Sneider
Dalila Sotelo
with a copy to:
Robert P. Friedman, Esq.
Carlton Fields, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90067
Personally and courier delivered notices shall be deemed given upon actual personal delivery to the designated address of the intended recipient. Mailed notices shall be deemed given upon the date of actual receipt as evidenced by the return receipt. Notices may also be sent by facsimile, which shall be deemed delivered upon actual receipt (except if a facsimile is sent on a non-business day or after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, in which case the facsimile shall be deemed delivered on the next business day), and written confirmation generated by the sender's equipment shall be prima facie evidence of delivery. Any address for notice may be changed from time to time by written notice to the other Party and Escrow Holder in accordance with this Section.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 19 of 36
13.10 Liberal Construction. This Agreement constitutes a fully -negotiated agreement among commercially sophisticated Parties, each assisted by legal counsel, and the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed or interpreted for or against any Party hereto because that Party or its legal representative drafted or prepared such provision.
13.11 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed to be severed or deleted from this Agreement and the balance of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect notwithstanding such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability.
13.12 No Third Party Benefited. This Agreement is not intended nor shall it be construed to create any third-party beneficiary rights in any person or entity, unless expressly provided herein.
13.13 Exhibits. All Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of this Agreement.
13.14 Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the performances required by the provisions of this Agreement shall be undertaken in good faith, and with each of the Parties dealing fairly with each other.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 20 of 36
13.15 Number and Gender . As used herein, and as the circumstances require, the plural term shall include the singular, the singular shall include the plural, the neuter term shall include the masculine and feminine genders, the masculine term shall include the neuter and the feminine genders, and the feminine term shall include the neuter and the masculine genders.
13.16 No Brokers. Neither the Contributor nor any of its respective officers, directors or employees has employed or made any agreement with any broker, finder or similar agent or any person or firm which will result in the obligation of either Party to pay any finder's fee, brokerage fees or commissions or similar payment in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. If any broker or finder makes a claim for a commission or finder's fee based upon a contact, dealings, or communications, the Party through whom the broker or finder makes his claim shall i ndemnify the other Party and hold the indemnified Party harmless from all expense, loss, damage and claims, including the indemnified Party's attorneys' fees, if necessary, arising out of the broker's or finder's claim.
[NO FURTHER TEXT ON THIS PAGE]
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 21 of 36
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the City and Lofts LP have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the Effective Date.
"LOFTS LP"
FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership
By:____________________________
Name:_________________________
Its:____________________________
"CITY"
CITY OF NORWALK,
a California municipal corporation
By:
Jesus Gomez, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
Theresa Devoy, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 22 of 36
ACCEPTANCE OF JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
The undersigned, as Escrow Holder in connection with the Exchange and hereby acknowledges the terms and conditions of the joint escrow instructions set forth in the Agreement attached thereto, and agrees to perform its obligations in connection therewith.
Dated as of ________________, 2023.
Stewart Title Guaranty Company
By:
Name:
Title:
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 23 of 36
EXHIBIT A
To the Exchange Agreement
Legal Description of City Property
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 24 of 36
EXHIBIT B
To the Exchange Agreement
Legal Description of Lofts LP Property
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 25 of 36
EXHIBIT C
To the Exchange Agreement
New Parking Lot Plans and Specifications
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 26 of 36
EXHIBIT D
To the Exchange Agreement
FREE RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Norwalk
12700 Norwalk Blvd.,
Norwalk, California 90660
Attn: City Clerk
APN(s): 8056-015-014; 8056-015-016
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEE PER GOV. CODE §
27383
GRANT DEED
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR declares:
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX is $ ______________. CITY TAX $ ________________.
Computed on full value of property conveyed, or
Computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, Unincorporated area City of
____________________________________________, and
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP , a Delaware limited partnership (“Grantor”), hereby grants to the CITY OF NORWALK, a California municipal corporation (“Grantee”), that certain real property as more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”) all of its respective rights, title, and interest of Grantor.
[Signature on the following page]
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 27 of 36
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Grant Deed on this ___ day of _________________, 2023 in Los Angeles, California.
FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership
By: _________________________________
Name: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________
[Signature to be notarized]
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 28 of 36
Exhibit A
To Lofts LP Property Grant Deed
Legal Description
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 29 of 36
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed dated _____________ 2023 from Firestone Lofts, LP to the City of Norwalk (“City”) is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City pursuant to authority conferred by City Council Resolution No. 2023-___ adopted on _____________, 2023. City hereby consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated: _______________, 2021 GRANTEE:
CITY OF NORWALK,
a California municipal corporation
By:
________________________________
Jesus Gomez, City Manager
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Theresa Devoy, CMC
City Clerk
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 30 of 36
EXHIBIT E
To the Exchange Agreement
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Firestone Lofts, LP
9950 Jefferson Boulevard, Building 2
Culver City, California 90232
Attn: Arturo Sneider
APN(s): 8056-015-900; 8056-015-901; 8056-015-
020
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEE PER GOV. CODE §
27383
GRANT DEED
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR declares:
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX is $ ______________. CITY TAX $ ________________.
Computed on full value of property conveyed, or
Computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, Unincorporated area City of
____________________________________________, and
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the recei pt of which is hereby acknowledged, the CITY OF NORWALK, California municipal corporation (“Grantor”), hereby grants to FIRESTONE LOFTS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Grantee”), that certain real property as more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”) all of its respective rights, title, and interest of Grantor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Grant Deed on this ___ day of _________________, 2023 in Norwalk, California.
CITY OF NORWALK,
a California municipal corporation
By:
Jesus Gomez, City Manager
[Signature to be notarized]
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 31 of 36
EXHIBIT F – 1
To the Exchange Agreement
Preliminary Change of Ownership Report
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 32 of 36
EXHIBIT F – 2
To the Exchange Agreement
Preliminary Change of Ownership Report
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 33 of 36
EXHIBIT G – 1
To the Exchange Agreement
FIRPTA Certificate
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 34 of 36
EXHIBIT G – 2
To the Exchange Agreement
FIRPTA Certificate
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 35 of 36
EXHIBIT H – 1
To the Exchange Agreement
Schedule B - Preliminary Title Report for City Property
Resolution No. 23-62 Page 36 of 36
EXHIBIT H – 2
To the Exchange Agreement
Schedule B - Preliminary Title Report for Lofts LP Property
City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Theresa Devoy, City Clerk
SUBJECT: ART IN PUBLIC PLACES RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PROPOSED
ART AT THE NORWALK FITNESS VILLAGE
Background:
As you know, the City has an Art in Public Places Program (program) which is funded through contributions from owners/developers of commercial or residential property when projects are valued at $500,000 or greater. Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) Section 15.44.030 sets forth that the requirement may be met either by installing artwork in a public place or in the vicinity of the project site as approved by City Council pursuant to Chapter 15.44 or by making a contribution to the Art in Public Places (APP) fund. Whichever option is selected, the value must be equal to the in-lieu contribution of 1% of the total project cost.
While the Norwalk Fitness Village was being constructed, an agreement was made between the City and the developer that allowed deferment of their requirement. They are now ready to begin the plaza area where artwork will be installed, and therefore, Joe Leyva, Project Manager, submitted artwork for consideration by the APP Committee to meet the requirement of either installing artwork or contributing to the APP fund. According to the requirement for this site, the total cost of the artwork shall be equal to or greater than $84,166. Mr. Leyva has indicated that the artwork including installation has a cost of approximately $128,000, which exceeds the required contribution amount.
The proposed artwork consists of custom designed and built screening that will divide the plaza from the drive-through lane for Panera Bread and six five-foot custom-designed functional artwork benches that will complement the screening. Exhibits A and B provide a view of the designed pieces and information about the designs from the artist, James Naish. The artwork design concept falls within the approved APP theme of Nature. The benches will be permanently affixed to the plaza as is required by NMC 15.44.070 F. Maintenance of the art pieces will be the responsibility of the owner and the pieces will also be insured for the value in the event that any of the pieces are damaged and require replacement or repair.
City Council October 17, 2023
Norwalk Fitness Village Proposed Artwork Page No. 2
6 1
9 The APP Committee met September 26, to review the artwork and unanimously voted to recommend that City Council approve the final design as shown in the exhibits. If approved, Mr. Leyva will proceed with submitting revised plans to Community Development for the entire plaza design. Mr. Leyva anticipates that the plan check will take approximately two to three months and fabrication one to two months, so the artwork should be installed by Spring 2024.
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Citizens Advised:
N/A
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
N/A
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council accept the Art in Public Places recommendation and approve the artwork proposed for the Norwalk Fitness Village center as shown in the exhibits.
Attachments:
Exhibits A & B
EXHIBIT A
Large decorative screen that will be approximately 22’ in overall length and 8’ high. The screen will consist of five panels held together with six posts. The screen depicts a diverse collection of leaves swirling in the air and falling to the ground. The leaves include sycamore, fig, avocado, sage, oak, ginkgo, cottonwood, bird of paradise, jacaranda, and various others. Some of the leaves will be rendered in brass and copper.
These leaves will provide color and will reflect the sunlight. They will also help guide the eye across the composition. Overall, the leaves can be seen as a representation of the diverse flora and communities of Southern California and Norwalk. The screen also depicts reeds and grass, abstracted topographical lines, and abstracted clouds.
EXHIBIT B
The benches will reference the screen by using some the same elements: reeds, grass, and leaves. The benches will also include a few insects like butterflies and dragonflies- to draw the viewer in and provide amusing details. Together, the screen and benches will work in unison to create a cohesive and artistically coherent space.
City Council Agenda Report
October 17, 2023
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: John P. Ramirez, AICP, Director of Community Development Sandra Duran, Senior Management Analyst
Yvonne Aguilar, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: ADOPT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES PLAN UPDATE Background:
On October 2, 2018, City Council adopted the City’s Economic Development Opportunities Plan (Plan). The purpose of the Plan is to evaluate existing demographic information and retail market conditions, identify and prioritize strategic areas to successfully promote economic development within the City. On December 6, 2022, City Council awarded a contract to Kosmont Companies (Kosmont) for economic development consulting services and directed staff to update the 2018 Plan due to the changing economy as a result of the pandemic. If City Council adopts the Plan Update, staff will continue to work with potential developers and private investors to solicit interest and facilitate projects for the priority areas (Economic Nodes). Economic Nodes are defined by strategic areas across the City comprised of corridors, existing and proposed development projects, and specific sites with development/redevelopment opportunities. Since adoption of the Plan in 2018, staff has utilized the information to prioritize continuous efforts to retain and expand businesses as well as redevelop the areas within the Economic Nodes.
City Council adopted the City’s Strategic Plan 2023-2025 (Strategic Plan) on June 6, 2023, establishing economic development as a focus area. The Strategic Plan identifies building great public destinations as one of its objectives, and the importance of completing the Norwalk Transit Village Specific Plan, completing the 15-acre expansion of Holifield Park, and implementing the Norwalk Entertainment District Specific Plan. All of these efforts are part of the Plan update, will help increase future revenues, and help sustain City services and programming.
A preliminary draft of the Economic Development Opportunities Plan Update was presented to City Council by Kosmont on May 16, 2023. As part of the outreach efforts prior to Plan adoption, City staff presented at various stakeholder meetings, answered questions and concerns, and
City Council October 17, 2023
Adopt Economic Development Opportunities Plan Page No. 2 6 2
2 received feedback. Between the months of May through September 2023 presentations were given at the following meetings:
Outreach Meeting Dates: Stakeholders:
May 25, 2023 Community Development Planning Staff June 27, 2023 Little Lake City School District Board July 10, 2023 Community Promotion Commission July 12, 2023 Senior Citizens Commission July 13, 2023 Parks and Recreation Commission July 19, 2023 Norwalk Chamber Board and Members July 19, 2023 Cerritos College Executive Council July 20, 2023 Clergy Council July 25, 2023 City Hall Staff July 25, 2023 Art in Public Places Committee July 26, 2023 Norwalk Transit and Public Services Staff July 31, 2023 Historical Heritage Commission August 3, 2023 Social Services Commission August 7, 2023 Public Safety Commission August 14, 2023 Norwalk La Mirada Unified School District Board September 13, 2023 Norwalk Women’s Club September 13, 2023 Planning Commission Fiscal Impact: N/A
Citizens Advised:
The Plan was presented to business and community partners.
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
The recommended action will further the City’s Strategic Plan Goal 3: Create and sustain a resilient and economically prosperous City.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council adopt the Economic Development Opportunities Plan Update.
Attachments:
1. Economic Development Opportunities Plan Update
2. List of feedback received for the Plan from the 2023 presentations 2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com
CITY OF NORWALK
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES PLAN
UPDATE
MAY 2023
Attachment No. 1
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 2
INTRODUCTION
The City of Norwalk (“City”) originally retained Kosmont Companies (“Kosmont”) in March 2018 to develop an Economic Development Opportunities Plan (“EDOP”) which highlighted demographic and market information and identified key economic development nodes for future development. The EDOP was adopted by the Norwalk City Council on October 2, 2018.
The City is interested in updating the EDOP (“EDOP Update”) to reflect demographic changes, land use trends, and major development that is occurring throughout the City (e.g., Norwalk Entertainment District, Norwalk Transit Village). Current and historic data is used to evaluate opportunities, constraints, and demand for various land use typologies in Norwalk (e.g., multifamily residential, hospitality, retail, office, industrial/flex space). The EDOP Update revisits the 10 economic nodes previously identified and determines, with cooperation from City staff, if older nodes should be removed or have their boundaries revised and if new nodes should take priority. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT”) analysis is conducted to evaluate development potential of the economic nodes and highlights progress made from 2018 EDOP.
Kosmont will collaborate with City staff and Council and present a draft of the analyses and solicit comments from key stakeholders (businesses and community partners) at a series of public outreach meetings. Findings from these meetings will be summarized in the EDOP Update. Drawing on information found in the analytical portion of the EDOP Update and reviewing strategies outlined in the 2021 Strategic Plan, Kosmont will provide a roadmap of next steps, economic development tools, and funding mechanisms / development incentives for the key economic nodes.
To date, Kosmont has completed updating the economic and demographic profile for the City, market demand analysis, SWOT of key economic development nodes, along with highlighting economic development tools. Kosmont is now presenting the draft EDOP Update to City Council. Following City Council feedback, Kosmont in collaboration with City staff will attend the ICSC conference in Vegas, review the 2021 Strategic Plan, conduct stakeholder meetings, and focus on economic development tools (e.g., tax increment financing district) and implementation strategies. Kosmont will finalize the EDOP Update and present to City Council for consideration of adoption this year.
Disclaimer: The analyses, projections, assumptions, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, legislation and administrative actions.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary Page 4
1. EDOP Nodes and SWOT Analysis Page 13
2. Economic Development Tools Page 39
Appendix Page 62
A. Economic and Demographic Profile Page 63
1. City Revenue Information Page 64
2. Population & Household Demographics Page 70
3. Unemployment & Employment by Industry Page 83
4. Visitation Trends Page 93
B. Market Demand Analysis Page 100
1. Market Trends Page 102
2. Retail Market Page 112
3. Office Market Page 123
4. Industrial / Flex Market Page 129
5. Multifamily Residential Market Page 135
6. Hospitality (Hotel) Market Page 142
C. Public Outreach Page 148
D. Supporting Information Page 150
1. City Boundaries & EDOP Nodes Map Page 151
2. Econ. Devt. Tools Case Studies Page 153
3. Housing Legislation Table Page 156
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
City Revenue Information
Historically, Norwalk receives 42% of its tax revenue from property taxes and 25% from sales tax
Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”) is about 4% of Norwalk’s historical tax revenues. Comparatively, TOT is 8% of tax revenues for California cities.
TOT could be an area of potential revenue growth for the City City is not relatively overexposed to sales or hotel tax risk Sales tax revenues in Norwalk have grown by 30% between 2016 and 2021 (5.4% per year). Over the same period, sales tax revenue from Norwalk to the County Pool has doubled
County Pool revenues have grown significantly due to rise in e-commerce sales, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic (43.5% increase from 2019 to 2020)
While the pandemic caused a decline in overall sales tax revenue, the City recovered quickly and sales tax revenues in 2021 exceeded 2019 (pre- COVID) revenues by over $900K
Population and Household Demographics
8% population decline from 2017 to 2022 and slight decline in number of households in Norwalk. Current population is ~100,900 residents and ~27,700 households. Similar reduction in population can be observed in the population within a 5-mile radius of Imperial Hwy. and Norwalk Blvd. Average household size in the City decreased in last five years from 3.87 to
3.61, but remains much higher compared to County and State Median age grew across geographies, but Norwalk (34.3) remains slightly younger than County and State. 51% of Norwalk residents are under 35 Norwalk is a more affordable City (21% lower than County); 62% owner- occupied units, 35% renter occupied
Education levels are correlated with incomes. Educational attainment in Norwalk is lower compared to County and State. The average household income in Norwalk is 18% lower and 24% lower than County and State, respectively. However, number of households in Norwalk earning over $100,000 annually increased by 65% in last five years
Residents spend $674 million per year on key retail goods and services (groceries, restaurants, gasoline, vehicle payments, and apparel) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE (CONT’D)
Employment
Unemployment in the City increased by 200% in 2020, due to COVID-19 pandemic. Since year-end 2020, unemployment has decreased and reached pre-pandemic levels in November 2022
More residents leave the City for work than those that come into Norwalk for work, yielding a net outflow of jobs. Residents go to Los Angeles, Santa Fe Springs, Long Beach, Anaheim, and Cerritos for work Employees who work in the City are employed in the following industries:
health care and social assistance, educational services, retail trade, admin. and support, and wholesale trade and are coming from Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim, Downey, and La Mirada
Jobs/Housing ratio for Norwalk is 0.84, smaller than County and State (1.26 and 1.21, respectively), indicating possible need for more jobs in the City
Visitation Trends
The COVID-19 pandemic saw a decline in visits to the City. Average weekly visits declined by 30% and 19% for visitors and employees in 2020, respectively
Average weekly visits to the City by visitors increased by 23% in 2021 and by another 4% in 2022. It took a year and five months for the number of visits among visitors to the City to return to pre-pandemic levels Average weekly visits to the City by employees continued to decline in 2021 by 2%, suggesting further closures and employees working from home. However, in 2022, the average weekly visits by employees increased by 28%. It took approximately one year and ten months for the average weekly visits among employees to reach pre-pandemic levels Norwalk is a local draw among both visitors and employees. 69% of visitors to the City and 83% of the City’s employees come from less than 7 miles away
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS
Market Trends
Retail: Retail store closures, bankruptcies, and e-commerce has changed economics of retail centers; Retail centers are being reimagined into mixed/blended use developments; Retail is driven by trip-generators like entertainment, experience, and essential
Office: Leasing activity has declined as remote work becomes new normal; shift to suburban offices and integrating office amenities in blended use environments
Industrial: E-commerce is accelerating growth of industrial; Significant demand for fulfillment, last-mile, flex / R&D, and warehouse facilities Residential: Home have become live, play, and work environments; Home offices are the new home amenity as single and multifamily housing projects are designed to accommodate work space
Hospitality: The hospitality sector (including conventions and tourism) was hurt significantly by the COVID-19 pandemic; Leisure travel is showing signs of rebounding
Market Demand Analysis
Kosmont observed the market demand for retail, office, industrial (including flex space), residential (multifamily) and hospitality (hotel) uses in the City
Existing supply conditions from the most recent available quarter (Q4 2022) were observed in the City, a five-mile radius from Pioneer Blvd. and Rosecrans Ave. (“five-mile radius”), and Los Angeles County Retail:
➢ Limited demand for retail space given e-commerce trends, however new Sprouts opened March 2023 on southern end of City
➢ Retail vacancy is currently higher than the 5-mile radius and the County, this has also been the case over the last ten years; Current retail rents are on par with the 5-mile radius, but lower than the County
➢ City added 112,700 SF of retail space in the last ten years, most of which is food and fitness; This accounts for 8% of retail growth in the 5-mile radius
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS (CONT’D)
Market Demand Analysis (cont’d)
Retail (cont’d):
➢ ~971,800 SF of retail space over 40 years old could be replaced or reimagined in a blended-use project*
➢ Key retail categories exhibiting leakage include full-service restaurants, health and personal care stores, grocery stores, and clothing stores (these categories could possibly be targeted for future development); It is important to note the Sprouts Farmers Market that opened in March 2023 will backfill some of the leakage presented in the grocery category
➢ Retail sales from clothing stores are not only leaking to the internet, but also to neighboring cities. Norwalk residents tend to shop at retail centers in Cerritos and Downey for clothing
➢ In terms of health and personal care, however, Norwalk residents are shopping locally. There are five health and personal care stores in the City that service Norwalk residents, though most are in the northern half of the City (at or above Rosecrans Ave.)
▪ Office:
➢ Small, older office market with limited inventory added to the market over the last ten years (14,000 SF across four buildings); No new office construction since 2018
➢ Office vacancy is higher than that of the 5-mile radius and lower than the County; Office rents are on par with the 5-mile radius, but lower than the County, demonstrating limited demand
➢ Much of the office vacancy can be attributed to the Norwalk Govt.
Center (464K SF building with 11.1% vacancy)
➢ Demand for office space is further limited as there is no office space currently planned, proposed, or under construction
➢ 60% of the entire office market in Norwalk is contained within three government buildings older than 40 years. Given those buildings are unlikely to be replaced, half of the remaining older office space (~252,300 SF) could be replaced or reimagined as part of a blended- use project*
Notes: *We estimate that approximately half of the existing SF of retail and office space over 40 years old could be replaced with either similar uses or a blend of uses (including housing).
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS (CONT’D)
Market Demand Analysis (cont’d)
Industrial / Flex:
➢ Small and strong industrial market (3.3M SF , 0.4% vacancy) ➢ Industrial vacancy in the City is lower and industrial rents are lower compared to the 5-mile radius and the County
➢ 24,900 SF of industrial space added in last 10 years
➢ Although no industrial space is currently planned, proposed, or under construction, demand for industrial space is strong given the increasing presence of e-commerce and greater need for warehouse, last-mile delivery, and smaller sorting facilities.
➢ The industrial market in the City is older with 84% of the industrial space older than 40 years. We estimate a quarter of this existing industrial space (694,300 SF) could be reimagined or upgraded to accommodate e-commerce needs
▪ Multifamily Residential:
➢ Strong multifamily residential market* in the City (2.2% vacancy); Vacancy and rents are on par with the 5-mile radius and lower than the County; Historically, vacancies have been at or below 3.5% ➢ 86% of units are market-rate, 14% are affordable; Senior housing accounts for 18% of housing units and 71% of senior units are affordable
➢ 89 new residential units have been built in the City over the last ten years (accounts for 2% of new construction in the 5-mile radius); Two major projects (Norwalk Entertainment District and Norwalk Transit Village) have been proposed and will add between 1,000 and 1,120 new units combined
➢ City may consider allocating greater density to future projects to meet the demand for housing and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) requirements (5,034 new units, 59% of which are affordable)
Notes: *Data provided in the residential (multifamily) analysis encompasses condominiums, townhomes, co-ops, and for-rent units.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS (CONT’D)
Market Demand Analysis (cont’d)
Hospitality:
➢ 62 hotels totaling 4,128 rooms exist within the 5-mile radius; Norwalk contains 18% of the hotel rooms in the market; Most hotels in Norwalk are independently-operated, economy-class hotels ➢ Summer months are the most successful period with occupancy, ADR, RevPAR peaking in July; Hotels perform worst in winter
➢ Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, hotel occupancy averaged 76.6%.
Due to the lockdowns and lack of business and leisure travel, occupancy and demand for room nights both dropped by 29% ➢ As leisure travel rebounds, occupancy and demand for room nights have gradually increased but demand for room nights does not exceed supply of room nights
➢ Given limited number of midscale / upscale hotel options in the City, there could be demand from a larger chain to open (e.g., Marriott has expressed interest in Norwalk Transit Village)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWOT ANALYSIS AND PROGRESS
EDOP Nodes and SWOT Analysis
Economic nodes are defined by strategic areas across the City comprised of corridors, existing and proposed development projects, and specific sites with development / redevelopment opportunities. 10 economic nodes were observed (nine from the 2018 EDOP , plus one new node) For each node, Kosmont provided the following:
➢ An area profile with an aerial map of the node along with key information regarding the size of the node (number of parcels and acreage), the zoning associated with the node, major access points to arterials and freeways, and highlighted the progress that has been made at the node since the adoption of the 2018 EDOP
➢ The vision and the potential opportunities that can occur at the node. ➢ A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT”) Analysis
Progress Table by Node
# EDOP Node Progress from 2018 EDOP
1 605 Fwy. / Firestone • Fmr. Office Depot converted to Chick-Fil-A • Expansion/enhancement of auto dealer
2 Firestone / San Antonio Nodes • Located within Heart of Norwalk Specific and Vision Plans; Developer interest
3 Imperial / Pioneer • Acquisition of fmr. Walmart building in pursuit of redevelopment
4 Civic Center / Entertainment District
• Primestor project will contain 110K SF of
commercial, 100K SF open space, and up to
350 residential units with added parking
5 Prof. Office Development Center • New supportive retail uses opened across Imperial Hwy. (Norwalk Fitness Village)
6 Norwalk Transit Village
(Former Cal. Youth Authority)
• Lewis’ Norwalk Transit Village includes 15K
SF commercial, 120-room hotel, 595 market-
rate and affordable apts. and 120 townhomes
7 Five Points
• Vacant Ralph’s filled with AltaMed Pace
• Milagro Cinemas replacing Regency Theatres
at Norwalk Town Square
8 Historic Front Street • Primestor P3 project to redevelop SEC Firestone Blvd. and San Antonio Dr.
9 Alondra / Pioneer
• Sprouts opened March 2023
• Fmr. Swap Meet site has been entitled (to be
redeveloped with 209 market-rate apts.)
10 Former Food 4 Less*
• Continued outreach to broker /
representative of property owner; Planned
new retail
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
Economic Development Tools
Norwalk can utilize several economic development tools to attract, finance, and optimize development
TIF districts, including enhanced infrastructure financing districts (“EIFD”), can capture property taxes from increases in assessed value to fund infrastructure and development projects
Development Opportunity Reserve (“D.O.R.®”) can be used to give density to projects that provide community benefits
Sales Tax Assessment Revenue (“STAR*®”) can be used to create a revenue stream equivalent to a potential loss in sales tax revenue from entitlement and development agreement negotiations
Business Expansion, Attraction, and Retention (“BEAR”) strategies can be utilized to maintain high sales tax revenue generating businesses and attract major retail to development projects
Additionally, the City could consider leveraging existing City-owned assets to increase revenues, use lease revenue bonds or lease-leaseback structures to fill financial gaps in development, and apply for grants to fund future projects
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 13
1. EDOP NODES AND SWOT ANALYSIS
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 14
CITY BOUNDARIES
AND EDOP NODES
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed January 2023) Note: *Former Food 4 Less is a new node
Alondra Blvd.
Rosecrans Ave.
Norwalk Blvd.
Pioneer Blvd.
Imperial Hwy.
Studebaker Rd.
Bloomfield Ave.
166
th
St.
# EDOP Node Status
1 605 Fwy. / Firestone Existing
2 Firestone / San Antonio Nodes Existing
3 Imperial / Pioneer Existing
4 Civic Center / Entertainment District Existing
5 Prof. Office Development Center Existing
6 Norwalk Transit Village
(fmr. Cal. Youth Authority) Existing
7 Five Points Existing
8 Historic Front Street Existing
9 Alondra / Pioneer Existing
10 Former Food 4 Less* New
1 2
8 7
4 5
6 9
10 3
Economic nodes are defined by strategic areas
across the City comprised of corridors, existing
and proposed development projects, and specific
sites with development / redevelopment
opportunities.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 15
SUMMARY OF EDOP NODES
# EDOP Node Vision & Opportunities
1 605 Fwy. /
Firestone
▪ Vision:
➢ Promote economic development by attracting / retaining retail ➢ Possibly aggregate adjacent properties
▪ Opportunities:
➢ Attract / retain commercial along Firestone Blvd.
➢ Cooperate with business and property owners to maintain vibrancy 2 Firestone / San
Antonio Nodes
▪ Vision:
➢ Area is within Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan – opportunity to create further blended use developments ▪ Opportunities:
➢ Limit traffic on San Antonio Dr. to promote walkability ➢ Aggregate property for potential development / reuse
➢ Opportunity to redevelop vacant buildings / parcels along Firestone Blvd. 3 Imperial / Pioneer
▪ Vision:
➢ Business attraction for consumer serving uses
▪ Opportunities:
➢ Retrofit / rehab large existing building to accommodate new uses KOSMONT COMPANIES | 16
SUMMARY OF EDOP NODES (CONT’D)
# EDOP Node Vision & Opportunities
4 Civic Center /
Entertainment
District
▪ Vision:
➢ Attract entertainment, hotel, restaurant, grocer, and accommodate additional housing in a blend of uses ▪ Opportunities:
➢ Proposed project is a P3 deal including leasing of City-owned land to Primestor without compromising existing civic uses
➢ Project would contain up to 110K SF of commercial (restaurant, grocer, health/wellness facilities, supporting retail); 100K SF of open space; and up to 350 residential units with accompanying parking 5 Professional Office
Development
Center
▪ Vision:
➢ Large employment base for the City with high-paying jobs ➢ Daytime population supports surrounding retail (e.g., Norwalk Fitness Village) along with future Entertainment District
▪ Opportunities:
➢ Possible revitalization of existing office buildings with proposed developments ➢ Monitor local office market given new hybrid working environment KOSMONT COMPANIES | 17
SUMMARY OF EDOP NODES (CONT’D)
# EDOP Node Vision & Opportunities
6 Norwalk Transit
Village
(Former California
Y outh Authority)
▪ Vision:
➢ Transform the former California Y outh Authority correctional facility into a major transit-oriented development ▪ Opportunities:
➢ Norwalk Transit Village as proposed by Lewis includes 650-770 residential units (townhomes and multifamily apartments, 40% of units will be affordable), open park space, commercial uses, a potential hotel, and a pedestrian walkway connecting the development to the Norwalk / Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station 7 Five Points
▪ Vision:
➢ Located in the Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan area
➢ Creation of a central town square development providing additional uses, including housing ▪ Opportunities:
➢ Backfill vacant / underutilized retail space and add a blend of uses to the node ➢ Cooperate with multiple businesses / owners to revitalize this node ➢ Business retention / attraction
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 18
SUMMARY OF EDOP NODES (CONT’D)
# EDOP Node Vision & Opportunities
8 Historic Front
Street
▪ Vision:
➢ Located in the Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan area
➢ Create a trendy, walkable district along Front St. with an emphasis on local artisans and local food / brewery options
▪ Opportunities:
➢ Available space in existing commercial buildings
➢ Development on SEC Firestone Blvd. and San Antonio Dr. by Primestor can spur development along Front St. 9 Alondra / Pioneer
▪ Vision:
➢ Create a corridor that capitalizes on daytime population from Cerritos College and serves as a southern gateway to the City
▪ Opportunities:
➢ Redevelop SWC Pioneer / Alondra Blvds. (Alondra Square has significant vacancy) ➢ Aggregate properties for reuse
➢ Unifying look and gateway entrance
10 Former Food 4
Less
▪ Vision:
➢ Create blended use development in a western entry point of the City ▪ Opportunities:
➢ Blended-use development project that could include housing and retail with excellent freeway and arterial access ➢ Lever the adjacency to successful Costco
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 19
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: 2/3-mile corridor with multiple
commercial uses and some residential;
Approx. 29 parcels over 40 acres of land
▪ Zoning: C3, M1, R3, and SPA 13
(Commercial office and hotel zone); SPA 13
allows for hotel, retail, and professional
offices. Drive thru businesses require
conditional use permit (“CUP”)
▪ Access: Connectivity to 605 Fwy., Firestone
Blvd., and Studebaker Rd.
PROGRESS:
▪ Former Office Depot converted to a top fast-
casual, drive-thru restaurant (Chick-Fil-A). Major
conversion from low sales tax generating retailer
to top sales tax generator; Expansion/enhancement
of auto dealer
▪ Audi finished renovation, BMW currently under
construction, Porsche slated for upgrades
STRATEGIC AREA #1:
605 FWY. / FIRESTONE
Tierra
Palms Apts.
CITY
BOUNDARY
Studebaker Rd.
ADT: 261,300
Robert
White Park
SoCal
Edison
Substation
Golf N’
Stuff
Lit’l Indy
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 20
S
Strengths
▪ Strong traffic counts; Great visibility on
major arterial (Firestone Blvd.); On/off
ramp of 605 Fwy.
▪ Surrounded by many high-profile
businesses; Chick-Fil-A recently filled
former Office Depot space
▪ North-western gateway to the City
▪ Chick-Fil-A replaced vacated Office Depot
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Multiple ownership
▪ Mostly built out
▪ Reuse or reinvigorate former retail space by
blending additional uses – e.g. multifamily
residential, industrial
▪ Backfill vacant space at Firestone Shopping
Center (center anchored by Smart & Final)
▪ Coordination with multiple businesses
and property owners
O T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
605 FWY. / FIRESTONE
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 21
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: 2-mile corridor along Firestone Blvd.
with four nodes at key intersections and a
½ mile corridor along San Antonio Dr.
▪ Zoning: CO, C1, C3, M1, PUD 1, PUD 3,
R1, R3, R4, SPA 3 (multifamily residential
and commercial zone), SPA 6 (multifamily
residential zone), SPA 12 (Norwalk mini-
storage facility), SPA 14 (high-density
residential apartments)
▪ Access: Arterial roads include: Firestone
and Pioneer Blvds., Imperial Hwy., and
Pioneer Blvd.
PROGRESS:
▪ Much of this area is located within the
Heart of Norwalk Vision Plan and Specific
Plan and developer interest
STRATEGIC AREA #2:
FIRESTONE /
SAN ANTONIO NODES
ADT: 54,600
ADT: 66,000
ADT: 188,800
Rosecrans Ave.
Studebaker Rd.
Pioneer Blvd.
Strategic
Area #3
Strategic
Area #4
Strategic
Area #7
Paddison
Square
ADT: 72,600
Norwalk Blvd.
Strategic
Area #1
Strategic
Area #10
Imperial Hwy.
Strategic
Area #8
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 22
S
Strengths
▪ Infill real estate with strong arterial
boundaries culminating at “5 Points”
▪ Strong traffic counts – significant visibility
▪ Adjacent residential communities with
potential for walkable nodes along the
corridor
▪ Located within Heart of Norwalk Specific
and Vision Plan
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Multiple owners and businesses along
the corridor
▪ Aging real estate
▪ Smaller parcel sizes may require
aggregation of parcels to create a large
scale project
▪ Potential to aggregate parcels for
redevelopment
▪ Opportunity to revitalize aging retail and re-
envision space as blended use
▪ Create a walkable district along San Antonio
Dr. by slowing or stopping traffic
▪ Coordination with multiple businesses
and property owners
▪ 3rd party investment based on economic
feasibility and zoning O T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
FIRESTONE / SAN ANTONIO NODES
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 23
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: 80-acre node from intersection
of Imperial Hwy. and Pioneer Blvd.
(includes 111,830 SF former Walmart
on 9.5-acre parcel)
▪ Zoning: C3, P
▪ Access: On/off ramp to 5 Fwy.;
Arterial roads: Imperial Hwy. and
Pioneer Blvd.
PROGRESS:
▪ Acquisition of former Walmart
building in pursuit of redevelopment
STRATEGIC AREA #3:
IMPERIAL / PIONEER
Imperial Hwy.
Pioneer Blvd.
Former Walmart /
Proposed Tesla Store
ADT: 188,800
Woods Ave.
Norwalk
Inn &
Suites
Norwalk
Metropointe
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 24
S
Strengths
▪ Large existing building that needs to be
backfilled (former Walmart)
▪ Excellent freeway and arterial access
▪ One owner
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Local community opposed to heavy
industrial uses, despite strong industrial
demand
▪ Unlike the building’s previous use,
unlikely to backfill space with purely
retail
▪ In pursuit of new tenant providing consumer
serving uses at former Walmart building
▪ Reuse or reinvigorate former retail space by
blending additional uses including housing
▪ Ability to acquire high sales tax
generating tenant
▪ Higher interest rates and inflation may
delay future developmentO T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
IMPERIAL / PIONEER
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 25
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: Approx. 13 parcels totaling 32.5 AC
▪ Zoning: Civic Center / Entertainment
District Specific Plan; SPA 1 (hotel,
office, accessory commercial zone)
▪ Access: Major arterials Imperial Hwy. and
Norwalk Blvd.; Access from 5 Fwy. via
Imperial Hwy. on/off ramp
PROGRESS:
▪ Specific Plan approval and public-private
transaction for blended use project with
Primestor
▪ Project will contain up to 110,000 SF of
commercial space (incl. restaurants,
grocers, retail, health/wellness), 100,000
SF of open space areas, and up to 350
residential units with additional parking
spaces
STRATEGIC AREA #4:
CIVIC CENTER /
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT
Civic
Center
Plaza
Paddison
Square
County
Courthouse
County
Library
County
Social
Services
County
Sheriff
Parking
Lot
Imperial Hwy.
Imperial Hwy.
Norwalk Blvd.
ADT: 72,600
City
Hall
Strategic
Area #5
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 26
S
Strengths
▪ Strong residential demand
▪ Trip-generating and experiential uses are
the trend in today’s retail
▪ Up to 350 new housing units will help meet
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(“RHNA”) requirements
▪ Existing Civic services would not need to
be relocated
▪ Specific Plan approved
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Location would have significantly higher
levels of traffic (resident, visitor, and
daytime employee population)
▪ Creation of Entertainment District with a
blend of uses, including housing
▪ Fiscal impact revenue generation from
commercial/retail vs. civic uses
▪ Support from nearby hospitality, retail, and
office projects
▪ High capital investment costs required
and timeline
▪ Higher interest rates and inflation may
delay future developmentO T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
CIVIC CENTER / ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 27
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: 5 parcels totaling 30.6 acres
▪ Zoning: CO, PF
▪ Access: Via major arterials Imperial
Hwy. and Bloomfield Ave.
PROGRESS:
▪ New supportive retail uses across
Imperial Hwy. (Norwalk Fitness
Village)
STRATEGIC AREA #5:
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT CENTER
CITY
BOUNDARY
City of
Santa Fe
Springs
Solterra
at Civic
Center
City
Maintenance
Yard
Norwalk
Corporate
Plaza
Norwalk
Fitness
Village
Silverado
Oaks
Norwalk
Govt. Center
County
Library
County
Sheriff
County
Registrar -
Recorder
Imperial Hwy.
Bloomfield Ave.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 28
S
Strengths
▪ ~31 acres of property on a major
commercial / retail corridor of the City
▪ Strong traffic counts with access to the 5
Fwy.
▪ Adjacent to Norwalk / Santa Fe Springs
Station with links to L.A. and Orange
County bus lines and Metrolink trains
▪ Connectivity to future Entertainment
District; New retail uses (e.g., Norwalk
Fitness Village) across Imperial Hwy.
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Three parcels owned by the County,
other two parcels are privately owned
▪ Limited City input into uses
▪ Timing of ownership entitlement and
development
▪ Potential relocation of County offices
▪ Supports neighboring entertainment district
▪ Multiple office job types (high-paying vs
moderate and private/professional vs govt.)
▪ Cooperation between L.A. County, City,
and private owner
▪ Higher interest rates and inflation may
delay future development
O T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CENTER
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 29
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: ~32.2 AC
▪ Zoning: I (to be rezoned)
▪ Access: Bloomfield Ave., close to
Imperial Hwy. and Norwalk / Santa Fe
Springs Metrolink Station
PROGRESS:
▪ AB 518 that recognized the conversion of this
decommissioned complex to 40% affordable
housing; City working with State to purchase the
property;
▪ Ongoing extensive collaboration with development
partner (Lewis); Interest from national brand hotel
group
▪ Master Program includes 15,000 SF commercial
(incl. dining), 120-room hotel, 315 market-rate
apartments, 280 affordable apartments, and 105
townhomes
STRATEGIC AREA #6:
NORWALK TRANSIT
VILLAGE (FMR. CALIFORNIA
YOUTH AUTHORITY)
Imperial Hwy.
Bloomfield Ave.
Solterra
at Civic
Center
City
Maint.
Yard
Norwalk / Santa
Fe Springs
Metrolink Station
CITY
BOUNDARY
City of
Santa Fe
Springs
Zimmerman
Park
Strategic
Area #5
Central Park
Housing Choices Residential
GarageRetail
Hotel Green
Walking Trail
Tot Lot
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 30
S
Strengths
▪ Connectivity to Bloomfield Ave., Imperial
Hwy., and the 5 Fwy.
▪ Adjacent open space (Zimmerman Park)
▪ Developer selected for project (Lewis)
▪ AB 518 allowed for City to purchase
property from the State
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Limited access points
▪ Timing and control of property transfer
▪ Bond required for acquisition
▪ Developer-proposed Norwalk Transit Village
will provide 650-770 units of housing (40%
affordable), complementary, community-
serving retail uses, and connectivity to
Norwalk / SFS Station via pedestrian
walkway
▪ Coordination with State to sell property
▪ Long-term project will require significant
capital investments and time
▪ Higher interest rates and inflation may
delay future development
O T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
NORWALK TRANSIT VILLAGE (FMR. CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 31
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: Approx. 27 parcels totaling 20
acres
▪ Zoning: C3, P
▪ Access: Pioneer Blvd., Rosecrans Ave.,
San Antonio Dr.
PROGRESS:
▪ Continued collaboration with major
property owner / stakeholder; Recent
vacant Ralph’s backfilled with AltaMed
Pace facility
▪ Milagro Cinemas (part of Maya
Cinemas) replacing Regency Theatres
STRATEGIC AREA #7:
FIVE POINTS
Pioneer Blvd.
Rosecrans Ave.
Norwalk
High School
Norwalk
Town
Square
ADT: 54,600
AltaMed
Pace
BofA
Milagro
Cinemas
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 32
S
Strengths
▪ Adjacent businesses, retail (Norwalk T own
Square), and residential communities
▪ Central focus of the City with connectivity
to major arterials
▪ Recent major vacancy (former Ralph’s)
backfilled with AltaMed facility
▪ Strong traffic counts
▪ Located within Heart of Norwalk Specific
Plan area
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Multiple owners of real estate
▪ Revitalize / redevelop aging real estate
(particularly underperforming retail) into a
blend of uses (possibly including housing)
▪ Multiple property owners and businesses
may make redevelopment and
improvements challenging
▪ Potential
▪ Parking issues
▪ Higher interest rates and inflation may
delay future development
O T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
FIVE POINTS
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 33
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: Approx. 63 parcels totaling 14.4
acres of land
▪ Zoning: C3, CM, M1, SPA 3
(Multifamily residential and
commercial), SPA 4 (Townhouse
Condominiums and Accessory Uses
Zone)
▪ Access: Front St., Firestone Blvd., San
Antonio Dr.; Close access to the 5
Fwy.
PROGRESS:
▪ Public-private partnership and
collaboration with Primestor to
redevelop SEC of Firestone Blvd. and
San Antonio Dr.
STRATEGIC AREA #8:
HISTORIC FRONT STREET
Norwalk
Park &
Aquatics
Pavilion
Primestor
Project
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 34
S
Strengths
▪ Connectivity to major arterial roads and
the 5 Fwy.
▪ Major Primestor development will revitalize
center on SEC of Firestone Blvd. and San
Antonio Dr.
▪ Located within Heart of Norwalk Specific
Plan area
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Lack of current pedestrian connectivity
to surrounding economic nodes
▪ Lack of branding for the area
▪ Limited activity on Front St.
▪ Leverage adjacent Primestor development to
spur additional growth along Front St.
▪ Opportunity to create a trendy, walkable
district along Front St. with an emphasis on
local arts, food, breweries, etc.
▪ Coordination with multiple property
owners, operating businesses, and public
agencies
▪ High capital investment costs required
▪ Higher interest rates and inflation may
delay future development
O T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
HISTORIC FRONT STREET
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 35
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: Approx. 120 parcels totaling 70
acres of land)
▪ Zoning: C1, M1, P , R1, R3
▪ Access: Alondra and Pioneer Blvds.,
On/off ramp to 605 and 91 Fwys. on
Alondra and Pioneer, respectively
PROGRESS:
▪ Collaboration with private property
owner to achieve a blended use
project that includes Sprouts as a
grocery anchor (opened March 2023);
▪ Former Swap Meet site has been
entitled (to be redeveloped with 209
market-rate apartments)
STRATEGIC AREA #9:
ALONDRA / PIONEER
Cerritos
College
Alondra Blvd.
Pioneer Blvd.
Excelsior High
School /
NLMUSD
Offices
Alondra
Square
ADT: 44,700
Park
Apts.
Former Swap Meet / Shapell Alondra
Maidstone Mixed-Use Project
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 36
S
Strengths
▪ Adjacency to Cerritos College and several
residential communities; strong daytime
population
▪ Connectivity to 91 and 605 Fwys., as well
as major arterial roads
▪ Possible aggregation of parcels to create
development of scale
▪ Opening of Sprouts in March 2023
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Not all properties available for
redevelopment are on hard corners
▪ Multiple property owners
▪ Parking requirements
▪ Limited demand for new retail
▪ Provide additional amenities to fulfill daytime
student / employee population, in addition to
local community
▪ Redevelop retail at SWC Pioneer and
Alondra (Alondra Square) which contains
former H Mart
▪ Add new housing development on former
Swap Meet site
▪ Market feasibility of uses
▪ Higher interest rates and inflation may
delay future development
O T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
ALONDRA / PIONEER
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 37
AREA PROFILE:
▪ Size: Three parcels totaling 12.7 acres;
Site contains two existing fast-food
pads (3,878 SF and 2,627 SF) and a
former Food 4 Less (102,600 SF)
▪ Zoning: C3
▪ Access: Arterials include Imperial
Hwy. and Studebaker Rd.; On/off ramp
to 605 Fwy. via Imperial Hwy.
PROGRESS:
▪ Continued outreach to broker /
representative of property owner;
Planned new retail
STRATEGIC AREA #10:
FORMER FOOD 4 LESS
Imperial Hwy.
Studebaker Rd.
ADT: 60,500
Vacant
former CVS
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 38
S
Strengths
▪ Strong demand for multifamily housing
▪ Large existing building (former Food 4
Less)
▪ Excellent access to 605 Fwy. and major
arterial roads
Opportunities Threats
Weaknesses
▪ Difficulty backfilling massive site /
possible demolition
▪ Noise / traffic from Costco shoppers
▪ Complimentary uses to existing Costco
▪ Creation of blended use in place of former
grocery store
▪ Opportunity to build a project that
compliments existing Costco and creates a
western gateway to the City
▪ Higher interest rates and inflation may
delay future development
O T
W
SWOT ANALYSIS
FORMER FOOD 4 LESS
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 39
2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 40
Special Districts for Infrastructure Financing
CFD’s, EIFD’s, CRD’s
Use TIF and other district tools (such as Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts – EIFDs and Climate Resilience Districts) to capture taxes from assessed value increases to fund infrastructure needs
Zoning and Land Use Strategies
Development Opportunity Reserve (D.O.R.)®
Create flexible zoning and permitting requirements to adapt to market trends and customer dynamics; Develop a streamlined process for review / approval; Zoning and entitlements create value; Capture the value from zoning changes to link new density to community benefits and public amenities.
Revenue Replacement Tools
Sales Tax Assessment Revenue (STAR*)®
Create general fund revenues through development agreements / public-private partnerships via Sales Tax Assessment Revenue (STAR*)®
Business Expansion, Attraction, and Retention
(BEAR)
Attract new businesses, retain and expand existing businesses to generate revenues (sales tax, TOT, business license fees) for the City
Real Estate / Housing Strategies
Use strategies to better utilize the value of city properties – performance-based leases / ground leases, monetizing assets (such as parking garages, selling property to private sector, etc.). State is mandating housing; cities can capture value from new housing developments Government Funding and Financing
Financing mechanisms such as lease revenue bonds, lease-leaseback structures, and cash-flow management programs can be leveraged to fill financial gaps in projects and encourage private investment
Grants and Other Public Funding Pursue grant funds available at the state and local level for infrastructure, housing, and other development projects
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS OVERVIEW
UTILIZE THESE TOOLS TO ATTRACT, FINANCE, AND OPTIMIZE DEVT.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 41
SUSTAINABILITY AND HOUSING DISTRICTS
The state has created a variety of public
financing district tools to accomplish:
▪ Sustainability
▪ Resiliency
▪ Mobility
▪ Housing
▪ Public
infrastructure
▪ Public
amenities
Use these districts to target
infrastructure improvements, attract
additional funds, support investor
confidence, and bring a public / private
sector return on investment. Communicating in a Digital World Most flexible / versatile Second-most versatile
25% affordable housing req.
Qualification necessary
Housing focus
95% affordable housing req.
Formed within an EIFD
Allows sales tax if coterminous with City limits
20% to 40% affordable housing req. for sales tax
Affordable
Housing
Authorities
(AHA)
Community
Revitalization &
Inv. Authority
(CRIA)
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing
Districts
(EIFDs)
Neighborhood
Infill Finance &
Transit
Improvements
Act
(NIFTI)
NIFTI
-
2 KOSMONT COMPANIES | 42
Aff./Workforce Housing/Blended Use
Civic Infrastructure
Brownfield Remediation
Wastewater/Groundwater Light / High Speed Rail
Parks & Open Space
Industrial Structures
Childcare Facilities
T ransit Priority/RTP/SCS Projects
Source: SB 628 / AB 2
WHAT CAN
SUSTAINABILITY &
HOUSING DISTRICTS
FUND?
Unlock investment by funding vital
infrastructure with tax increment
financing and other special district
tools
EIFD: Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts
CRIA: Community Revitalization &
Investment Authorities
NIFTIs, AHAs, & IRFDs
WHOZ, HSD (CEQA Streamlining)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 43
WHY PUBLIC AGENCIES AUTHORIZE TIF DISTRICTS?
1. Return on investment: Private sector investment induced by district commitment accelerates growth of net fiscal revenues, job creation, housing production, essential infrastructure improvements
2. Ability to attract additional funds – tax increment from other entities (cities, special districts), federal/state grants/loans (e.g. for TOD, water, housing, and parks)
3. Ability to bundle other revenues – sales tax, property tax in lieu of VLF , ground lease, development impact fees, developer contributions
4. Implement infrastructure, housing and climate action goals; non-contiguous districts allow targeting specific areas
5. Long-term, committed revenues support investor confidence
6. Districts are evolving economic development tools: State is moving to a greener economy, has added 5+ new districts and approved over 2 dozen statutes for sustainability and housing in the past four years; District flexibility, effectiveness, and revenue sources expand with each legislative session
7. No new taxes
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 44
EIFD FUNDAMENTALS
45 years from first bond issuance
Term
Public Financing Authority (PFA) led by city or county implements Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) – IFP is the investment plan of the EIFD, managed by the PFA
Governance
City, County, Special District; school district increment exempt
Eligibility
Mandatory public hearings for formation (includes protest opportunity); no public vote to issue debt (updated as of 10/9/19 with adoption of AB 116)
Approvals
Any property with useful life of 15+ years & of communitywide significance; purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, rehabilitation, and maintenance
Eligible
Projects
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 45
EIFD WITH A POTENTIAL CITY/COUNTY PARTNERSHIP
Federal & State Sources
• Cap-and-Trade / HCD grant
& loan programs (AHSC, IIG,
TCC)
• Prop 1 bond funds / Prop 68
• SB 1 Road funds
• SB 2 Transfer Tax funds
• Federal DOT / EPA / EDA
funding
Other Potential Funding Sources
• Property tax revenue including RPTTF
• Vehicle license fee (VLF) prop. tax backfill increment • Development Agreement / impact fees
• Benefit assessments (e.g. contribution from CFD)
• Local transportation funding (e.g. Measure M/R)
• Private investment
▪ Ideal strategy includes a County contribution
➢ Norwalk receives approximately 9.5% of every $1 collected in property taxes on average (varies by Tax Rate Area) ➢ City additionally receives equivalent of approximately 15.1% of property tax in lieu of MVLF , also available to EIFD ➢ County receives approximately 23.4% of every $1 collected in property taxes on average ➢ School-related entities cannot participate
▪ TIF Districts which involve a City / County joint effort are more likely to win state grant funding sources KOSMONT COMPANIES | 46
OTHER DISTRICT TOOLS
Property Business
Improvement
Districts (PBID)
Property Business Improvement Districts are special assessments levied on real property to fund improvements and promote activities the benefit the properties located within the PBID area. This includes capital improvements, parking facilities, street / streetscape improvements, lighting and landscaping, marketing and promotion, and business attraction / retention. The special assessment amount that each property owner pays must be directly proportional to the benefit received.
Community
Facilities District
(CFD)
Community Facility Districts are a new property assessment or ”special tax” that appears as a separate line item on a tax bill and can be used to fund infrastructure / services that benefit the property. This includes transportation, parking, street / utility improvements, hazardous waste remediation, street lighting / sidewalk, and public services. CFDs are useful because they provide early financing for a variety of critical services and infrastructure. CFDs also pair well with EIFDs as a value capture strategy – with CFDs providing early funding and EIFDs providing funds as projects are constructed, and tax increment grows.
Parking Authority
District
Parking Authority Districts can utilize a variety of funding sources – including bonds, ad valorem taxes, user fees, parking meter charges, parking revenues, and City / County contributions – to fund improvements such as parking lots, structures, and alterations to circulatory infrastructure to facilitate ingress and egress.
Climate
Resilience
District (CRD)
Climate Resilience Districts are a new type of district can fund projects to mitigate climate change. These districts have broad financing powers, and can fund a wide range of eligible projects, including projects that address sea level rise / flooding, extreme weather, wildfire, and drought.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 47
ZONING AND LAND USE STRATEGIES
ENTITLEMENT AND PERMITTING PROCESSES
Permitting processing delays (e.g., zoning variances,
conditional use permits) have the potential to tie up
private resources and discourage investor interest, it
can have a significant impact on business formation and economic activity.
Permit processing for new businesses can be an
expensive and high-risk endeavor – often featuring
multiple public meetings, and uncertainty whether
permits will ultimately be approved.
At the same time, planning and building departments
can have strained resources and staffing, increasing
application review time and limiting staff resources to assist applicants.
Key Strategies include:
• Increase Flexibility: Review and revamp zoning and permitting requirements to ensure flexible requirements that can accommodate market and changing business and customer dynamics.
• Streamline Process: Identify business and project categories that are particularly beneficial and create a fast and predictable process for review / approval.
• Encourage Active Uses: Provide an easy permit process for interesting and dynamic uses – such as pop-up users, live music / events, outdoor dining permits, and artistic improvements / installations – that can enhance visitors’ experiences
• Incentivize Reuse of Struggling Spaces: Provide flexible building permit rules for properties suited for adaptive reuse and incentivize conversion of vacant commercial buildings into other uses (such as hotel and residential).
• Specialize: Tailor requirements for infill development to recognize the often-challenging circumstances involved in infill developments.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 48
ZONING AND LAND USE STRATEGIES
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY RESERVE D.O.R.®
Zoning and entitlements create value. Cities can avoid simply giving that value away, and instead capture that value as currency to support community benefits and public amenities.
Old Playbook:
Rezone Areas for New Density
and Expect New Development
Rezoning gives the value of the new density to current property owners: inflated land values, limited possibility of development New Playbook:
Bank Density with Development
Opportunity Reserve D.O.R.®
D.O.R.® allows cities to create a “bank” of new density in zoning / specific plans, allowing them to give the density to projects that deliver community benefits & public amenities
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 49
ZONING AND LAND USE STRATEGIES
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY RESERVE D.O.R.® - PROCESS
Create
D.O.R.®
Step 1
Conduct market / economic density analysis to
understand development potential.
Identify sites and areas within community as
areas targeted for new development.
Step 2
Use planning process to create a reserve bank
of density to use in target areas and create an
amenity list of desired community benefits and
advance projects.
Implement
D.O.R.®
Step 3
Development Projects apply for density from
the D.O.R.® in exchange for amenities and
community benefits delivered.
Step 4
City & Developer sign a Development
Agreement, assigning D.O.R.® density to
project with contractual commitment to
deliver amenities or infrastructure.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 50
REVENUE REPLACEMENT VIA
SALES TAX ASSESSMENT REVENUE (STAR*)®
Loss in retail sales
resulting from online
/ non sales tax
generating uses
Analyze sales tax
potential of opportunity
sites & zoning
designations
Create equivalent General
Fund revenue through
entitlement document /
development agreement
The Sales Tax Assessment Revenue (STAR*)® program addresses the stagnation and decline in city fiscal revenues as a result of the evolution of consumer spending in today’s economy. It is a framework that analyzes the fiscal revenue loss related to lower tax revenue generating uses and eases city general fund pressures by creating an equivalent revenue stream through entitlement / development agreement negotiations.
Use STAR*® when reimagining a shopping center with a blend of non-retail uses, re-entitling property for development from retail to residential / office / industrial, or when a developer proposes a project with low fiscal revenue impact.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 51
SALES TAX ASSESSMENT REVENUE (STAR*)® PROCESS
1 Definition of a custom market trade area based on the targeted project type 2 Evaluation of existing and supportable new retail sales within the targeted market trade area based on existing and projected trends in household spending demographics
3 Identification of local development opportunity sites and the corresponding existing zoning and land use designations
4 Analysis and allocation of proportional sales tax generating potential among opportunity sites based on zoning/land use designation and actual planned/proposed development projects
5 Negotiation of a public-private transaction that is fiscally productive for the local jurisdiction and financially feasible for the private sector developer on a project-by-project basis via Development Agreement.
The STAR*® program typically
involves the following steps:
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 52
BEAR STRATEGIES
BUSINESS EXPANSION, ATTRACTION, AND RETENTION
Business Expansion, Attraction, and Retention (BEAR) strategies focus on business and developer outreach to deliver quality jobs and fiscal revenue. Several economic nodes in Norwalk contain existing retail tenants that generate high sales tax revenue to the City, while other nodes contain proposed projects with a commercial component. It is critical for Norwalk to focus on retention and attraction strategies within the economic nodes.
Different strategies to consider include:
• Support: Help existing business through regular check-ins, assistance with resources, and networking opportunities • Marketing: Highlight the city as a business-friendly destination with community assets, talented workforce, and success stories • Outreach: Conduct target outreach to developers, businesses, and brokers with opportunity site marketing collateral, correspondence, meetings / site tours, and participation at industry events • Collaboration: Foster a supportive environment between businesses, universities, industry groups, and government entities • Incentives / Regulatory Reform: Consider regulatory reform efforts, such as permit streamlining, development code changes, and other policies to foster a business-friendly environment KOSMONT COMPANIES | 53
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES
PUBLICLY-OWNED PROPERTY
Public agency land is often under-utilized, offering the potential to increase value and revenues (e.g., property tax, sales tax, TOT). Local government- owned real estate can be leveraged to increase revenue and help stimulate economic development projects. The land can include former redevelopment Agency (“RDA”) properties, public use properties (civic centers, fire stations, recreation), and surplus property (city, school district, utility, other), rights of way (streets, alleys, parking lots and parking structures).
The State, in its push to have cities develop more affordable housing, has made subsequent legislative changes (e.g., AB 1486) to strengthen the Surplus Land Act (SLA). The SLA now requires public agencies in the State of California to first offer a property for sale or lease to ‘housing sponsors’ and affordable housing developers prior to the sale or lease of the asset (unless otherwise exempt) and will assess penalties if a public agency is not in compliance.
Key Strategies include:
• Performance-Based Leases / Ground
Leases: Norwalk can maintain ownership
and leverage an income stream from an asset
via a ground lease (e.g., lease revenues) as
well as establish a rent structure based on
specific performance benchmarks thereby
reducing risk for lenders/private investors.
• Monetizing Assets: Norwalk can raise
revenues by monetizing assets such as surface
parking lots / garages.
• Acquisition or Sale of Property:
Norwalk can make strategic acquisitions
and/or sell property for preferred private
development opportunities, as well as utilize
strategies such as lease-back strategies,
continued operation of existing use, and
redevelopment of properties into new uses.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 54
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES
PRIVATELY-OWNED PROPERTY
Cities can pro-actively reach out to select private property owners to facilitate real estate developments to advance the City’s economic development goals.
Property Owner Outreach – collaborate with property owners to understand their plans for properties, challenges that they face with development, and opportunities that may align with economic development goals. Rehabilitation / Renovation – encourage rehabilitation and/or renovation of facilities, signage or store-front facades; can include public programs such as façade improvement loans / grants, or assisting with identifying other sources of funding
Marketing – Conduct marketing activities, such as developer or building outreach, in coordination with property owner
Public-Private Partnerships (P3) – Enter into formal partnerships with property-owners that commit city resources to fund improvements that will advance both the property owner’s goals for development and the City’s goals for economic development
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 55
HOUSING AS A STATE MANDATE
Recent year legislation set a clear priority for California: More Housing 2017 202120192018 2020
SB 35
Streamlined ministerial
approval process for
housing projects
(conform to zoning
reqs, labor reqs,
affordable housing
targets)
SB 330
Housing Crisis Act of
2019 – streamlining
permit / approval
processes for housing
projects
AB 1486
Surplus Land Act
Amendment – expands
SLA for local agencies,
requires info in
Housing Elements
SB 9
Ministerial approval
for duplexes and lot-
splits
SB 10
10-unit up-zonings in
transit-rich / urban
infill areas (local
agencies adopt
ordinance)
SB 791
Establishes California
Surplus Land Unit
within HCD
Note: 2022 housing bills shown in Appendix.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 56
HOUSING MANDATE CHALLENGES &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS
Site inventory in a city’s Housing Element can be a tool for economic development, identifying specific sites for targeted growth.
Think: Asset Management
If a city has not adopted a Housing Element in substantial compliance with State law, developers may propose eligible housing development projects that do not comply with either the zoning or the general plan, providing a “Builder’s Remedy” where a local agency may be required to approve an eligible housing development project.
Cities may have an opportunity to take advantage of assessed value growth from housing developments and further economic
development benefits through special districts and other strategies.
Capture Value!
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 57
GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND FINANCING STRATEGIES
The following financing mechanisms can be utilized to generate enhanced revenues to fill financial gaps of projects, in order to encourage private investment and other tax-generating development.
Lease Revenue Bonds
Lease Revenue Bonds are issued by a public entity (e.g., Joint Powers Authority [JPA]) and can be used to finance vital capital improvements to be leased to a public agency. The bonds are payable solely from lease payments paid by a public agency. For example, Norwalk could utilize a lease revenue bond financing structure to fund catalytic public infrastructure improvements.
Lease-leaseback (P3) Structures
Lease-leaseback structures give cities the opportunity to cut costs and deliver public projects through strategic public-private partnership (P3) project delivery. The lease and subsequent sublease of assets between two public agencies enables lease payments to be leveraged (borrowed). These strategies can also come with procurement and project timing advantages. For example, an existing building facility can utilize lease payments immediately without the need to fund capitalized interest.
Cash-Flow Management Programs
Improved cash flow management can generate enhanced revenues from cash resources. Customized cash flow modelling can maximize portfolio size and increase funds that are available to the City. These enhanced short-term returns can then be utilized for community revitalization projects.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 58
GRANTS AND OTHER PUBLIC FUNDING
There is a wide variety of grant programs and funding sources available through the state and federal government. New grant programs are added every year, many with a focus on housing and climate resiliency. Cities should periodically review available grant sources and pursue grants that align with the city’s economic development goals (a grant-writing firm can provide assistance if the City’s internal resources are limited).
Three current programs that give some preference to EIFDs are:
Infill Infrastructure Grants (IIG)
Grants for infill projects / areas, gap funding for infrastructure for residential / mixed-use with some affordability requirements; awards range between $1 - $7.5 million Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) Grants for affordable housing, housing infrastructure, transportation, related amenities, and program costs; awards range between $1 - $30 million Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
Funds community-led development and infrastructure projects that achieve environmental / health / economic benefits in the state’s most disadvantaged communities.
Recent Economic Development &
Climate Grant / Funding Programs
• Regional Early Action Planning (REAP)
• Local Early Action Planning (LEAP)
• Infill Infrastructure Grants (IIG)
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
(AHSC)
• Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF)
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• ICARP Regional Resilience Grant Program (RRGP)
• Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF)
• Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention
(HHAP)
• Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF)
• Coastal Conservancy Grants
• Adaptation Planning Grant Program (APGP)
• Strategic Growth Council grants
• Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 59
KEY GRANTS MATRIX
Funding Source /
Grant Purpose
Infill Infrastructure
Grant (IIG) Program
(EIFD Preference)
▪ IIG provides grants for capital improvement projects for qualifying infill projects or qualifying infill areas ▪ Used for gap funding to infrastructure improvements for residential or mixed-use developments ▪ Eligible activities: construction, rehab, demolition, relocation, preservation, and acquisition of infrastructure ▪ Affordability threshold: No less than 15% of units as “affordable” units ▪ Assistance terms: Minimum award ($1M), maximum award ($7.5M) Affordable Housing and
Sustainable
Communities (AHSC)
Program
(EIFD Preference)
▪ The AHSC Program assists project areas by providing grants and/or loans to a locality, public housing authority, JPA, developer, or facilities districts, that will achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and benefit Disadvantaged communities through increasing accessibility of affordable housing, employment centers, and key destinations via low-carbon transportation ▪ Assistance terms: Minimum award ($1M), maximum award ($30M) ▪ Eligible activities: new construction, acquisition, or rehab of affordable housing; housing infrastructure; sustainable transportation infrastructure and related amenities, program costs (active transportation) ▪ Affordability threshold: 20% of homes at 80% median household income (MHI) Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP)
▪ MHP assist the new construction, rehab, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower income households, or the conversion of a non-residential structure to rental housing ▪ Eligible activities: property acquisition, land lease payments, construction and rehabilitation work, offsite improvements (e.g. sewer, utilities, and streets directly related to housing development)
▪ Assistance terms: Maximum award ($20M), base loan various from $150K and $175K based on type of unit Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD)
Housing Program
▪ Program offers low-interest loans as gap financing for rental housing developments near transit that include affordable units. Grants are available to localities and transit agencies for infrastructure improvements necessary for the development of specified housing projects or to facilitate connections between the project and the transit station ▪ Eligible applicants: developers for rental housing projects; municipalities/transit agencies for infrastructure projects ▪ Assistance terms: Maximum award for a single project is $15M KOSMONT COMPANIES | 60
There are several different economic development tools which Norwalk can use to attract, finance, and optimize development TIF districts, such as EIFD, can capture property taxes from increases in assessed value (from new development) to fund vital infrastructure and development projects focused on housing
Norwalk can use D.O.R.® to create a “bank” or “reserve” of density during the planning process and give the density to development projects that provide community benefits and public amenities STAR*® can be used when reimagining a shopping center or a large retail space (e.g., former Walmart and Food 4 Less) with a blend of uses that is not purely retail. After analyzing the loss in sales tax revenues, Norwalk can utilize STAR*® to create an equivalent revenue stream through entitlement and development agreement negotiations
Norwalk should consider using BEAR strategies (particularly retention and attraction) to maintain existing high sales tax revenue generating businesses and attract major retailers to new projects Norwalk can leverage existing City-owned assets as a means to increase revenues. For example, City can create an income stream from a City-owned asset in a ground-lease or sell assets for preferred private development opportunities (must go through SLA process first); As for privately-owned properties, City can enter into public- private partnerships (e.g., Norwalk Entertainment District) that commit City resources to fund improvements that will meet the property owner’s goals and the City’s goals for economic development
Lease revenue bonds, lease-leaseback structures, and cash-flow management programs can help generate revenues to fill financial gaps in development projects
Norwalk should consider a variety of grant programs, such as AHSC, IIG, and TCC, to provide additional funding for future development projects, particularly blended use and housing
FINDINGS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 61
CITY OF NORWALK
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES PLAN UPDATE
2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 62
APPENDIX
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 63
A. ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 64
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
A.1 – CITY REVENUE INFORMATION
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 65
SUMMARY
CITY REVENUE INFORMATION
Historically, Norwalk receives 42% of its tax revenue from property taxes and 25% of it’s revenue from sales tax; Comparatively, California cities receive on average 41% of its tax revenues from property tax and 22% from sales tax. This information indicates Norwalk’s relatively balanced source of revenues, particularly when compared to California cities, and the City does not appear to be at risk of sales or hotel tax exposure Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”) is about 4% of Norwalk’s historical tax revenues, while for California cities TOT is 8% of tax revenues. TOT could be an area of potential revenue growth for the City
Sales tax revenue in the City was $11.7 million in 2021, indicating approximately $1.17 billion in retail sales. Considering the 3.9 million SF retail base, this yields ~$300 per square foot per year Sales tax revenues in Norwalk have grown by 30% between 2016 and 2021, or 5.4% per year. Over the same period, sales tax revenue from Norwalk to the County Pool has increased significantly by 100% or 14.9% per year County Pool revenues have grown dramatically due to the rise in e- commerce sales, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic (43.5% increase between 2019 and 2020)
Although the COVID-19 pandemic did cause a decline in overall sales tax revenues due to lockdowns (13.3% drop from 2019 to 2020), the City recovered quickly and experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenues from 2020 to 2021. Norwalk’s sales tax revenues in 2021 exceeded pre- COVID (2019) revenues by over $900K
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 66
TAX REVENUES
CITY OF NORWALK VS. CALIFORNIA CITIES (HISTORIC CONTEXT) Sales and Use
Tax: 24.7%
Property Tax:
42.3%Other Taxes:
11.9%
Franchise Tax: 4.1%
Utility
User Tax:
10.8%
BLT: 2.0%
Source: California State Controller’s Office, City Revenues FY 2017-18 (Accessed January 2023) Notes: Includes both functional and general tax revenues. Property Taxes includes: in-lieu of MVLF, secured, unsecured, and other property tax revenue categories. Other Taxes includes: interest, penalties, delinquent taxes, transportation taxes (transit and non-transit), employer payroll tax, construction development taxes, parking taxes, admission taxes, and all other taxes. Transportation Taxes comprise most of the revenue labeled “Other Taxes”.
Sales and Use
Tax: 22.0%
Property Tax:
40.5%
Other Taxes:
10.7%
Franchise Tax: 4.0%
TOT: 8.1%
BLT: 5.8%
Prop.
Transfer
Tax: 2.9%
Utility User
Tax: 6.0%
California Cities’ T ax RevenuesCity of Norwalk
Prop. Transfer
Tax: 0.7%
TOT: 3.6%
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 67
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
TOT % of Tax Revenues
Sales Tax % of Tax Revenues
Sales & TOT Exposure
Source: California State Controller’s Office, City Revenues FY 2017-18 (Accessed January 2023)
TAX REVENUES
SALES TAX & TOT EXPOSURE (HISTORIC CONTEXT)
Risk from Sales
Tax Exposure
(Sales Tax >25%)
Risk from Sales &
Hotel Tax
Exposure
Risk from Hotel
Tax Exposure
(TOT > 10%)
Norwalk
The median California
city collects > 1/3 of
tax revenue from sales
tax + TOT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 68
SALES TAX HISTORY
CITY SALES TAX REVENUE RECOVERED FROM COVID-19 PANDEMIC QUICKLY Source: CA DOF (Accessed January 2023)
Note: Only observes revenues from the 1% Bradley-Burns tax. Does not include Measure P sales tax revenue passed by voters in March 2020. Measure P authorized an additional local sales tax of 0.75% increasing the sales tax rate in Norwalk from 9.5% to 10.25%. It was anticipated that this sales tax increase would provide an additional ~$7 million in revenues. Numbers in red and parenthesis indicate a negative number.
Year Norwalk County
Pool
Pool
Share
2016 $9,025,000 $1,290,000 14.3%
2017 $9,601,000 $1,341,000 14.0%
2018 $10,186,000 $1,464,000 14.4%
2019 $10,831,000 $1,809,000 16.7%
2020 $9,388,000 $2,596,000 27.7%
2021 $11,733,000 $2,581,000 22.0%
5-Y ear Growth 30.0% 100.1% 53.9%
COVID-19 Effect
(2019-2020) (13.3%) 43.5% 65.6%
CAGR 5.4% 14.9% 9.0%
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
2016
Q4
2016
Q1
2017
Q2
2017
Q3
2017
Q4
2017
Q1
2018
Q2
2018
Q3
2018
Q4
2018
Q1
2019
Q2
2019
Q3
2019
Q4
2019
Q1
2020
Q2
2020
Q3
2020
Q4
2020
Q1
2021
Q2
2021
Q3
2021
Q4
2021
City and County Sales Tax Revenue by Quarter (Q1 2016 - Q4 2021) Norwalk County Pool
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 69
HISTORIC SALES TAX REVENUES BY QUARTER
Year Quarter Norwalk County Pool Pool Share
YOY
Growth
(City)
2016
1 2,105,000 300,000 14.3% -
2 2,190,000 329,000 15.0% -
3 2,240,000 300,000 13.4% -
4 2,490,000 361,000 14.5% -
2017
1 2,199,000 304,000 13.8% 4%
2 2,385,000 325,000 13.6% 9%
3 2,391,000 328,000 13.7% 7%
4 2,626,000 384,000 14.6% 5%
2018
1 2,045,000 274,000 13.4% (7%)
2 2,332,000 371,000 15.9% (2%)
3 2,836,000 385,000 13.6% 19%
4 2,973,000 434,000 14.6% 13%
Year Quarter Norwalk County Pool Pool Share
YOY
Growth
(City)
2019
1 2,678,000 401,000 15.0% 31%
2 2,595,000 427,000 16.5% 11%
3 2,721,000 435,000 16.0% (4%)
4 2,837,000 546,000 19.2% (5%)
2020
1 1,750,000 427,000 24.4% (35%)
2 2,489,000 685,000 27.5% (4%)
3 2,545,000 691,000 27.2% (6%)
4 2,604,000 793,000 30.5% (8%)
2021
1 2,245,000 527,000 23.5% 28%
2 3,174,000 617,000 19.4% 28%
3 2,978,000 642,000 21.6% 17%
4 3,336,000 795,000 23.8% 28%
Source: CA DOF (Accessed January 2023)
Note: Only observes revenues from the 1% Bradley-Burns tax. Does not include Measure P sales tax revenue passed by voters in March 2020. Measure P authorized an additional local sales tax of 0.75% increasing the sales tax rate in Norwalk from 9.5% to 10.25%. It was anticipated that this sales tax increase would provide an additional ~$7 million in revenues. Numbers in red and parenthesis indicate a negative number.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 70
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
A.2 – POPULATION & HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 71
SUMMARY
POPULATION & HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS
Populations & Households
From 2017 to 2022, Norwalk saw an ~8% population decline from ~109,100 to ~100,900 residents and a slight decline in the number of households from ~27,800 to ~27,700. In the same period, population decreased by ~4% among people living in the 5- mile radius of Imperial Hwy. and Norwalk Blvd. from ~650,100 to ~625,100.
Households in the 5-mile radius saw a slight increase from ~186,800 to ~187,700. Lastly, the population living within a 15-minute drive time grew by 55% in the same period from ~826,800 to ~1,280,500 and households grew by 62% from ~237,300 to ~384,700 Although, average household size in the City (3.61) is significantly higher compared to Los Angeles County and the State of California (2.86), the average household size in Norwalk decreased by 7% from 3.87 in 2017
The median age grew slightly across observed geographies in the last five years, however, Norwalk’s current median age (34.3 years old) is slightly younger than the County and State (36.4 and 36.7, respectively). A small majority (51%) of Norwalk residents are under the age of 35
Norwalk is a majority Hispanic city (71.5% of its residents are of Hispanic origin), significantly higher than County and State (48.0% and 39.4%, respectively) Norwalk is a relatively affordable city to live in, with an average home value of $668,000, 21% lower than the County average and 12% lower than the State average Among dwelling units, Norwalk contains significantly more owner-occupied dwelling units (62%) compared to renter-occupied units (35%). City may consider expanding rental housing options to growing younger population and to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) requirements
Education & Incomes
Educational attainment (residents who obtain a Bachelor’s degree or higher) is lower in Norwalk (22% of population), compared to the County and State (both 38%). However, Norwalk experienced the highest increase in people earning Bachelor’s degrees or higher in the last five years (38%) compared to County (23%) and State (19%) Incomes are correlated with education levels. The average household income in the City is $98,500, 18% lower than the County ($119,800) and 24% less than the State ($129,400). It is important to note, however, that in the last five years, the number of households who have earned over $100,000 annually increased by 65%, a significantly higher level of growth when compared to the County and State (31% and 42%, respectively)
This indicates that although Norwalk lags the County and State in terms of incomes and education, it is also experiencing significant growth and is experiencing a demographic shift towards smaller households and more educated, upper middle-class residents, with more disposable income moving into the City
Norwalk households spend approximately $674 million annually on key retail goods and services. Major retail expenditure categories include: groceries (23% of spending), restaurants (17%), gasoline (11%), vehicle payments excluding leases (10%), and apparel (9%)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 72
1 Mile
3 Miles
CITY LIMITS &
RADII
FROM
INTERSECTION
OF IMPERIAL
HWY. AND
NORWALK BLVD.
5 Miles
Norwalk
City Limits
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 73
POPULATION & INCOME
CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE
City of Norwalk County of Los Angeles State of California 2017 2022 % Chg. 2017 2022 % Chg. 2017 2022 % Chg.
Population 109,144 100,886 (7.6%) 10,147,765 9,992,643 (1.5%) 38,986,171 39,770,476 2.0% Households 27,770 27,650 (0.4%) 3,321,508 3,425,790 3.1% 13,029,292 13,570,050 4.2% Average HH Size 3.87 3.61 (6.7%) 3.00 2.86 (4.7%) 2.93 2.86 (2.4%) Median Age 33.4 34.3 2.7% 35.4 36.4 2.8% 35.8 36.7 2.5% % Hispanic Origin 71.5% 71.5% 0.0% 49.0% 48.0% (2.0%) 39.4% 39.4% 0.0% Per Capita
Income $19,277 $27,022 40.2% $28,565 $41,172 44.1% $30,905 $44,265 43.2% Median HH
Income $59,825 $80,630 34.8% $57,190 $81,426 42.4% $62,554 $88,930 42.2% Average HH
Income $73,107 $98,497 34.7% $85,730 $119,793 39.7% $90,812 $129,367 42.5% Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022) Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative % change.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 74
POPULATION & INCOME
RADII
1 Mile 3 Miles 5 Miles
2017 2022 % Chg. 2017 2022 % Chg. 2017 2022 % Chg.
Population* 30,814 27,375 (11.2%) 220,608 207,874 (5.8%) 650,125 625,123 (3.8%) Households 7,972 7,639 (4.2%) 58,722 58,591 (0.2%) 186,830 187,651 0.4% Average HH Size 3.72 3.53 (5.1%) 3.72 3.50 (5.9%) 3.43 3.28 (4.4%) Median Age 33.4 34.0 1.8% 34.1 34.9 2.3% 35.0 35.8 2.3% % Hispanic Origin 71.4% 73.1% 2.4% 69.9% 69.9% 0.0% 63.1% 64.4% 2.1% Per Capita
Income $21,119 $27,201 28.8% $21,094 $29,926 41.9% $24,057 $33,147 37.8% Median HH
Income $59,888 $79,082 32.0% $62,243 $83,802 34.6% $63,715 $85,454 34.1% Average HH
Income $73,841 $96,764 31.0% $77,433 $105,659 36.5% $81,954 $110,390 34.7% Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022) Note: *Population metrics were measured from the intersection of Imperial Hwy. and Norwalk Blvd. to provide a direct comparison to the numbers provided in the 2018 EDOP. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative % change.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 75
5 Minutes
10 Minutes
DRIVE TIMES
FROM
INTERSECTION
OF IMPERIAL
HWY. AND
NORWALK BLVD.
15 Minutes
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 76
POPULATION & INCOME
DRIVE TIMES
5 Minutes 10 Minutes 15 Minutes
2017 2022 % Chg. 2017 2022 % Chg. 2017 2022 % Chg.
Population 43,003 73,108 70.0% 254,673 435,351 70.9% 826,824 1,280,523 54.9% Households 11,842 20,617 74.1% 67,908 126,413 86.2% 237,300 384,712 62.1% Average HH Size 3.53 3.51 (0.6%) 3.71 3.39 (8.6%) 3.44 3.29 (4.4%) Median Age 34.1 34.7 1.8% 34.2 35.4 3.5% 34.8 35.1 0.9% % Hispanic Origin 72.0% 73.7% 2.4% 69.4% 66.0% (4.9%) 61.8% 62.2% 0.6% Per Capita
Income $20,335 $27,677 36.1% $21,524 $31,984 48.6% $23,747 $32,186 35.5% Median HH
Income $56,304 $78,330 39.1% $63,206 $85,426 35.2% $63,311 $82,218 29.9% Average HH
Income $69,196 $97,437 40.8% $78,860 $109,951 39.4% $81,280 $107,059 31.7% Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022) Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative % change.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 77
6%
7% 7%
14%
17%
14%
12%
11%
7%
4%
1%
6% 6% 6%
14%
16%
14%
12% 12%
8%
4%
2%
6% 6% 6%
13%
16%
13%
12% 12%
9%
5%
2%
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Norwalk
Los Angeles County
California
Median Age
Norwalk 34.3
Los Angeles County 36.4
California 36.7
POPULATION BY AGE - 2022
51% OF NORWALK’S POPULATION IS UNDER THE AGE OF 35
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 78
POPULATION BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT - 2022
NORWALK HAS LOWER LEVELS OF EDUCATION, BUT SAW HIGHEST GROWTH
IN EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT COMPARED TO COUNTY AND STATE
20%
29% 28%
17%
5%
18%
21%
25% 25%
13%
14%
21%
27%
24%
14%
No high school diploma High school graduate or
equivalent
Some college or
Associate's degree
Bachelor's degree Graduate or prof. degree
Norwalk
Los Angeles County
California
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022); Notes: Population observed includes people aged 25 and older. % Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
Year 2017 2022 % Chg.
Norwalk 16% 22% 37.5%
Los Angeles County 31% 38% 22.6%
California 32% 38% 18.8%
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 79
5% 6% 6%
9%
20%
16%
23%
10%
5%
8%
6% 6%
10%
15%
13%
18%
10%
14%
7%
6% 6%
9%
15%
13%
19%
11%
16%
<$15K $15-$25K $25-$35K $35-$50K $50-$75K $75-$100K $100-$150K $150-$200K $200K+ Norwalk
LA County
California
POPULATION BY INCOME - 2022
38% OF NORWALK HOUSEHOLDS EARN >$100K ANNUALLY
HH Income Median Average
Norwalk $80,630 $98,497
Los Angeles County $81,426 $119,793
California $88,930 $129,367
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 80
62%
35%
3%
44%
51%
5%
52%
41%
7%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant
Norwalk
LA County
California
HOUSING BY TENURE - 2022
NORWALK HAS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS
Avg. HH Size
Norwalk 3.61
Los Angeles County 2.86
California 2.86
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 81
Source: Zillow.com (Accessed December 2022)
County
City
California
$844K
$358K
$762K
USA
$668K
HOME VALUE HISTORY
2015 - 2022
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 82
RETAIL GOODS
AND SERVICES
EXPENDITURES
Current Households City of
Norwalk
% Share
Per HH 5-Mile Radius % Share
Per HH
Households: 27,700 - 187,700 -
Average HH Income $98,500 - $110,400 -
Avg. HH Expenditures for Select Categories
Food at Home $5,680 23.3% $6,347 23.5%
Food Away From Home $4,208 17.3% $4,632 17.1%
Alcohol $688 2.8% $776 2.9%
Housekeeping Supplies $748 3.1% $840 3.1%
Household Furnishings / Equipment $1,395 5.7% $1,568 5.8% Apparel $2,185 9.0% $2,469 9.1%
Vehicle Payments (excl. leases) $2,334 9.6% $2,557 9.5% Gasoline / Motor Fuel $2,654 10.9% $2,837 10.5%
Health (OTC/Prescription Drugs, Eyewear) $484 2.0% $548 2.0% Fees / Admission $834 3.4% $937 3.5%
TV / Video / Audio Equipment $1,118 4.6% $1,257 4.6%
Pets $693 2.8% $778 2.9%
Toys / Games / Hobby $110 0.5% $122 0.5%
Personal Care Products $512 2.1% $571 2.1%
Reading $108 0.4% $122 0.5%
Education (School Books and Supplies) $149 0.6% $162 0.6% Tobacco Products $283 1.2% $330 1.2%
Sports / Recreation / Exercise Equipment $175 0.7% $195 0.7% Total Per Household $24,358 100.0% $27,048 100.0%
Total Annual Spending Potential $673,519,000 - $5,075,603,000 - The ~27,700 households in the City of Norwalk
spend approximately $674 million annually
across these select retail expenditure
categories. The top three spending categories
are Food at Home (e.g., groceries), Food Away
From Home (e.g., restaurants, fast food), and
Gasoline / Motor Fuel.
The ~187,700 households in the 5-mile radius
spend approximately $5.1 billion across the
observed retail expenditure categories annually.
Similarly, the top three spending categories are
Food at Home, Food Away From Home, and
Gasoline / Motor Fuel.
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed February 2023); Note: The Fees/Admission category primarily reflects spending on entertainment, including tickets to the theatre, movies, parks/museums, and sporting events.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 83
A.3 – UNEMPLOYMENT & EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 84
SUMMARY
UNEMPLOYMENT & EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
Unemployment in the City increased by nearly 200% from 4.4% in 2019 to
13.1% in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic; Unemployment has since decreased and has reached pre-pandemic levels by November 2022 Most people who work in the City are employed in the following industries: health care and social assistance, educational services, retail trade, administration and support, and wholesale trade
The top four employers in the City of Norwalk are the County of Los Angeles, Metropolitan State Hospital, Cerritos College, and the Norwalk- La Mirada School District. Each provides over 1,000 jobs in the City The fastest growing industries in Los Angeles County include health care and social assistance, accommodation and food services, professional and business services, transportation and warehousing, and educational services. Thus, two of the fastest growing industry sectors are principal sectors of employment in the City
The top industries where Norwalk residents are employed include health care and social assistance, manufacturing, retail trade, accommodation and food services, and educational services, and most of these residents are traveling outside of the City for work. Popular cities where residents work include Los Angeles, Santa Fe Springs, Long Beach, Anaheim, and Cerritos, thus yielding a net outflow of jobs
Employees who work in Norwalk are arriving from Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim, Downey, and La Mirada
Norwalk’s jobs / housing ratio of 0.84 is smaller than that of the County and State (1.26 and 1.21, respectively), indicating a possible need for more jobs in the City
Note: Other services may include jobs involving equipment and machinery repairing, grantmaking, advocacy, dry cleaning and laundry services, personal care services, pet care services, parking services, and promoting or administering religious activities.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 85
8.4%
6.8%
5.5%
5.0% 4.6%
4.4%
13.1%
9.7%
8.2% 6.7%
5.3% 4.8%
4.6% 4.4%
12.3%
8.9%
7.6%
6.3%
5.5%
4.8%
4.3%
4.1%
10.2%
7.3%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Norwalk Los Angeles County California
UNEMPLOYMENT HISTORY
CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE
Source: California Employment Development Department (Accessed December 2022); Notes: Numbers are not seasonally adjusted. Annual averages are observed for years 2014 to 2021.
Unemployment Rate
(November 2022)
Norwalk 4.4%
Los Angeles County 4.5%
California 4.0%
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 86
NORWALK
EMPLOYMENT
DENSITY MAP
The highest concentrations of
employment in the City of Norwalk are
along Firestone Blvd. in the northwest
section of the City (Costco, Stater Bros.,
and Target); the southwest section of the
City along Alondra Blvd. (CVS and
Cerritos College); and in the northern-
central part of the City along Firestone
Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. between Pioneer
and Norwalk Blvds. (Northgate, TJ Maxx,
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School
District, City Hall)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2019, Accessed December 2022)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 87
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
CITY OF NORWALK
Resident Employed Population (Age 16+)
Sector Share
Health Care and Social Assistance 15.2%
Manufacturing 10.7%
Retail Trade 10.6%
Accommodation and Food Services 9.6%
Educational Services 7.8%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 7.7% Wholesale Trade 6.4%
Construction 5.2%
Transportation and Warehousing 5.1%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4.2%
Public Administration 3.6%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2.9%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.6%
Finance and Insurance 2.4%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 1.8%
Information 1.6%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.5%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.6%
Utilities 0.5%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.1%
Workers Employed in Study Area (Age 16+)
Sector Share
Health Care and Social Assistance 19.8%
Educational Services 18.1%
Retail Trade 14.3%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 12.4% Accommodation and Food Services 8.7%
Wholesale Trade 6.9%
Manufacturing 4.3%
Construction 3.2%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 2.6%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2.2%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.6%
Transportation and Warehousing 1.6%
Public Administration 1.5%
Finance and Insurance 1.1%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.1%
Information 0.4%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.2%
Utilities 0.1%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.0%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.0%
“Industries in which City residents work” “Jobs in the City” Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2019, Accessed December 2022) Notes: Categorized by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Sectors KOSMONT COMPANIES | 88
NORWALK
RESIDENT
CONCENTRATION
MAP
Residents are located throughout several
areas of the City. Highest concentrations
of residents appear to be in the center of
the City (bounded between Pioneer
Blvd., Studebaker Rd., Imperial Hwy., and
Alondra Blvd.). There are fewer residents
located in the outer areas of the City.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2019, Accessed December 2022) Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents / Sq. Mile
Employed residents
Employed residents
Employed residents
Employed residents
Employed residents
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 89
Outflow:
Where Residents Commute To For Work
City Count Percentage
Los Angeles city, CA 6,762 14.0%
Norwalk city, CA 2,979 6.2%
Santa Fe Springs city, CA 2,307 4.8%
Long Beach city, CA 2,208 4.6%
Anaheim city, CA 1,921 4.0%
Cerritos city, CA 1,463 3.0%
Downey city, CA 1,231 2.6%
Irvine city, CA 860 1.8%
Buena Park city, CA 852 1.8%
Commerce city, CA 792 1.6%
Santa Ana city, CA 781 1.6%
Orange city, CA 732 1.5%
Fullerton city, CA 726 1.5%
La Mirada city, CA 694 1.4%
Carson city, CA 674 1.4%
Whittier city, CA 661 1.4%
Torrance city, CA 608 1.3%
Bellflower city, CA 580 1.2%
Industry city, CA 526 1.1%
Paramount city, CA 499 1.0%
Cypress city, CA 475 1.0%
San Diego city, CA 470 1.0%
Brea city, CA 464 1.0%
Garden Grove city, CA 423 0.9%
Huntington Beach city, CA 423 0.9%
All Other Locations 18,047 37.5%
Inflow:
Where Workers Come From
City Count Percentage
Norwalk city, CA 2,979 11.1%
Los Angeles city, CA 2,045 7.6%
Long Beach city, CA 1,401 5.2%
Anaheim city, CA 770 2.9%
Downey city, CA 762 2.8%
La Mirada city, CA 716 2.7%
Bellflower city, CA 623 2.3%
Whittier city, CA 546 2.0%
South Whittier CDP, CA 508 1.9%
Fullerton city, CA 493 1.8%
Lakewood city, CA 457 1.7%
Cerritos city, CA 422 1.6%
South Gate city, CA 367 1.4%
Buena Park city, CA 357 1.3%
Santa Ana city, CA 344 1.3%
Compton city, CA 312 1.2%
Pico Rivera city, CA 307 1.1%
Garden Grove city, CA 286 1.1%
La Habra city, CA 283 1.1%
Paramount city, CA 261 1.0%
East Los Angeles CDP, CA 236 0.9%
Lynwood city, CA 229 0.9%
Santa Fe Springs city, CA 226 0.8%
Bell Gardens city, CA 214 0.8%
Huntington Beach city, CA 212 0.8%
All Other Locations 11,424 42.7%
WORKER
DESTINATIONS &
ORIGINS
CITY OF
NORWALK
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2019, Accessed December 2022) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 90
Workers employed in City
but living outside
Workers living & employed
in City
Workers living in City but
employed outside
*Employment Ratio = People employed within City (living and working in City + those who come into City for work) / Employed population of City (living and working in City + workers who live in the City, but work outside of the City) Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2019, Accessed December 2022) Employees who work in the City are coming from Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim, Downey, and La Mirada
Employed residents living in Norwalk are traveling to Los Angeles, Santa Fe Springs, Long Beach, Anaheim, and Cerritos for work
WORKER INFLOW / OUTFLOW
CITY OF NORWALK
Reference Norwalk L.A.
County
Workers Living and
Working 2,979 3,693,597
Workers Coming
(Inflow) 23,801 1,111,781
Workers Going
(Outflow) 45,179 854,805
Net Inflow/Outflow (21,378) 256,976
Employment Ratio* 0.56 1.06
Per the 2021-2022 ACFR, top 10
employers in Norwalk include:
➢ County of Los Angeles
(2,280 employees)
➢ Metropolitan State Hospital (1,601)
➢ Cerritos College (1,364)
➢ Norwalk-La Mirada School District
(1,237)
➢ Freeway Insurance Services (516)
➢ Target (482)
➢ City of Norwalk (423)
➢ Little Lake City School District (361)
➢ Costco Wholesale (336)
➢ Coast Plaza Hospital (313)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 91
JOBS / HOUSING
BALANCE
2022 Norwalk
City
Los Angeles
County
California
State
Employment 23,348 4,302,001 16,426,737
Households 27,650 3,425,790 13,570,050
Jobs / Housing
Ratio 0.84 1.26 1.21
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2022) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 92
Industry 2018 2028
Annual
Growth
2018-2028
Total
Growth
2018-2028
Total
Change
2018-2028
Health Care and Social Assistance 690,100 860,700 17,060 170,600 24.7% Accommodation and Food Services 442,200 505,300 6,310 63,100 14.3% Professional and Business Services 630,400 691,900 6,150 61,500 9.8% Transportation and Warehousing 192,100 216,200 2,410 24,100 12.5% Educational Services (Private) 131,300 155,200 2,390 23,900 18.2% Government 590,600 612,100 2,150 21,500 3.6%
Information 216,400 235,500 1,910 19,100 8.8%
Retail Trade 424,800 443,000 1,820 18,200 4.3%
Construction 146,300 162,700 1,640 16,400 11.2%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 94,300 104,900 1,060 10,600 11.2% Other Services 158,800 166,400 760 7,600 4.8%
Wholesale Trade 223,200 229,500 630 6,300 2.8%
Financial Activities 223,200 224,900 170 1,700 0.8%
Mining and Logging 1,900 1,900 0 0 0.0%
Utilities 11,500 11,000 (50) (500) (4.3%)
Manufacturing 341,200 300,900 (4,030) (40,300) (11.8%)
Total Nonfarm 4,518,100 4,922,100 40,400 404,000 8.9%
Total Other 582,600 632,700 5,010 50,100 8.6%
Total Farm 4,600 3,800 (80) (800) (17.4%)
Total Employment 4,842,300 5,269,800 42,750 427,500 8.8%
EMPLOYMENT
PROJECTIONS BY
INDUSTRY
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Source: California Employment Development Department, (2018, Accessed December 2022) Notes: Other refers to self-employed and private household workers. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate negative numbers.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 93
A.4 – VISITATION TRENDS
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 94
SUMMARY
VISITATION TRENDS
The COVID-19 pandemic saw a decline in visits to the City by both visitors and employees. The average weekly visits to the City declined by 30% and 19% for visitors and employees in 2020, respectively
Despite the decline in visits, the average weekly visits to the City by visitors increased by 23% in 2021 and further
increased by 4% in 2022. It took approximately a year and five months for the number of visits among visitors to return to pre-pandemic levels
Although employees saw a smaller decline in visits due to the pandemic, the average weekly visits continued to decline in 2021 by 2%, indicating further closures and employees working from home. 2022, saw a significant rise in the
average weekly visits by employees (28% increase).
Additionally, it took a longer period for weekly visits by employees to reach pre-pandemic levels (one year, ten
months)
Norwalk is a local draw for both visitors and employees. ➢ Approximately 69% of visitors to Norwalk come less
than 7 miles away, primarily from Bell Gardens,
Bellflower, Downey, and South Gate
➢ However, 15% of visitors come from 10-30 miles away – primarily from Long Beach and cities west of the 710
Fwy (e.g., South Gate, Huntington Park, Bell Gardens)
➢ 83% of employees in Norwalk arrive to work from areas less than 7 miles away (primarily from Bell Gardens,
Bellflower, La Mirada, and Paramount)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 95
NORWALK
VISITOR AND
EMPLOYEE VISITS
PER MONTH (AS %
OF 2019 BASELINE)
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2023)
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Jan-20
Mar-20
May-20
Jul-20
Sep-20
Nov-20
Jan-21
Mar-21
May-21
Jul-21
Sep-21
Nov-21
Jan-22
Mar-22
May-22
Jul-22
Sep-22
Nov-22
Visitors Employees
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 96
CITY OF NORWALK
VISITOR / EMPLOYEE FOOT-TRAFFIC OVERVIEW
Norwalk Visitor / Employee Summary Data
(Last 12 Months)
Visitors Employees
Annual Visits 33.8 million 11.5 million
Visit Frequency 7.9 208.8
Median Visit Length 77 minutes 150 minutes
Avg. HH Income $78K $78K
Visitation Data:
Distance from Home Area
0-3
Miles
3-7
Miles
7-10
Miles
Visitors 42% 27% 9%
Employees 70% 13% 6%
10-30
Miles
30-100
Miles
100+
Miles
Visitors 15% 4% 3%
Employees 10% 1% 0%
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2023);
Notes: Considers a minimum of 5 visits by visitors to the City of Norwalk over the last year.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 97
Avg. HH Income Ethnicity T op Home Location
Zip Codes
Visitors Employees
90706 Bellflower 90650 Norwalk
90242 Downey 90706 Bellflower
90241 Downey 90723 Paramount
90280 South Gate 90638 La Mirada
90201 Bell Gardens 90201 Bell Gardens
WHAT IS THE VISITOR AND EMPLOYEE PROFILE TO
THE CITY? (LAST 12 MONTHS)
Visitors $78,000
Employees $78,000
Visitors Employees
Hisp. 52.5% Hisp. 62.7%
White 27.3% White 17.2%
Asian 13.2% Asian 14.2%
Afr. Am. 7.0% Afr. Am. 5.9%
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2023);
Notes: Considers a minimum of 5 visits by visitors to the City of Norwalk over the last year.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 98
TRADE AREA COVERAGE: LAST 12 MONTHS
EMPLOYEES AND VISITORS TO NORWALK
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2023); Notes: Considers a minimum of 5 visits by visitors to the City of Norwalk over the last year. True trade area reflects where 70% of visitors and employees to the City of Norwalk come from.
Employee Trade AreaVisitor True Trade Area
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 99
TRAFFIC COUNTS
(CITY OF
NORWALK)
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2023)
Imperial Hwy. / Firestone
Blvd. (66,000 ADT)
Pioneer Blvd. / Rosecrans
Ave. / San Antonio Dr.
(54,600 ADT)
Pioneer & Alondra Blvds.
(44,700 ADT)
Imperial Hwy. /
Studebaker Rd.
(60,500 ADT)
Rosecrans Ave. /
Studebaker Rd.
(55,800 ADT)
605 Fwy at
Firestone Blvd.
(261,300 ADT)
605 Fwy at
Rosecrans Ave.
(247,000 ADT)
5 Fwy at Imperial Hwy.
(188,800 ADT)
5 Fwy at
Rosecrans Ave.
(186,200 ADT)
Norwalk Blvd. /
Imperial Hwy.
(72,600 ADT)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 100
B. MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 101
Overview
This section begins with a summary of commercial,
multifamily, and hospitality general market trends
The Market Demand Analysis evaluates the retail, office, and multifamily residential real estate markets. Geographies observed in the Market Demand Analysis include:
➢ The City of Norwalk
➢ A five-mile radius from Pioneer Blvd. and Rosecrans
Ave. (“five-mile radius”)
➢ Los Angeles County
The Market Demand Analysis observes the following:
➢ Existing supply conditions for commercial (retail, office, and industrial / flex space), residential (multifamily), and hospitality (hotel) for the most recent available quarter (Q4 2022)
➢ Historical trends in vacancy and rents on an annual
basis over the last ten years (2012 to 2022)
OVERVIEW
MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS
5-Mile
Radius
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 102
B.1 – MARKET TRENDS
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 103
MARKET TRENDS SUMMARY
Key trends in the post-COVID-19 economy:
➢ Retail
• Retail store closures, bankruptcies, and e-commerce
has driven changes in retail; Retail centers are being
reimagined (e.g. blended use development)
• Retail driven by trip-generators such as
entertainment, experience, and essentials (e.g. food)
➢ Office
• Office leasing activity dropping as remote work
becomes new normal; Social distancing led to offices
resizing/reconfiguring
• Integrating office in blended use environments;
Possible shift to suburban offices
➢ Industrial
• E-commerce is accelerating growth of industrial;
• Retail and industrial are merging, with space being
used for Buy Online Pick Up in Store (BOPIS),
fulfillment, last mile and warehousing (including flex) ➢ Residential
• Homes are live, play, and work environments
• Strength in suburban markets; Home office is the
new home amenity as single and multifamily housing
developments are designed to facilitate work
• New residential sites within shopping centers
➢ Hospitality
• Hospitality sector hurt the most by COVID-19
(conventions and business), but leisure travel is
rebounding
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 104
Housing is Not a Loss
Leader, it’s a
Growth Driver
Retail is Not Just
Retail Anymore
T elework is
Reconfiguring Office
Industrial /
Distribution is Critical
for the Economy
Housing Creation as
Economic Development
Retail Reimagination as
Economic Development
Office Conversions as
Economic Development
Industrial & Fulfillment as
Economic Development
• New housing can generate
significant new tax revenues and
support local jobs from resident
spending
• Housing is not necessarily a net
negative fiscal impact, especially at
current property values
• U.S. retail over-built and needs
“right sizing;” Covid accelerated
trends; today its about essentials,
experience & e-commerce
• Blended/mixed use projects
integrate multiple uses (housing,
retail, open space, creative office,
hotel)
• T elework and work from home
options are reshaping the needs for
office space and business districts
• Job redistribution tied to housing
• Vacancies can lead to fiscal impact
pressure
• Modern industrial is not “your
father’s industrial” – it is a blend
• Retail can’t thrive without
distribution; Booming demand for
e-commerce, particularly smaller
last-mile delivery facilities
• Flex space (a blend of industrial,
office, research and development
space) is a growing market. Cities
can attract high tech / skill firms
with such space
Key Market and Economic Development Trends for Norwalk
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 105
HOUSING AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Rooftops Needed
New housing can generate significant new tax revenues and supports local jobs – it is not necessarily a net negative fiscal impact, especially at current property values.
Live
Housing is needed in
jobs-rich areas;
High costs are a burden,
but high assessed value
= tax $$$
Work
Shop
Telecommuting is
booming; remote
workers can alleviate
traffic and increase
“spend” to support
local businesses.
E-commerce will capture
25% of sales within 5
years (~$9k per CA
household)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 106
WORK-FROM-HOME GROWTH
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON OFFICE DISTRICTS & DAYTIME POP.
Work-from-home is changing where people choose to live, and increases popularity of “15-minute communities” that offer amenities and quality of life
Census Bureau estimated that ~44% of workers are in jobs where working from home is currently feasible, with only a quarter of those in feasible telework jobs actually utilizing this capability Research shows the ability to telework likely varies by educational attainment and income-level; many of the telework occupations are heavily represented by incomes requiring higher levels of education (such as Management / Business / Financial / Professional occupations) Other research shows that while work-from-home days have declined from the pandemic high of 60% to ~40% of days, this is still significantly above pre-pandemic estimates of 5%
Employers are expecting an average of 2.3 work-from-home days per week, suggesting that hybrid home/office model is likely to be well- utilized post-COVID
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; St. Louis Federal Reserve; Survey of Working Arrangements (Accessed December 2022)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 1.2
1.4 1.6
1.8 2
2.2 2.4
Percent Paid Full Days WFH
Employer Plans for Post-COVID WFH Days
Work-from-Home: Current Utilization and
Employer Plans for post-COVID
Employer Plans for Post-COVID WFH Days
Percentage of Days WFH
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 107
E-COMMERCE GROWTH
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON BRICK-AND-MORTAR RETAIL
E-commerce sales in the U.S. have increased steadily, jumping by 30% in Q2 2020 due to increased
utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Loss of
almost $1 trillion in sales puts massive pressure on
local brick-and-mortar retailers.
According to UBS, e-commerce’s share of overall U.S.
retail sales will continue to increase over the next 5
years, resulting in a loss of sales, primarily in clothing, office supply and sporting goods.
Consumer online shopping behavior has further
solidified during the COVID-19 pandemic, and is not
likely to revert to old patterns, thanks to free 1-day
delivery services, etc.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; St. Louis Federal Reserve; UBS (Accessed December 2022)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
E-Commerce Share of Total Retail Sales
(Percent)
E-Commerce Retail Sales
(Billions of Dollars)
E-Commerce Retail Sales
E-Commerce Sales
E-Commerce: Share of Total Retail Sales
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 108
RETAIL TRENDS IMPACT ON SHOPPING CENTERS
Shopping Centers across the U.S. are faced with dramatic decline in retail sales as the digital economy converts the lifestyles and social patterns of every generation. Today’s consumers use online websites for purchasing many hard and soft good commodities. E-commerce retail sales are expected to continue their growth, particularly in categories of clothing & general merchandise purchases—categories that were traditionally a strength for shopping centers Approximately 1,500 regional malls have been built in the U.S. but several hundred have closed in past 5-10 years. By 2025, experts expect a cumulative loss of over 500 malls, with only Class-A malls in high income communities most likely to survive. The decline is largely related to the continued explosion of online retail sales. Retail centers with the strongest opportunity for future growth are those focused on essentials and experience KOSMONT COMPANIES | 109
THE EVOLUTION OF RETAIL CENTERS
Essential – Historically, downtown shopping districts were the center of the universe and a community’s primary draw, bringing a local character to shopping, dining, and entertainment.
Emergence – The first enclosed shopping mall was designed by Victor Gruen in the 1950s, bringing a revolutionary shopping concept to the suburbs.
Expansion –Mall concepts grew tremendously through the 1960s – 1980s, with new malls constructed as regional centers.
Enlargement – The spread of enclosed malls gave way to power centers and big box retail in the 1990s, fixated on even greater sizes of retail spaces.
Elevation – Lifestyle centers focus on upscale consumers and luxury brands, with boutique collections of stores paired with leisure amenities and landscaped designs in the 2000s.
Evolution – Today, significant store closures, brought upon by the rise of online-shopping and shifting consumer tastes, have led to greater mall vacancies and struggling downtown districts, reinforcing the need to create blended use and “think outside the box.”
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 110
RETAIL CENTERS
NOT COMING BACK AS PURE RETAIL
▪ US over-built on retail; more than 5 times the
per capita shopping center square footage
vs. many other countries.
▪ Currently, Norwalk has 21 SF of shopping center
space per capita
Norwalk California United
States
Shopping Center
GLA 2.1 million SF 908.1 million SF 7.6 billion SF
Population 0.1 million 39.5 million 328.2 million
Shopping Center
GLA SF Per Cap. 21 SF 23 SF 23 SF
Global Context: Shopping Center SF Per Capita
USA 23.5 CANADA 16.8 AUSTRALIA 11.2
UK 4.6 JAPAN 4.4 FRANCE 3.8
SPAIN 3.4 CHINA 2.8 ITALY 2.8
Source: ICSC, Cowen & Company, Cushman & Wakefield, Coresight Research (Accessed December 2022)
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 111
RETAIL TRENDS SUMMARY
“Brick and Mortar” retail has been undergoing massive changes in the past decade. Major redevelopment plans for southern California shopping centers including Laguna Hills, Westminster Mall, and Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza have been challenging with many sites pursuing “blended use” developments that include a significant multifamily housing component
The financial failure of the vast majority of department store chains, the non-stop growth of e-commerce, along with the expansion of the super box stores such as Costco, Walmart and Target has devastated regional malls across the U.S. COVID-19 related bankruptcies by dozens of national soft good chains that used to be the mainstay of malls is the last straw. Over 25% of malls built prior to 2000 are expected to be torn down in the next 2-3 years Shopping centers that are centered around experiences, entertainment, and essentials are best poised for economic resiliency and future success.
The future for retail centers in Norwalk lies in fostering experiential, entertainment uses and restaurants. Blended use projects that bring additional uses to retail sites (such as hospitality, last-mile logistics, and multifamily residential) can bring a more sustainable and diversified development to serve the community.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 112
B.2 – RETAIL MARKET
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 113
SUMMARY
RETAIL MARKET
The retail market in the City of Norwalk is large (3.9 million SF) and comprises 13% of retail space in the 5-mile radius
The COVID-19 pandemic did cause retailers to vacate space in the City, as indicated by a net absorption of -21,700 SF by year-end 2020. Much of that space was absorbed by the market by year-end 2021 (+84,400 SF). 2022 saw a major drop in retail space absorption as the Food 4 Less at 10901 Imperial Hwy. was fully vacated (-105,000 SF)
Retail vacancies increased in 2020 and 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent departure of Food 4 Less, respectively.
Historically, retail vacancy has remained at or below 6.5%, higher than the 5-mile radius (5.9% peak) and Los Angeles County (5.3% peak) Retail vacancies can be observed in 19 buildings and shopping centers throughout the City. It is important to note that just two buildings (former Food 4 Less and former H Mart grocery stores) account for 42% of vacant retail space in the City
Retail rents are on par with the 5-mile radius, but lower than the County In the ten-year period between year-end 2012 and year-end 2022, approximately 112,700 SF of retail space has been added in Norwalk (accounting for 8% of retail growth in the 5-mile radius) Prominent retail construction in the City includes: Norwalk Auto Center a 16,500 SF center at SEC Firestone Blvd. / Studebaker Rd. (opened 2017), and the Norwalk Fitness Village 81,700 SF , LA Fitness-anchored center (opened 2019, additional space built 2021)
There is limited demand for more retail space in the City given e- commerce trends, however a new Sprouts Farmers Market opened in March 2023 at SWC of Alondra Blvd. and Maidstone Ave.
Key categories of retail that exhibit leakage among Norwalk residents include: full-service restaurants, health and personal care stores, grocery stores, and clothing stores. Observing clothing and health and personal care stores, we can see that Norwalk residents are going to centers in Cerritos and Downey, along with some stores in Norwalk to shop for clothing, while residents tend to stay within Norwalk for health and personal care needs. There are five health and personal care stores that service Norwalk residents, although most tend to be in the northern half of the City 50% of the retail space in the City is over 40 years old. We estimate that half of that space (971,800 SF) could be replaced or re-envisioned as part of a larger blended-use project
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 114
Q4 2022
City of
Norwalk
5-Mile
Radius
Los Angeles
County
Availability
NNN Rent
$PSF/Yr. $22.92 $23.27 $34.87
Vacancy Rate 8.2% 5.3% 5.0%
Vacant SF 318,942 1,625,868 22,187,227
Net
Absorption 1,632 72 (100,354)
Inventory
Existing SF 3,901,020 30,797,567 445,611,760
Major available retail space in City
➢ 102,598 SF available at 10901 Imperial
Hwy. (former Food 4 Less)
➢ 43,758 SF available at Norwalk Town
Square (11633 The Plz.; 25,800 SF is a
former LA Fitness)
➢ 32,560 SF available at the 15915-15933
Pioneer Blvd. (former H Mart)
Retail space planned / proposed /
under construction
➢ 45,000 SF retail building proposed at
former Food 4 Less site
50% of retail space in the City is over
40 years old. Roughly half of the space
(~971,800 SF could be replaced / re-
envisioned)
Sprouts Farmers Market grocery store
opened in March 2023 at SWC of
Alondra Blvd. and Maidstone Ave.
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023); Note: CoStar defines Triple Net (NNN) as “a lease where the tenant is responsible for all expenses associated with their proportional share of occupancy of the building, except long-lived structural components and management charges.” Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently being marketed as available for lease or sale in a given time period. It includes any space that is vacant, occupied, or available at a future date. Negative net absorption refers to the fact that more tenants vacated retail space as opposed to renewing or expanding.
RETAIL MARKET OVERVIEW
Top: Former Food 4 Less
Above: Norwalk Town Square
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 115
RETAIL MARKET HISTORY
2012 – 2022
CITY OF NORWALK
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
NNN
Rent
Overall
2022 3,901,020 318,942 8.2% (104,954) $22.92
2021 3,895,388 208,356 5.3% 84,354 $21.82
2020 3,880,307 277,629 7.2% (21,668) $23.48
2019 3,875,703 251,357 6.5% (28,302) $20.67
2018 3,809,086 156,438 4.1% 4,471 $19.26
2017 3,809,086 160,909 4.2% 8,323 $20.69
2016 3,792,626 152,772 4.0% 43,270 $17.29
2015 3,790,776 194,192 5.1% (38,142) $19.35
2014 3,788,276 153,550 4.1% (42,092) $20.26
2013 3,788,276 111,458 2.9% 22,597 $20.65
2012 3,788,276 134,055 3.5% (7,604) $20.29
5-MILE RADIUS
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
NNN
Rent
Overall
2022 30,797,567 1,625,868 5.3% 50,316 $23.27
2021 30,771,151 1,649,768 5.4% 192,109 $21.95
2020 30,735,614 1,806,340 5.9% (76,175) $21.27
2019 30,715,350 1,709,901 5.6% (330,182) $20.89
2018 30,624,426 1,288,795 4.2% (59,394) $19.68
2017 30,549,948 1,154,923 3.8% 486,974 $22.22
2016 30,467,630 1,559,579 5.1% 540,072 $21.65
2015 29,902,928 1,534,949 5.1% 236,711 $19.34
2014 29,634,830 1,503,562 5.1% 61,492 $19.90
2013 29,563,627 1,493,851 5.1% 196,890 $19.26
2012 29,459,118 1,586,232 5.4% (32,178) $18.84
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
NNN
Rent
Overall
2022 445,611,760 22,187,227 5.0% 1,079,752 $34.87
2021 444,712,015 22,367,234 5.0% 1,650,391 $33.94
2020 443,829,326 23,143,594 5.2% (1,446,503) $32.86
2019 442,065,925 19,956,076 4.5% (198,217) $33.16
2018 440,482,315 18,206,050 4.1% (9,846) $31.13
2017 439,227,477 16,904,333 3.8% 2,035,050 $30.63
2016 436,988,506 16,640,887 3.8% 3,959,383 $29.58
2015 435,109,055 18,733,805 4.3% 2,719,835 $27.32
2014 432,589,750 19,174,517 4.4% 3,136,045 $25.80
2013 431,259,669 20,980,549 4.9% 2,813,983 $24.73
2012 430,065,502 22,593,065 5.3% 826,172 $24.85
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 116
RETAIL MARKET HISTORY
2012 – 2022
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023)
Vacancy Rates NNN Rent $PSF/Yr.
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Norwalk 5-Mile Radius LA County
$15.00
$17.00
$19.00
$21.00
$23.00
$25.00
$27.00
$29.00
$31.00
$33.00
$35.00
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Norwalk 5-Mile Radius LA County
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 117
RETAIL VACANCY
Source: ESRI, CoStar (Accessed January 2023)
Notes: CoStar reports the former Walmart as 100% leased. It is possible Walmart is continuing to pay rent on the Site.
There are 19 retail buildings in Norwalk
with vacancy ranging from 2.14% to
100.00%. Most of these retail buildings
are found in the EDOP strategic areas /
nodes.
Notable buildings and shopping centers
with high levels of vacancy include former
Food 4 Less, former H Mart, Civic
Center Plaza (NEC Norwalk Blvd. /
Imperial Hwy.), Firestone Plaza (NWC
Firestone Blvd. / San Antonio Dr.), and
Firestone Shopping Center (NWC
Studebaker Rd. / Firestone Blvd.)
Notes: Overlaid on the ten EDOP
strategic areas / nodes. Each point
represents a building. Point size is based
on building size (gross leaseable area
“GLA”). Buildings with 0% vacancy are
not included on this map.
161 - 6,380 GLA
6,381 - 18,800 GLA
18,801 - 44,615 GLA
44,616 -
99,000 GLA
99,901 –
232,800 GLA
Norwalk City
Boundaries
EDOP Nodes
2.14 – 7.73%
8.93 – 11.77%
16.71 – 32.48%
35.61 – 46.40%
66.45 – 100.00%
Legend
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 118
NORWALK
MAJOR SHOPPING
CENTERS WITHIN
5-MILE RADIUS
Sources: ESRI Business Analyst Online, CoStar
(Accessed January 2023);
Note: *Population for the 5-mile radius was calculated from the intersection of Pioneer Blvd. and Rosecrans Ave. to directly compare to the area examined in the market analysis.
Super Regional Mall
Power Centers
Festival / Theme Centers
Norwalk 5-Mile Radius
Shopping
Center
Inventory (SF)
2,064,900 19.879,900
2022
Population 100,900 641,500*
Shopping
Center
SF Per Capita
20.5 31.0
5-Mile
Radius
Norwalk
Entertainment Center
Cerritos
Towne Center
Lakewood
Center
Los Cerritos Center
Plaza 183
The Quad at
Whittier
Promenade at
Downey
Downey
Landing
Stonewood
Center
Gateway Plaza
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 119
RETAIL LEAKAGE
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2023)
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number (leakage).
Retail categories featuring high retail
leakage among Norwalk residents which
continue to grow include: full-service
restaurants, health and personal care
stores, grocery stores, and clothing stores.
New Sprouts opened Mar. 3, 2023 will
capture previously unmet demand.
UNMET RETAIL DEMAND BY RETAIL CATEGORY (NORWALK RESIDENT PURCHASES – 2022) Retail Category Supply (Sales) $ Demand $ Unmet Demand ($) Online Sales Leakage Potential
Other General
Merchandise Stores $359.89 M $240.06 M 119.83 M Medium
Building Material & Supplies $221.18 M $127.76 M $93.42 M Low Shoe Stores $14.59 M $9.92 M $4.67 M High
Bars / Drinking Places $7.99 M $5.78 M $2.21 M None
Book & Music Stores $3.06 M $4.77 M ($1.71 M) High
Gasoline Stations $137.52 M $139.90 M ($2.38 M) None
Electronics & Appliance Stores $19.37 M $24.59 M ($5.22 M) High Department Stores $30.67 M $36.59 M ($5.92 M) Varies
Full-Service Restaurants $53.55 M $68.16 M ($14.60 M) None Auto Parts / Accessories Stores $19.45 M $34.45 M ($15.00 M) Low Home Furnishings Stores $1.76 M $18.94 M ($17.18 M) Medium Health & Personal Care Stores $86.75 M $114.71 M ($27.96 M) Medium Automobile Dealers $336.70 M $373.05 M ($36.35 M) Low
Grocery Stores $184.85 M $242.04 M ($57.19 M) Low
Clothing Stores $7.18 M $65.55 M ($58.37 M) High
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 120
RETAIL LEAKAGE
MAP
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2023)
The points on the map show the top
retail centers and establishments across
retail categories where Norwalk
residents shop.
Four are in Cerritos (College Square, Los
Cerritos Center, Cerritos Promenade,
and the Walmart in Cerritos); three are
in Downey (Stonewood Center, Downey
Landing, Promenade at Downey). Other
areas include: Lakewood Center, Long
Beach Towne Center, and Gateway Plaza
(Santa Fe Springs)
Los Cerritos Center received over one
million visits by Norwalk residents last
year.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 121
NORWALK
RESIDENTS
TOP VISITED
CLOTHING STORES
– PLACER.AI
Clothing Stores
(Minimum 1 visit)
Location City %
Nordstrom
(300 Los Cerritos Center –
Los Cerritos Center)
Cerritos 14%
Nordstrom Rack
(11111 183rd St. –
Plaza 183)
Cerritos 9%
SKECHERS Factory Outlet
(11033 Rosecrans Ave. –
Rose Plaza)
Norwalk 6%
Old Navy
(12090 Lakewood Blvd. –
Downey Landing)
Downey 6%
Goodwill
(12827 Pioneer Blvd.) Norwalk 6%
Milos Fashion
(11711 Rosecrans Ave. –
Norwalk Town Square)
Norwalk 5%
Fashion Q
(11758 Firestone Blvd. –
Norwalk Plaza)
Norwalk 5%
WSS
(11820 Firestone Blvd.) Norwalk 5%
Savers
(15825 Imperial Hwy. –
La Mirada Towne Center)
La Mirada 4%
Old Navy
(11159 183rd St. –
Plaza 183)
Cerritos 4%
Clothing Stores
(Minimum 5 visits)
Location City %
Nordstrom
(300 Los Cerritos Center –
Los Cerritos Center)
Cerritos 1%
Nordstrom Rack
(11111 183rd St. –
Plaza 183)
Cerritos 1%
Savers
(15825 Imperial Hwy. –
La Mirada Towne Center)
La Mirada 0.5%
Goodwill
(12827 Pioneer Blvd.) Norwalk 0.5%
Nordstrom
(500 Brea Mall –
Brea Mall)
Brea 0.5%
WSS
(11820 Firestone Blvd.) Norwalk 0.5%
Old Navy
(12090 Lakewood Blvd. –
Downey Landing)
Downey 0.5%
Boomy
(12321 Norwalk Blvd. –
Norwalk Town Square)
Norwalk 0.5%
Milos Fashion
(11711 Rosecrans Ave. –
Norwalk Town Square)
Norwalk 0.5%
SKECHERS Factory Outlet
(11033 Rosecrans Ave. –
Rose Plaza)
Norwalk 0.5%
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2023);
Notes: Visits to area clothing stores (including clothing and fashion accessory stores) in the last year (2022) by Norwalk residents.
Only six top locations were provided among residents who make five or more visits to clothing stores in 2022.
Shopping centers associated with a store
are listed below the store’s address.
Shopping center names are not included if
the store is a standalone retail building.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 122
NORWALK
RESIDENTS
TOP VISITED
HEALTH AND
PERSONAL CARE
STORES –
PLACER.AI
Health
(Minimum 1 visit)
Location City %
CVS
(11623 Rosecrans Ave. –
Norwalk Square)
Norwalk 22%
CVS
(11011 Alondra Blvd. –
CVS Center)
Norwalk 14%
Walgreens
(11930 Studebaker Rd. –
Firestone & Studebaker Center)
Norwalk 12%
CVS
(11851 Artesia Blvd. –
Pioneer Artesia Center)
Artesia 10%
CVS
(12618 Studebaker Rd.) Norwalk 8%
Rite Aid
(12319 Norwalk Blvd. –
Paddison Square)
Norwalk 6%
Walgreens
(11800 Artesia Blvd.) Artesia 5%
CVS
(13303 East South St. –
Cerritos Plaza South)
Cerritos 3%
CVS
(15210 Rosecrans Ave. –
La Mirada Theatre Center)
La Mirada 3%
GNC
(13931 Pioneer Blvd. –
Norwalk Town Square)
Norwalk 2%
Health
(Minimum 5 visits)
Location City %
CVS
(11623 Rosecrans Ave. –
Norwalk Square)
Norwalk 3%
CVS
(11011 Alondra Blvd. –
CVS Center)
Norwalk 2%
Walgreens
(11930 Studebaker Rd. –
Firestone & Studebaker Center)
Norwalk 1%
CVS
(11851 Artesia Blvd. –
Pioneer Artesia Center)
Artesia 1%
CVS
(12618 Studebaker Rd.) Norwalk 1%
Rite Aid
(12319 Norwalk Blvd. –
Paddison Square)
Norwalk 0.5%
CVS
(13303 East South St. –
Cerritos Plaza South)
Cerritos 0.5%
Walgreens
(11800 Artesia Blvd.) Artesia 0.5%
CVS
(15210 Rosecrans Ave. –
La Mirada Theatre Center)
La Mirada 0.5%
Rite Aid
(15924 Bellflower Blvd. –
Santangelo Plaza)
Bellflower 0.5%
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2023);
Notes: Visits to area health and personal care stores in the last year (2022) by Norwalk residents. Top nine health and personal care stores are shown among residents who visited at least five times in 2022.
Shopping centers associated with a store
are listed below the store’s address.
Shopping center names are not included if
the store is a standalone retail building.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 123
B.3 – OFFICE MARKET
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 124
SUMMARY
OFFICE MARKET
Norwalk contains 1.4 million SF of office space and accounts for 13% of the total office space within the 5-mile radius
As of Q4 2022, office vacancy in the City was higher than vacancy in the 5-mile radius, but lower than Los Angeles County. Office rents were on par with the 5-mile radius and lower than Los Angeles County, indicating limited demand for office space in the City
Between 2012 and 2022, office vacancy in the City and 5-mile radius has fluctuated between 5.0% and 10.5%. Comparatively, vacancy in Los Angeles County in the ten-year span has never dropped below 9.6%. Office rents have seen a steady increase in the last 10 years. In that time, office rents in Norwalk, the 5-mile radius, and Los Angeles County have grown by 18%, 21%, and 44%, respectively
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant shift in the way people work – offices were shut down and employees began working remotely. As of year-end 2020, it is observed that office vacancy dropped by 11% in year- end 2021, but increased by 32% to 8.3% by year-end 2022 Although Norwalk has overall higher levels of vacancy compared to the surrounding 5-mile radius, it is important to note that almost half of the vacant space in the City can be attributed to one building – Norwalk Govt.
Center (464K SF , 11.1% vacant)
Limited office space has been constructed in the last ten years (14,000 SF across four buildings) and there has not been new office construction in the City since 2018. Of these newly constructed buildings, two are medical office buildings and one is a live/work office/residential building. Given more people are working from home, in-home office type amenities will be important to consider for future development
Demand for office space City-wide is limited as there is no additional office space that is currently planned, proposed, or under construction 97% of office space in Norwalk is over 40 years old. Three office buildings (over 40 years old) contain 60% of the office space in Norwalk. These buildings contain County offices / services and are unlikely to be replaced / reimagined. As older buildings become obsolete, we estimate that approximately half of the remaining 37% of office space over 40 years old can be replaced or re-envisioned as part of a blended-use project KOSMONT COMPANIES | 125
Major available office space in City
➢ 51,579 SF available at Norwalk Govt.
Center (12440 Imperial Hwy.) – the
largest office building in the City
(464,000 SF); Main tenants: County of
Los Angeles and Accenture
➢ 47,738 SF available at Norwalk
Corporate Plaza (12501 Imperial
Hwy.); Main tenants: Kaiser
Permanente, CA Board of Equalization
According to CoStar, there is no
office space currently planned,
proposed, or under construction.
Limited office construction over last
10 years. No new office SF added
since 2018
Three buildings make up 60% of the
office space in Norwalk. Those
buildings are older than 40 years, but
contain County offices / services and
are unlikely to be redeveloped
Q4 2022
City of
Norwalk
5-Mile
Radius
Los Angeles
County
Availability
Gross Rent
$PSF/Yr. $27.17 $27.78 $41.19
Vacancy Rate 8.3% 5.2% 14.2%
Vacant SF 114,680 563,607 61,424,657
Net
Absorption (29,373) (47,460) (1,617,027)
Inventory
Existing SF 1,375,748 10,855,189 431,580,769
OFFICE MARKET OVERVIEW
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023); Note: CoStar defines Full Service / Gross Rent as “a rental rate that includes normal building standard services which are provided and paid by the landlord.” Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently being marketed as available for lease or sale in a given time period. It includes any space that is vacant, occupied, or available at a future date.
Top: Norwalk Government Center
Above: Norwalk Corporate Plaza
37% of the remaining overall
office space is 40 years or
older and approximately half
of that space (~252,300 SF)
can potentially be replaced /
reimagined
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 126
OFFICE MARKET HISTORY
2012 – 2022
CITY OF NORWALK
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Gross
Rent
Overall
2022 1,375,748 114,680 8.3% (27,640) $27.17
2021 1,375,748 87,040 6.3% 11,103 $28.45
2020 1,375,748 98,143 7.1% 9,370 $26.26
2019 1,375,748 107,513 7.8% (5,267) $24.97
2018 1,375,748 102,246 7.4% 24,313 $23.29
2017 1,374,650 125,461 9.1% (43,654) $22.56
2016 1,374,650 69,267 5.0% 11,951 $22.64
2015 1,370,738 77,306 5.6% 9,069 $22.10
2014 1,370,738 86,375 6.3% 5,071 $21.02
2013 1,370,738 91,446 6.7% 61,112 $20.16
2012 1,361,755 143,575 10.5% (4,943) $22.98
5-MILE RADIUS
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Gross
Rent
Overall
2022 10,855,189 563,607 5.2% (15,825) $27.78
2021 10,855,189 547,782 5.0% 221,538 $28.95
2020 10,850,189 764,320 7.0% 14,673 $27.67
2019 10,850,189 778,993 7.2% (1,908) $27.43
2018 10,850,189 777,085 7.2% 7,917 $25.36
2017 10,834,714 769,527 7.1% 48,627 $24.12
2016 10,792,764 763,664 7.1% 183,665 $24.20
2015 10,765,675 920,240 8.5% (35,705) $23.25
2014 10,765,675 883,935 8.2% 188,599 $22.13
2013 10,765,675 1,072,434 10.0% 208,683 $21.80
2012 10,613,164 1,128,606 10.6% 28,956 $21.99
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Year Inventory SF Vacant SF
Total
Vacant %
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
Gross Rent
Overall
2022 431,580,769 61,424,657 14.2% (2,158,257) $41.19
2021 429,110,108 56,795,739 13.2% (1,318,732) $41.06
2020 424,944,752 51,311,651 12.1% (6,750,047) $40.37
2019 422,762,944 42,490,979 10.1% 743,071 $38.72
2018 420,467,482 40,948,753 9.7% 2,438,366 $36.82
2017 418,419,053 41,329,854 9.9% 1,246,923 $35.42
2016 415,880,870 40,029,712 9.6% 4,686,711 $34.35
2015 413,465,806 42,283,668 10.2% 3,207,345 $32.31
2014 411,613,622 43,637,557 10.6% 3,926,868 $30.76
2013 410,765,954 46,703,220 11.4% 1,993,693 $29.34
2012 409,233,955 47,164,814 11.5% 2,521,072 $28.51
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 127
OFFICE MARKET HISTORY
2012 – 2022
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023)
Vacancy Rates Gross Rent $PSF/Yr.
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Norwalk 5-Mile Radius LA County
$18.00
$22.00
$26.00
$30.00
$34.00
$38.00
$42.00
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Norwalk 5-Mile Radius LA County
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 128
OFFICE VACANCY
Source: ESRI, CoStar (Accessed January 2023)
There are eight office buildings in
Norwalk with vacancy ranging from
0.80% to 36.90%. Three of these buildings
fall within EDOP strategic areas / nodes.
Notable office buildings with high levels
of vacancy include Norwalk Government
Center and 11004 Adoree St. (former
Cal. Dept. of Public Health building,
adjacent to Coast Plaza Hospital).
Note: Overlaid on the ten EDOP
strategic areas / nodes. Each point
represents a building. Point size is based
on building size (rentable building area
“RBA”). Buildings with 0% vacancy are
not included on this map.
908 – 5,702 RBA
5,703 – 13,603 RBA
13,604 – 33,158 RBA
33,159 –
121,381 RBA
121,382 –
463,998 RBA
Norwalk City
Boundaries
EDOP Nodes
0.80%
9.10%
11.10%
22.10%
33.50 – 36.90%
Legend
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 129
B.4 – INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 130
SUMMARY
INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET
This analysis compared key variables in the industrial and flex space market (hereafter, “industrial market”) within the City, the 5-mile radius, and Los Angeles County
The industrial market in the City is small (3.3 million square feet across 130 buildings) accounts for 3% of the industrial and flex space within the 5-mile radius. Seven industrial buildings in the City account for 28% of the industrial space (each are over 100,000 RBA)
As of Q4 2022, industrial vacancy in Norwalk was lower and industrial rents were lower compared to the 5-mile radius and Los Angeles County.
Across the geographies, industrial vacancy was 2.4% or below (0.4% in the City), indicating a strong industrial market
Over the last ten years, industrial vacancy in the City has fluctuated between 0.1% (2021) to 10.9% (2013), while industrial rents steadily grew (131% overall increase). In the same time period, industrial vacancy in the 5-mile radius and Los Angeles County has seen less fluctuation with vacancies remaining at or below 5.0% and rents growing by 218% and 223%, respectively
Although industrial vacancy saw a 36% increase by year-end 2020, changing consumer behaviors and the growing presence of e-commerce saw an increase in the demand for industrial / flex space and vacancies declined by 99% to 0.1% in 2021
In the last ten years, 24,900 SF of industrial space has been added to the industrial market in the City
According to CoStar, there is no industrial or flex space planned, proposed or under construction in Norwalk
There is strong demand for industrial space given the greater need for warehouse, sorting facilities, and last-mile delivery to support e-commerce trends. Additionally, flex industrial space, which includes research and development space appears, to be attractive options for companies in the medical and tech industries
Approximately 84% of industrial space is over 40 years old. We estimate that a quarter of existing industrial space in the City (694,300 SF) could be re-envisioned or upgraded to accommodate the continuing growth of e- commerce
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 131
Major available industrial / flex
space in City
➢ 16,340 SF Class B warehouse
space available at 15613-15619
Blackburn Ave.
➢ 9,615 SF Class B flex space
available at 14775-14799
Carmenita Rd.
According to CoStar, there is no
industrial or flex space currently
planned, proposed, or under
construction. Limited industrial /
flex space construction over last
10 years. No new industrial / flex
SF added since 2017
In the last 10 years 24,900 SF of
industrial / flex space has been
added City-wide
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023); Note: CoStar defines Triple Net (NNN) as “a lease where the tenant is responsible for all expenses associated with their proportional share of occupancy of the building, except long-lived structural components and management charges.” Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently being marketed as available for lease or sale in a given time period. It includes any space that is vacant, occupied, or available at a future date. Negative net absorption refers to the fact that more tenants vacated retail space as opposed to renewing or expanding.
INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET OVERVIEW
Top: 15613-15619 Blackburn Ave.
Above: 14775-14799 Carmenita Rd.
Q4 2022
City of
Norwalk
5-Mile
Radius
Los Angeles
County
Availability
NNN Rent
$PSF/Yr. $17.07 $19.06 $21.82
Vacancy Rate 0.4% 1.2% 2.4%
Vacant SF 13,815 1,414,382 22,283,558
Net
Absorption 54,886 (88,757) (818,864)
Inventory
Existing SF 3,322,747 117,025,430 947,126,374
84% of industrial / flex space
in the City is over 40 years
old. Given low vacancies, we
estimate a quarter of this
space (~694,300 SF) could be
redeveloped / reimagined in
the near future
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 132
INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET HISTORY
2012 – 2022
CITY OF NORWALK
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
NNN
Rent
Overall
2022 3,322,747 13,815 0.4% (10,015) $17.07
2021 3,322,747 3,800 0.1% 297,387 $10.56
2020 3,322,747 301,187 9.1% (77,835) $11.04
2019 3,322,747 223,352 6.7% (174,141) $10.46
2018 3,322,747 49,211 1.5% (11,584) $9.85
2017 3,322,747 37,627 1.1% 38,703 $10.36
2016 3,297,852 51,435 1.6% (20,436) $8.88
2015 3,297,852 30,999 0.9% 16,769 $6.29
2014 3,297,852 47,768 1.4% 311,249 $7.14
2013 3,297,852 359,017 10.9% (99,867) $6.25
2012 3,297,852 259,150 7.9% (16,463) $7.40
5-MILE RADIUS
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
NNN
Rent
Overall
2022 117,025,430 1,414,382 1.2% 27,151 $19.06
2021 116,830,720 1,246,823 1.1% 3,884,399 $11.06
2020 116,094,080 4,394,582 3.8% (366,522) $10.52
2019 115,832,052 3,772,392 3.3% (1,140,248) $10.27
2018 115,588,247 2,388,339 2.1% 1,543,886 $9.67
2017 113,456,297 1,800,568 1.6% 84,697 $9.77
2016 113,087,445 1,516,413 1.3% 202,950 $7.87
2015 112,795,621 1,427,539 1.3% 2,199,008 $7.40
2014 112,795,621 3,626,547 3.2% 2,158,131 $6.59
2013 112,693,392 5,682,449 5.0% 455,972 $6.11
2012 111,866,525 5,311,554 4.7% 408,344 $5.99
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Total
Vacant
%
Total
Net
Absorp.
SF Total
NNN
Rent
Overall
2022 947,126,374 22,283,558 2.4% (1,763,254) $21.82
2021 943,281,732 16,694,438 1.8% 16,992,637 $17.58
2020 938,982,996 29,388,339 3.1% (3,191,355) $14.41
2019 933,364,380 20,601,744 2.2% 1,010,958 $13.77
2018 930,314,972 18,606,273 2.0% 5,064,991 $12.40
2017 924,457,500 17,889,424 1.9% 8,216,200 $11.27
2016 916,861,761 18,667,777 2.0% 3,774,165 $10.17
2015 913,757,819 19,338,000 2.1% 11,274,918 $9.40
2014 910,036,599 26,891,698 3.0% 14,948,508 $8.32
2013 907,801,654 39,605,261 4.4% 7,016,633 $7.45
2012 904,409,759 43,229,999 4.8% 5,755,058 $6.75
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 133
INDUSTRIAL / FLEX MARKET HISTORY
2012 – 2022
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023)
Vacancy Rates NNN Rent $PSF/Yr.
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Norwalk 5-Mile Radius LA County
$5.00
$7.00
$9.00
$11.00
$13.00
$15.00
$17.00
$19.00
$21.00
$23.00
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Norwalk 5-Mile Radius LA County
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 134
INDUSTRIAL / FLEX
VACANCY
Source: ESRI, CoStar (Accessed January 2023)
There are five industrial buildings in
Norwalk with vacancy ranging from
8.00% to 61.30%. Only 11818 165th St.
(6,200 SF RBA, 61.30% vacant) falls within
an EDOP strategic area.
The industrial / flex buildings that contain
vacant space are smaller buildings (less
than 30,130 SF). Another notable
industrial building with higher levels of
vacancy is 14775-14799 Carmenita Rd.
(17,900 SF RBA, 37.60% vacant).
Note: Overlaid on the ten EDOP
strategic areas / nodes. Each point
represents a building. Point size is based
on building size (rentable building area
“RBA”). Buildings with 0% vacancy are
not included on this map.
630 – 12,972 RBA
12,973 – 30,129 RBA
30,130 – 60,167 RBA
60,168 –
110,000 RBA
110,001 –
181,472 RBA
Norwalk City
Boundaries
EDOP Nodes
8.00%
8.10%
9.80%
37.60%
61.30%
Legend
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 135
B.5 – MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 136
SUMMARY
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET
Source: SCAG, 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan (Accessed January 2023); Note: *Of the 5,034 units Norwalk is allocated to add, 1,546 are very low-income units (<50% Area Median Income [“AMI”]), 759 are low- income units (50-80% AMI), 658 are moderate-income units (80-120% AMI), and 2,071 are above moderate-income units (> 120% AMI). The multifamily residential market in the City of Norwalk contains 5,049 units across 170 buildings and accounts for 12% of the multifamily market within a 5-mile radius
The multifamily market in Norwalk is strong with 2.2% vacancy as of Q4 2022. Furthermore, multifamily residential vacancy levels have been at or below 3.5% and asking rents per month have steadily increased over the last 10 years (58% increase overall)
Among multifamily residential units in the City, 4% are in one Class A building, 24% are in Class B buildings, and 72% are in Class C buildings 86% of units in the City are market-rate units (2.5% vacancy, average asking rent = $1,943/mo.) and 14% are affordable units (0.4% vacancy, average asking rent = $982/mo.)
Senior housing accounts for approximately 18% of multifamily residential units in the City (917 units across six buildings). 71% of senior units are affordable units and 29% are market rate
Historically, the multifamily residential market has been strong across the geographies observed with vacancies remaining at or below 3.5% in the City, 3.6% in the 5-mile radius, and 5.5% in Los Angeles County From year-end 2012 to year-end 2022, 89 new residential units have been built across 21 buildings (Class B, market-rate units). This construction accounts for 2% of new construction in the surrounding 5-mile radius in the ten-year span. Major recent multifamily projects in the five-mile radius include: Aria, 197 Class A units in Cerritos; Miro, 150 Class A units in Santa Fe Springs; and Avalon Cerritos, 132 Class A units in Cerritos There are two major projects that have been proposed in the City that will feature multifamily residential as a large component. These include:
Norwalk Entertainment District (allocated for up to 350 units, ~20% affordable) and Norwalk Transit Village (located on the former California Y outh Authority site, 650-770 units, 40% of which will be affordable units) The City may consider allocating greater density for future projects to meet the demand for housing and achieve RHNA numbers. According to the SCAG 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan, Norwalk was allocated to add 5,034 new housing units by 2029* of which 59% are affordable units Despite limited construction trends in the City, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated demand for multifamily residential, as more people began working from home
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 137
MULTIFAMILY MARKET OVERVIEW
Q4 2022
City of
Norwalk
5-Mile
Radius
Los Angeles
County
Availability
Asking Rent
Unit/Mo. $1,776 $1,808 $2,087
Vacancy Rate 2.2% 2.3% 3.5%
Total # of
Vacant Units 111 960 44,497
Net
Absorption (16) (75) 683
Inventory
Total # of
Units 5,049 41,134 1,272,076
Major multifamily buildings in City
➢ The Courtyards Apartments (12301-
12401 Studebaker Rd., Class C,
market-rate garden apartments; built
1966; 297 units; 28 du/ac)
➢ Belcourt Senior Apartments (12801
Rosecrans Ave.; Class C, market-rate
senior apartments; built 1988; 267
units; 58 du/ac)
➢ Norwalk Metropointe (11615 E.
Firestone Blvd.; Class B, market-rate,
garden apartments; built 1989; 249
units; 49 du/ac)
➢ Center Pointe Villas Apartment Homes
(11856 Orange St.; Class B, affordable
senior apartments; built 2001; 240
units; 73 du/ac)
Major multifamily residential projects
proposed in Norwalk includes: Norwalk
Entertainment District (up to 350 units) and
Norwalk Transit Village (650-770 units, 40%
affordable). Limited number of multifamily
units constructed in last 10 years
Consider higher densities to meet RHNA
requirement of 5,034 total housing units
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.). Inventory does not include dormitories or mobile homes. Negative net absorption refers to the fact that more residents vacated as opposed to moving into residential units. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.
Top: The Courtyards Apartments
Middle: Belcourt Senior Apartments
Above: Norwalk Metropointe
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 138
MULTIFAMILY MARKET HISTORY
2012 – 2022
CITY OF NORWALK*
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
%
Vacant
Net
Absorp.
Units
Asking
Rent
Asking
Rent
(PSF)
2022 5,049 111 2.2% (23) $1,776 $2.34
2021 5,045 83 1.7% 53 $1,696 $2.24
2020 5,045 136 2.7% (23) $1,592 $2.10
2019 5,039 107 2.1% 40 $1,534 $2.03
2018 5,033 141 2.8% 14 $1,458 $1.93
2017 5,033 155 3.1% 19 $1,403 $1.85
2016 5,027 169 3.4% (19) $1,340 $1.77
2015 5,027 150 3.0% (25) $1,261 $1.67
2014 5,027 125 2.5% 48 $1,214 $1.60
2013 5,027 174 3.5% (15) $1,161 $1.53
2012 5,027 159 3.2% 13 $1,123 $1.48
5-MILE RADIUS
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
%
Vacant
Net
Absorp.
Units
Asking
Rent
Asking
Rent
(PSF)
2022 41,134 960 2.4% (204) $1,808 $2.25
2021 41,103 725 1.8% 465 $1,728 $2.15
2020 40,943 1,029 2.6% (23) $1,636 $2.03
2019 40,929 993 2.5% 37 $1,593 $1.98
2018 40,887 1,024 2.6% 178 $1,533 $1.91
2017 40,855 1,177 2.9% 141 $1,470 $1.83
2016 40,709 1,172 2.9% 128 $1,410 $1.76
2015 40,512 1,103 2.8% 327 $1,337 $1.67
2014 40,337 1,279 3.2% 174 $1,274 $1.59
2013 40,192 1,308 3.3% 128 $1,230 $1.54
2012 40,140 1,414 3.6% 47 $1,200 $1.50
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
%
Vacant
Net
Absorp.
Units
Asking
Rent
Asking
Rent
(PSF)
2022 1,272,076 44,497 3.8% 8,336 $2,087 $2.54
2021 1,259,539 41,087 3.6% 36,382 $2,025 $2.46
2020 1,244,051 63,233 5.5% 2,083 $1,906 $2.32
2019 1,228,975 51,894 4.6% 6,804 $1,924 $2.35
2018 1,216,118 46,439 4.2% 9,180 $1,884 $2.30
2017 1,203,485 44,232 4.0% 9,595 $1,829 $2.24
2016 1,194,743 46,203 4.2% 7,758 $1,769 $2.17
2015 1,182,553 42,369 3.9% 11,257 $1,702 $2.09
2014 1,171,663 43,851 4.1% 8,989 $1,621 $2.00
2013 1,162,583 44,073 4.1% 7,801 $1,572 $1.94
2012 1,156,737 46,254 4.4% 5,679 $1,530 $1.89
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023);
Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. *The 22-unit number highlighting new housing units built in the last 10 years will increase following the City’s review of final housing inventory.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 139
MULTIFAMILY MARKET HISTORY
2012 – 2022
Source: CoStar (Accessed January 2023)
Vacancy Rates Asking Rent $PSF/Mo.
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Norwalk 5-Mile Radius LA County
$1.40
$1.60
$1.80
$2.00
$2.20
$2.40
$2.60
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Norwalk 5-Mile Radius LA County
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 140
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
VACANCY
Source: ESRI, CoStar (Accessed February 2023)
Vacancy among larger multifamily
buildings containing 30 or more units
ranged from 0.0% to 8.5%. 62% of the
observed buildings contained less than 2%
vacancy, indicating a strong multifamily
residential market.
Buildings with the highest vacancy
include: Solterra at Civic Center and
Norwalk Metropointe, two of the largest
market-rate buildings in the City.
Note: Overlaid on the ten EDOP
strategic areas / nodes. Each point
represents a building. Point size is based
on building size (by number of units).
Buildings with 0% vacancy are not
included on this map.
30 – 46 units
47 – 112 units
113 – 297 units
Norwalk City
Boundaries
EDOP Nodes
0.10 – 0.90%
1.10 – 1.90%
2.00 – 3.60%
4.00 – 5.40%
6.70 – 8.50%
Legend
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 141
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY
Source: ESRI, CoStar (Accessed February 2023)
Among larger multifamily buildings
containing 30 or more units, density
varies greatly from 13 du/ac to 129 du/ac.
The average density across these buildings
is 41 du/ac.
The four buildings with the highest
density are concentrated in the center of
the City and are senior affordable
apartment complexes.
Note: Overlaid on the ten EDOP
strategic areas / nodes. Each point
represents a building. Point size is based
on building size (by number of units).
30 – 46 units
47 – 112 units
113 – 297 units
Norwalk City
Boundaries
EDOP Nodes
13 du/ac
129 du/ac
Density
Legend
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 142
B.6 – HOSPITALITY (HOTEL) MARKET
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 143
SUMMARY
HOSPITALITY (HOTEL) MARKET
The following hotel market demand analysis focuses on the larger hotel market within a 5-mile radius of the intersection of Pioneer Blvd. and Rosecrans Ave.
62 hotels exist and operate within a 5-mile radius. Hotels vary by class from Economy to Upscale. The hotels contain a total of 4,128 rooms and are mostly concentrated along major streets (Firestone and Lakewood Blvds.) and freeways (I-5 and SR-91). The City of Norwalk contains approximately 18% of the total hotel rooms in the 5-mile radius, most of which are independently operated, economy-class hotels (i.e., not part of a larger chain such as Hilton, Hyatt, and Marriott)
Of the 4,128 rooms, 51% are in Economy, 6% in Midscale, 14% in Upper Midscale, 12% in Upscale, and 10% in Upper Upscale class hotels. The remaining 7% of hotel rooms did not fall under a specific class category Currently, there are three hotels that are in different development phases (planned, proposed, and under construction)
Planned: 115-room Everhome Suites; Bellflower; Open date: Sept. 2024 Proposed: 110-room Hilton Garden Inn; Santa Fe Springs; Open date: Oct. 2026 Under Construction: 122-room Woodspring Suites; Bellflower; Open date: May 2024
In the three years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, hotel occupancy averaged 76.6%. Occupancy and demand for room nights both dropped by 29% due to the COVID lockdowns and the lack of both business and leisure travel
Despite the significant decline, occupancy and demand for room nights are gradually approaching pre-pandemic levels, however current demand for room nights does not exceed the annual supply of room nights The hotel market within the 5-mile radius is seasonal. In both pre- and post-pandemic periods, it is observed that summer months are the most successful for hotels (occupancy, average daily rate [ADR], and revenue per available room [RevPAR] peaked in July), while winter months are the least successful (occupancy, ADR, and RevPAR are lowest in January Given the limited number of midscale / upscale hotels in the City, there could be demand from a larger chain to open in the City. E.g., Marriott has expressed interest in opening a hotel at the proposed Norwalk Transit Village
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 144
NORWALK
HOTEL MARKET
COMP SET MAP
(5-MILE RADIUS)
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online; CoStar; STR
(Accessed January 2023)
Notes: Currently-operating hotels of all classes shown. Data represented in this section reflects CoStar’s weighted average of the market based on STR trends and does not include data reported directly from hotels in the area. Five-mile radius from intersection of Pioneer Blvd. and Rosecrans Ave.
5-Mile
Radius
Total of 62 hotels (4,218 rooms) within a 5-mile
radius.
The City of Norwalk contains 18% of the hotel
rooms in the 5-mile radius (769 rooms across
11 hotels). 67% of hotel rooms in Norwalk are
in economy class hotels, most of which are
independently operated and are not a franchise /
chain hotel.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 145
HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – 5-MILE RADIUS
MARKET PERFORMANCE SUMMARY*
Source: Smith Travel Research (Accessed January 2023);
Notes: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative percentage change. *Annual averages were calculated during the periods shown.
Year Occupancy Average Daily
Rate (ADR)
Annual Supply
of Room Nights
Annual
Demand for
Room Nights
Change in
Occupied
Room Nights
Revenue per
Available Room
(RevPAR)
Change in
RevPAR
Jan. ‘17 - Dec. ’17 77.8% $105.00 1,449,780 1,127,623 - $81.83 - Jan. ‘18 - Dec. ’18 75.9% $108.56 1,449,780 1,100,822 (2.4%) $82.62 1.0% Jan. ‘19 - Dec. ’19 76.1% $109.83 1,478,682 1,125,670 2.3% $83.79 1.4% Jan. ‘20 - Dec. ’20 54.4% $97.40 1,474,685 802,467 (28.7%) $53.66 (36.0%) Jan. ‘21 - Dec. ‘21 65.4% $111.04 1,488,136 974,300 21.4% $73.14 36.3% Jan. ‘22 - Dec. ‘22 68.1% $128.46 1,505,550 1,025,057 5.2% $87.71 19.9% Total Growth (%) (12.5%) 22.3% 3.8% (9.1%) - 7.2% -
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 146
HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – 5-MILE RADIUS
PERFORMANCE BY MONTH (PRE AND POST-COVID-19 PANDEMIC)
Performance by Month (Jan. 2022 – Dec. 2022)
Month Avg.
Occupancy ADR RevPAR
January 2022 57.5% $112.32 $64.63
February 2022 67.2% $122.77 $82.56
March 2022 70.3% $123.49 $86.82
April 2022 69.5% $125.29 $87.05
May 2022 68.4% $129.58 $88.70
June 2022 71.6% $136.09 $97.39
July 2022 74.0% $141.16 $104.46
August 2022 67.5% $133.89 $90.31
September 2022 70.7% $131.83 $93.14
October 2022 71.3% $132.28 $94.29
November 2022 64.8% $128.16 $83.05
December 2022 64.3% $124.63 $80.17
Average 68.1% $128.46 $87.71
The stay-at-home orders enforced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with increased cases in the beginning of 2021, ravaged the hotel industry. As the state re-opened the economy, hotels performance has gradually improved, but falls short of pre-pandemic numbers. Post-COVID, hotels in the market area followed similar trends to the pre-pandemic period with July remaining the most successful month with the highest occupancy levels, ADR, and RevPAR.. Winter months are the least successful with January having the lowest occupancy levels.
Performance by Month (Jan. 2019 – Dec. 2019)
Month Avg.
Occupancy ADR RevPAR
January 2019 67.3% $103.11 $69.38
February 2019 73.4% $108.02 $79.33
March 2019 80.9% $109.55 $88.64
April 2019 77.0% $108.48 $83.52
May 2019 75.0% $108.57 $81.45
June 2019 82.0% $113.17 $92.77
July 2019 85.2% $118.68 $101.14
August 2019 81.4% $117.77 $95.82
September 2019 74.9% $108.48 $81.27
October 2019 77.3% $110.27 $85.20
November 2019 70.9% $106.62 $75.62
December 2019 67.8% $105.26 $71.39
Average 76.1% $109.83 $83.79
Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, hotels in the market area performed strongly most of the year, except for the winter months (December to February – avg. occupancy was 69.5%). Summer months are the most successful (avg. occupancy of 82.9% between June and August). July was the most successful month with the highest occupancy levels, ADR, and RevPAR.
Sources: CoStar; Smith Travel Research (Accessed January 2023); Note: *Annual averages were calculated during the periods shown.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 147
Demand for multifamily residential and industrial is strongest in the City, while demand for retail and office is low
➢ Increased e-commerce presence (need for smaller last-mile, flex industrial, and sorting facilities), plus limited construction city-wide in the last ten years limits retail demand. A Sprouts Farmers Market grocery store opened in March 2023 and services the southern end of Norwalk. Additionally, some small, supportive retail will be added to key residential projects – e.g., Norwalk Entertainment District and Norwalk Transit Village
➢ Limited demand for office space given more people are working from home and utilizing in-home office amenities. Furthermore, no new office space has been added in the City in the last ten years ➢ State’s housing shortage, more people working from home, coupled with low vacancy and higher rents drive residential demand. Potential need to increase density to meet RHNA requirements
Limited number of midscale / upscale hotels in the City. There could be demand from a large chain to open in the City
FINDINGS
MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS
City of Norwalk
Commercial
Land Use
% of Space 40+
Years Old
Est. SF to be
replaced / reimagined
Retail 50% 971,800 SF
Office 97% 252,300 SF
Industrial / Flex 84% 694,300 SF
RHNA Allocation
(City of Norwalk)
Number
of Units
Very-Low Income (<50% AMI) 1,546
Low-Income (50-80% AMI) 759
Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) 658
Above-moderate Income (>120% AMI) 2,071
TOTAL UNITS 5,034
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 148
C. PUBLIC OUTREACH
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 149
SUMMARY
PUBLIC OUTREACH
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 150
D. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 151
D.1 – CITY BOUNDARIES & EDOP NODES MAP
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 152
CITY BOUNDARIES
AND EDOP NODES
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed April 2023) Notes: 105 Fwy. / Studebaker Node and Tank Farm are no longer being considered as nodes / strategic areas for economic development. The 105 Fwy./Studebaker Node is a parking lot servicing the Norwalk Station of the Metro C Line and the Tank Farm site will become a public park.
Alondra Blvd.
Rosecrans Ave.
Norwalk Blvd.
Pioneer Blvd.
Imperial Hwy.
Studebaker Rd.
Bloomfield Ave.
166
th
St.
1 2
8 7
4 5
6 9
10 3
11 12
# EDOP Node Status
1 605 Fwy. / Firestone Existing
2 Firestone / San Antonio Nodes Existing
3 Imperial / Pioneer Existing
4 Civic Center / Entertainment District Existing
5 Prof. Office Development Center Existing
6 Norwalk Transit Village
(fmr. Cal. Youth Authority) Existing
7 Five Points Existing
8 Historic Front Street Existing
9 Alondra / Pioneer Existing
10 Former Food 4 Less* New
11 105 Fwy. / Studebaker Removed
12 Tank Farm Removed
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 153
D.2 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
CASE STUDIES
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 154
EIFD CITY / COUNTY PARTNERSHIP CASE STUDY
Placentia / Orange County EIFD Partnership
• 300+ acres: Old Town Placentia Revitalization Plan, Metrolink Station, TOD Packing House Area
• Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) will fund $13 million in public infrastructure improvements for those areas
• Water, sewer, streets, parking, transit connectivity
• $460M+ expected in new AV from residential, retail,
restaurant development
• Net Fiscal Benefit: $22M to City, $15M to County
BEFORE
AFTER
Implementation
• EIFD feasibility analysis & formation process
• Led education/outreach meetings with County BOS
• Developed County EIFD Policy for City/County EIFD
• Completed first EIFD TIF Court Validation in the state • Working on TIF Bond—expected by fall of 2022
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 155
ZONING AND LAND USE STRATEGIES
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY RESERVE D.O.R.® - CASE STUDIES
• Goal: Induce housing development in downtown area
• Benefits & Amenities: public restrooms, off-site
improvements, public parking, parking district, public
art, parks, green buildings, other
• Incentives: Increase density up to 40 units / acre,
increase heights, reduce on-site parking , reduced
setbacks, reduced traffic and application fees
Implementation Steps
1. Conduct market housing / economic study
2. Discuss new density and public amenities
with community
3. Create DOR mechanism as new Zoning /
Specific Plan provision
• Goal: Increase downtown density along with
community benefits and public improvements
• Benefits & Amenities: streets, bicycle facilities,
parking, open space, beautification, transit, arts /
cultural spaces, lot consolidation; developer can install amenities or pay into public improvement fund; value
based on a portion of residual land value (~75%)
• Incentives: Increase density, heights, FAR, dwelling
units per acre
Buellton Avenue of Flags El Monte Downtown Main St.
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 156
D.3 – HOUSING LEGISLATION TABLE
CITY OF NORWALK – EDOP
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 157
2022 HOUSING LEGISLATION TABLE
Process /
Streamlining
AB 2011 / SB 6 Ministerial approval for residential developments on commercially zoned land (affordable targets and labor requirements)
AB 2234 Timelines for ministerial building permits
AB 2668 SB 35 cleanup (ministerial approval process)
Parking Reform AB 2097 Prohibits Parking minimums within ½ mile of public transit Density Bonus
AB 2334 Bonus for affordable projects in Very Low Vehicle Travel Areas AB 1551 Bonus for commercial / mixed-use projects
AB 682 Bonus for shared housing
Accessory
Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
AB 2221, AB
897, AB 916
ADU law cleanup, increased height limits, maximizing bedroom counts, detached ADUs at Multifamily Projects
Surplus Land SB 561, AB
2233, AB 2592
Codify / expand Surplus Lands EO – process to prioritize surplus state property for housing
Attachment No. 2
Interest Suggestions
Wonderful to see changes taking place in the city
with all the new developments
Tesla – would like an educational component for
schools tied to the new development
Great for the community Would like to see a sports complex Developments will help support community Keep working with school districts, new population would impact schools greatly
Strong generational impact for the future Interest in sports center Liked the special component of local community
college for Tesla employment
Would like to see non-smoking apartment
buildings
Very supportive of plan and helps district Need more affordable living units Excited to see change Recommendations for City: restrooms for Metrolink riders,
Positive AltaMed use services the residents Would like vacancy to minimize Norwalk Square – nice to see the improvements.
Excited for the movie theatre.
Node #9 Alondra/Pioneer – would like to see
food/restaurants in area
Appreciate push for more development. We serve the same community. Need for grocery stores.
Developments will impact District and hope will
help with new student enrollment
Concerns with all the vacant buildings in Norwalk
Wonder to see change and see community grow. Hope it doesn’t become as congested as Downey Very impressed with the presentation that shows
the new developments to come
Young professionals are commuting long
distances due to cost of housing
Beautifying our City Biggest priority is Student housing Makes it feel like a rich
community/neighborhood now with all the new
developments
Joint occupancy is highly desirable, community
kitchens
Looks professional and kept up Would be great to add a restaurant at old Panda King
Revenue will be coming into Norwalk with all the
new business and developments
Opportunities to purchase would be good
List of feedback received for the Plan from the 2023 presentations Attachment No. 2
Nice to see continued redevelopment and
improvement plans
Most young professionals still would not qualify
for Affordable housing
Nice to see developments in all areas of Norwalk,
especially near Transit area for travelers using
Metrolink
New homes would allow for a creative way to
offer as an incentive to incoming new hires
Excited for projects Would be good to have a program where there is a contract to commit for a number of years.
Concerns on how the new developments will
change the events (concerts, Easter, fireworks,
etc.) that are usually held at City Hall lawn
Student housing is a priority. Node No.6 can be a
possibility. (Student housing req.)
Tesla – good sales tax for the City More housing options would help recruitment Really Wonderful for Historic Front Street – smart
for business
Need for better restaurants in the City
Glad to see the upcoming changes Housing – market rates are not very affordable for Norwalk residents.
Very exciting (revised infrastructure- EV charging
stations). Master plan working
Would like to see something for kids - Boys and
girls club.
Need for more grocery stores. Access to healthy
food. Some stores are too expensive. Food 4 Less
was popular site.
Can the following be restricted - laundromats, car
washes, check cashing stores, 99-cent stores.
Great for Norwalk, bringing more business to the
city and providing more to the community
Thank You! Great. Add more students & invite to
have more mtgs. To engage & work together,
share info, & have a dialogue
Great places for families We serve the same community. Need for grocery stores.
Affordable housing is a plus
All serve the same community. Thank you.
Attachment No. 2
EDOP Node: Questions:
#1: 605 Fwy./Firestone What tenants are coming to Node No. 1? Freeway/Studebaker exit – if closed will affect buses
#2: Firestone/San Antonio Any development on Firestone/Pioneer (motels?) #3: Imperial/Pioneer Tesla – would they offer charging stations? Super chargers? Where will the Tesla sales taxes go to NWK.
Charging station locations?
Any upgrades to Transit charging stations?
Who gets the sales tax from Tesla?
Will Tesla sell cars onsite?
Tesla area hotels/ what type of development will occur in surrounding areas?
Timeline for Tesla? Hiring?
#4: Civic Center/Entertainment District Any update to City Hall project? Entertainment District – how many retail stores
City hall monuments – will they relocate, can the marquee be more visible from all point
Entertainment district: Parking?
Where will special events occur?
Will city host new family days?
#5: Prof. Office Development Center
#6: Norwalk Transit Village (Former
CYA)
CYA questions – who owns the land, who will be managing the units, is it a land lease
Heavy hand push to build housing units. What type of
planning is there for the impact will it have on local traffic, schools. Rentals seem to bring in lower income individuals.
Why so many hotels, what is the point of building
additional hotels
Attachment No. 2
Will the closed schools be opening back up due to the
population growing
With building of new homes, what is the parking situation and how will it affect current residents
Will underground parking be built
What type of hotel will be built @ Transit Village? Would like to have higher end hotels.
Will there be rentals or sales at former CYA? What about parking?
Why so many hotels?
Will the CYA connect to the Transportation Center?
#7: FivePoints When will Milagro Cinema open at Norwalk Town Square? Will Milagro theatres show Spanish movie?
What impacts does serving alcohol create in a movie
theatre?
#8: Historic Front Street Can Front Street be declared a historical place? Front Street – will incentives be offered to other tenants to join in on the redevelopment
How will parking be handled at Front Street?
#9: Alondra/Pioneer When will the apts. be built in Node No. 9? New Apts. – Would they be non-smoking. Affordable living? How much? 1/3 of monthly income?
When will the apts. be built in Node No. 9?
What business will be at Sprouts area?
Will Wienerschnitzel stay as part of Node #9?
Is the carwash near Tommy’s vacant, are there any plans for that property?
South of Norwalk is being left behind, any plans to
redevelop?
Attachment No. 2
#10: Former Food 4 Less Plans for vacant sites? Vacant lot next to former Food 4 Less?
Will there be more signage off the Freeways (names of
stores, restaurants)
What is going at CVS vacant site?
Additional questions Are there plans for any development @ Tank farm? When will the park start?
Has the city considered a Convention Center?
Any plans to develop Rosecrans/Clarkdale?
With an increase in population, will it increase
sheriffs/deputies
Will there be night markets added to the City?
Is there plans to develop between Pioneer & Kalnor?
What will the redevelopment be at Keystone Lanes? Why
does it have to close, great entertainment for the
community.