³3URYLGHDVDIHDQGUHOLDEOHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUNWKDWVHUYHVDOOSHRSOHDQGUHVSHFWVWKHHQYLURQPHQW´ encourage the City to work closely with LA Metro and other transportation agencies for roads and transit services that they manage.
The transportation impacts of the Proposed Plan have been carefully reviewed using the latest state and county guidelines. Since the City of Norwalk has not adopted its own Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds, the analysis followed Los Angeles County standards. The results show that the Proposed Plan would actually reduce VMT compared to current conditions and future projections.
Specifically, the existing countywide VMT per service population is 17.2, and the Plan Area with the Proposed Plan is forecasted at 13.7—about 20% lower. For the year 2040, the VMT is expected to drop even further to 12.1. This means people are expected to travel fewer miles by car, partly because the Plan supports walking, biking, and transit use. Features like affordable housing, bike lanes, and reduced parking near transit help support this trend. Based on this data, the Plan meets the CEQA threshold of significance (14.3), and the VMT impact is considered less than significant so we concur that no mitigation is needed if the City is able to achieve expected VMT.
The Circulation Element of the General Plan outlines goals, objectives, and policies guiding the development and operation of the City’s circulation system.
Of particular relevance to the Proposed Plan is Goal 3 which seeks to establish a circulation system that maximizes efficiency through the application of transportation system management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. In support of this goal, Policy 3.4 encourages the implementation of employer-based TDM measures, consistent with the City’s adopted TDM ordinance and the Southern California Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 15 Program.
As noted in Caltrans’ comment letter dated May 3, 2024, safety and multi-modal conflict analyses were requested for several key intersections near State facilities.
However, based on the environmental documents provided to date, it appears that detailed safety evaluations—such as queuing analyses—have not been performed for the intersections listed in the letter. These include:
x I-5/Imperial Highway
x I-5/San Antonio Drive
x I-5/Rosecrans Avenue
x I-105/Studebaker Road
x I-605/Firestone Boulevard
x I-605/Imperial Highway
x I-605/Rosecrans Avenue
2 3
1 Ĵȱŗ
□
□
□
Carlos Rojas, Senior Planner
August 4, 2025
³3URYLGHDVDIHDQGUHOLDEOHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUNWKDWVHUYHVDOOSHRSOHDQGUHVSHFWVWKHHQYLURQPHQW´ Given the scale of the Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan and its potential impacts on circulation and land use, Caltrans recommends a safety analysis such as queuing analysis with existing signal timing be prepared at above intersections providing access to the State Highway System. These locations may see increased volumes and turning movements under buildout conditions, raising the risk of spillback onto freeway off-ramps. When impacts are identified, this analysis would determine mitigation measures such as signal timing adjustments, intersection modifications, Transportation System Management (TSM), or additional TDM strategies consistent with Caltrans’ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ'HPDQG0DQDJHPHQW7RROER[:
https://transportationplanning.onramp.dot.ca.gov/downloads/transportationpl anning/files/regionalplanning/Final%20Draft%202023%20LDR%20TDM%20Toolbox %20071923.pdf
Please be reminded that any work performed within the State Right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. Any modifications to State facilities must meet all mandatory design standard and specifications.
Oversized vehicle transport on State highways requires a Caltrans transportation permit. Large truck trips should be limited to off-peak hours during construction and operation. All construction loads must be tarped. A truck and construction traffic management plan may be required for projects near I-5 on/off-ramps, and any lane closures or detours impacting freeway access must be coordinated with Caltrans.
Stormwater runoff is a sensitive issue in Los Angeles County. Projects must ensure clean runoff discharge and are prohibited from discharging stormwater onto State highway facilities without an approved management plan.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Alan Lin, the project coordinator, at (213) 269-1124 and refer to GTS # LA-2024-04840-DPEIR.
Sincerely,
MIYA EDMONSON
LDR/CEQA Branch Chief
email: State Clearinghouse
y
4 6
3 5
Ĵȱŗ
□
□
□
□
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-5 Heart of Norwalk Final PEIR 1335.003 October 2025
Letter 1 California Department of Transportation, District 7 Miya Edmonson, LDR/CEQA Branch Chief
100 S. Main Street, MS 16
Los Angeles, CA 90012
August 4, 2025
Response 1-1
The commenter provides an overview of the Proposed Plan. The comment is noted. No further response is required.
Response 1-2
The commenter provides an overview of the VMT analysis provided in the PEIR, specifically that transportation impacts of the Plan have been reviewed against the Los Angeles County Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds, since the City of Norwalk has not adopted its own thresholds. This analysis revealed that the Plan would reduce VMT compared to current conditions and future projections. The VMT impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is needed. This comment is noted. No further response is required.
Response 1-3
The commenter states that Caltrans supplied a comment letter dated May 2, 2024, that requested safety and multi-modal conflict analyses for several key intersections near State facilities. These include: I-5/Imperial Highway, I-5/San Antonio Drive, I-5/Rosecrans Avenue, I-105/Studebaker Road, I-605/Firestone Boulevard, I-605/Imperial Highway, I-605/Rosecrans Avenue. This comment is addressed in Section 2.2, below. No further response is required.
Response 1-4
The commenter states that any work performed within the State Right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. Any modifications must meet all mandatory design standards and specifications. All work will be conducted in accordance with Caltrans requirements. This comment is noted. No further response is required.
Response 1-5
The commenter provides an overview of requirements from Caltrans. Oversized vehicle transport on State highways requires a Caltrans transportation permit. These truck trips should be limited to off-peak hours during construction and operation. All construction loads must be tarped. A truck and construction traffic management plan may be required for projects near I-5 on/off ramps, and any lane closures or detours impacting freeway access must be coordinated with Caltrans. All work will be conducted in accordance with Caltrans requirements. This comment is noted. No further response is required.
2.0 Comment Letters and Responses
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-6 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Response 1-6
The commenter states that stormwater runoff is a sensitive issue in Los Angeles County and that projects must ensure clean runoff discharge, and these projects are prohibited from discharging stormwater onto State highway facilities without an approved management plan. The commenter is referred to Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the PEIR, which addresses stormwater requirements. This comment is noted. No further response is required.
2 4
1 3
5 ĴȱŘ
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS
Converting Waste Into Resources
VIA EMAIL [email protected]
Mr. Carlos Rojas, Senior Planner
City of Norwalk Community Development
12700 Norwalk Boulevard, Room 12
Norwalk, CA 90650
Dear Mr. Rojas:
Robert C. Ferrante
Chief Engineer and General Manager
1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 (562) 699-7411 . www.lacsd.org
July 14, 2025
Ref. DOC 7530696
NOA Response to Heart Of Norwalk (HON) Specific Plan
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the subject project located in the City of Norwalk (City) on June 27, 2025.
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Districts Nos. 2, and 18. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:
1. 2.
3. 4.
The Districts own, operate, and maintain the large trunk sewers that form the backbone of the regional wastewater conveyance system. Local collectors and/or lateral sewer lines are the responsibility of the jurisdiction in which they are located. As such, the Districts cannot comment on any deficiencies in the sewerage system in the City except to state that presently no deficiencies exist in Districts' facilities that serve the City. For information on deficiencies in the City's sewerage system, please contact the City's Department of Public Works.
Future individual development within the Proposed Plan may impact existing and/or proposed District's facilities (e.g. trunk sewers, recycled waterlines, etc.) over which it will be constructed. District's facilities are located directly under and/or cross directly beneath the proposed project alignment. The District cannot issue a detailed response to or permit construction of the proposed project until project plans and specification that incorporate District's facilities are submitted for our review. To obtain copies of as-built drawings of the District's facilities within the project limits, please visit LACSD Underground Utilities or contact the District's Engineering Counter at [email protected] or (562) 908-4288, extension 1205. When project plans that incorporate our facilities have been prepared, please submit copies to the Engineering Counter for our review and comment.
Future individual development within the Proposed Plan may require a Districts' permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge. Project developers should contact the Districts' Industrial Waste Section at (562) 908 4288, extension 2900, to reach a determination on this matter. If this permit is necessary, project developers will be required to forward copies of final plans and supporting information for the proposed project to the Districts for review and approval before beginning project construction. Additional information for which can be found on our website at Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permits.
A copy of the District's average wastewater generation factors is available on our website at Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use.
DOC 7542466.D0218
□
□
□
□
7 6
8 ĴȱŘ
Mr. Carlos Rojas 2 July 14, 2025
5. 6.
7. The wastewater generated by future individual development within the Proposed Plan will be treated at the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an average recycled flow of 21.0 mgd.
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 future individual development 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 connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Districts' Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727. If an Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit is required, connection fee charges will be determined by the Industrial Waste Section.
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 City that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the City 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 2742, or [email protected].
PLH:plh
DOC 7542466.D0218
Very truly yours,
Patricia Horsley
Patricia Horsley
Environmental Planner
Facilities Planning Department
2.0 Comment Letters and Responses
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-9 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Letter 2 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Patricia Horsley, Environmental Planner
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90607-4998
July 14, 2025
Response 2-1
The comment is an introduction to detailed comments, which are addressed below. No further response is required.
Response 2-2
The commenter states that local collectors and/or lateral sewer lines are the responsibility of the jurisdiction in which they are located. The District cannot comment on any deficiencies in the sewerage system in the City except to state that presently no deficiencies exist in Districts’ facilities that serve the City. This comment is noted. Sewer capacity is discussed in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. As demonstrated in Section 3.12, impacts related to sewer capacity and the need for new infrastructure would be less than significant.
Response 2-3
The commenter states that future individual development within the Proposed Plan may impact existing and/or proposed District facilities over which it will be constructed. The District cannot issue a detailed response to or permit construction of the proposed project until project plans and specifications that incorporate District facilities are submitted for review. Commenter requests that when project plans that incorporate District facilities have been prepared, copies be submitted to the Engineering Counter for their review and comment. As individual projects are built out over the lifetime of the Plan, coordination with LASAN will be ongoing. The comment does not raise an issue regarding the environmental analysis in the Draft PEIR. No further response is required.
Response 2-4
The commenter notes that future individual development within the Proposed Plan may require a Districts’ permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge. Commenter encourages project developers to contact the Districts’ Industrial Waste Section at (562) 908-4288, extension 2900, to reach a determination on this matter.
If this permit is necessary, project developers will be required to forward copies of final plans and supporting information for the proposed project to the Districts for review and approval before beginning project construction. The ability for the Project to increase wastewater is analyzed at the program level in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR. The comment does not raise an issue regarding the environmental analysis in the Draft PEIR. No further response is required.
2.0 Comment Letters and Responses
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-10 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Response 2-5
The commenter provides a link to the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors:
https://www.lacsd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3644/637644575489800000. This comment is noted.
No further response is required.
Response 2-6
The commenter states that wastewater generated by future individual development within the Proposed Plan will be treated at the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an average recycled flow of 21.0 mgd. This information has been added to the Final PEIR; please refer to Corrections and Additions.
Response 2-7
The commenter informs the reader that 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. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this future individual development is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. If an Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit is required, connection fee charges will be determined by the Industrial Waste Section. This comment does not raise an issue related to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Program level impacts related to wastewater are addressed in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR.
Response 2-8
The commenter states the available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As discussed in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed plan is consistent with SCAG estimates for growth and would not induce substantial unplanned growth.
Manna LLC
531 Main St, Unit 983
El Segundo, CA 90245
[email protected]
310-493-8633
Date: July 23, 2025
To:
City of Norwalk Planning Department
12700 Norwalk Blvd
Norwalk, CA 90650
Subject: Zoning Comment – Request for Clarification
Dear Planning Department,
On behalf of Manna LLC, the owner of the property located at 11565 Firestone Blvd (APN: 8048-009-008), I am submitting this formal comment regarding the City of Norwalk’s proposed Specific Plan and draft zoning map. We respectfully submit the following requests and clarifications for consideration:
1. Clarification on Zoning Coverage
We request clarification as to whether the newly proposed zoning designation is intended to extend over the entire parcel. A clear delineation of zoning boundaries is essential for planning and entitlement purposes. Refer to Exhibit A.
2. Clarification on Allowable Uses – Townhomes
We request clarification as to whether townhomes are permitted by right under the proposed “Active Commercial or Mixed Use” zoning designation.
Understanding whether this housing type is allowed will help us plan responsibly and align future development efforts with the City’s vision.
3. Correction of Business Status in Report
It has come to our attention that the report associated with the Specific Plan incorrectly states that the car wash business located on our property is closed.
This is inaccurate and harmful. Our car wash is fully operational, employing local workers and serving the surrounding community on a daily basis. We respectfully request that this statement be corrected in all public documents and future versions of the report to avoid further reputational or economic harm.
4. Clarification on Commercial Parking Regulations
The proposed zoning appears to permit commercial parking uses. We would 1 Ĵȱř
□
appreciate more information regarding what constitutes “commercial parking” and what rules, conditions, or performance standards apply to such uses.
5. Clarification on Full Commercial Use Along Imperial Highway The zoning synopsis for the Firestone Corridor states that Imperial Highway is to remain a fully commercial corridor. We request clarification as to whether full commercial use will be permitted along the Imperial Highway frontage of our parcel under the new zoning.
We appreciate the City's efforts in developing the Specific Plan and thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. We respectfully ask that our requests and clarifications be addressed and incorporated into the final version of the plan.
This letter is submitted solely for the purpose of seeking clarification and does not constitute a waiver, admission, or commitment on behalf of Manna LLC with respect to any existing or proposed use of the property.
Sincerely,
Manna LLC
By: Elie Naaman
Authorized Representative
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Proposed Zoning Boundary Adjustment
1 Ĵȱř
□
SCREENCHECK DRAFT - MAY 2025 139
CHAPTER 5 TRIANGLE DISTRICT
Flexible Residential and/or Commercial
Active Commercial or Mixed Use
Residential Only
Drive - Thru Overlay
All rezoned areas permit residential use, in recognition not only of market conditions driving redevelopment,
but also the existence of intermittent residential uses throughout the Triangle District today. Commercial
requirements are concentrated along Firestone
Boulevard, continuing the line created by the Northgate Market shopping center to the west around the district
center. Other portions of major streets are given
flexible use requirements. Woods Avenue is zoned
residential in recognition of the lower visibility of the corridor. Civic uses are permitted in this residential
area, however, ensuring that the existing religious
congregations are able to remain.
0’
1’ = 500’
250’ 500’
Revised zoning to cover the
entire parcel up to Imperial Hwy?
MANNA LLC LETTER
Ĵȱř EXHIBIT 1
-
-
I I Key - Yel
2.0 Comment Letters and Responses
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-14 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Letter 3 Manna LLC
531 Main Street, Unit 983
El Segundo, CA 902
July 23, 2025
Response 4-1
The commenter states that they have prepared this response on behalf of Manna LLC, the owner of the property located at 11565 Firestone Boulevard (APN: 8048-009-008), regarding the City of Norwalk’s proposed Specific Plan and draft zoning map. The comments are questions and clarifications related to the Specific Plan. The comments do not relate to the environmental review of the Project, nor do they raise a comment within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be forwarded to the decision maker prior to making a final decision on the Project.
2.0 Comment Letters and Responses
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-15 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
2.2 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this section provides corrections or clarifications of certain statements in the DEIR. The correction(s) and/or addition(s) do not constitute significant new information, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, because none would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any impact already identified in the DEIR.
New information is not significant unless the DEIR changes in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to be informed about the Project. Specifically, Section 15088.5(a) defines significant new information that requires recirculation to be any of the following:
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
4. The DEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Corrections or additional information have been added to the DEIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, as part of the preparation of the Final EIR (FEIR). Additions to the text of the DEIR are shown by underline, and deletions from the text of the DEIR are shown by strikethrough unless otherwise described.
Since the release of the Draft PEIR, several modifications have been made to the Specific Plan. The changes are primarily text changes to account for planned development projects and to account for the outcome of community engagement activities. Additional changes to the Plan include:
x Text added mentioning the Plan's consistency with the City's Bicycle Masterplan. x Changes to street tree recommendations
x Correction of page number references and section number references where needed. x New Street, formerly in the Triangle District, changed to a passthrough
2.0 Comment Letters and Responses
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-16 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
x Changed the zoning of the Saddleback Hotel site to Flexible Residential and/or Commercial x Edited residential parking requirement language in the Specific Plan x Changes to the Permitted Use Tables:
Adding mixed use as a use, drawing the definition from the Municipal Code; the Code defines mixed use as any combination of two uses. Note that this means that in districts that allow no residential (e.g., Front Street), mixed use is still allowed (e.g., office/retail mixed use).
None of the changes described below would materially change the analysis in the Draft PEIR.
As noted above, the following corrections and additions included herein involve minor modifications that clarify or amplify information contained in the Draft PEIR, and none would result in new significant impacts from those identified in the Draft PEIR impact analysis or conclusions.
Project Description
Street” in the Triangle District with a passthrough. Updated figure shown below.
“As such, residential uses (excluding mixed use land uses) would be prohibited along Front Street to preserve the Proposed Plan’s vision of revitalizing the street.”
“While no residential use is allowed on Front Street (excluding mixed use land uses), much of Firestone Boulevard, San Antonio Drive, and the transitional neighborhoods adjacent to the Norwalk Arts and Sports Complex (some of which are outside the boundary of the Front Street Historic District), are zoned with densities of 60-80 du/ac in order to facilitate the evolution of this part of Norwalk into a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented district over time. San Antonio Boulevard between Orange Street and Foster Road would be zoned with a residential density of 40 dwelling units/acre (du/ac).”
Specific Plan Districts
FIGURE 2.0-5
1335.007•04.25
SOURCE: City of Norwalk, 2025
District • an d Street Key Map
■ Fron t s t Historic D1-st nci t ( Refer Chapter 3)
- Fron t Street
Passthrough
- Local Streets
Town Square District (Refer Chapt er 4 )
- Pioneer Boulevard
Orange Street -
■ Triangle Di.strict (Refer Chapter 5)
Passthrough
Woods Avenue
- Firestone Blvd Corridor (Refer Chapt er 6)
Firestone Boulevard
- West Front Street
East Front Street
- San Antonio Corridor Corridor (Refer Chapter 7)
- SanAn tonio Drive
■ Railway Corn idor (Refer Chapter 8)
- Railway Trail
Civic Center
2.0 Comment Letters and Responses
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-18 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Transportation
On May 2, 2024, Caltrans supplied a comment letter requesting safety and multi-modal conflict analyses for several key intersections near State facilities. These included: I-5/Imperial Highway, I5/San Antonio Drive, I-5/Rosecrans Avenue, I-105/Studebaker Road, I-605/Firestone Boulevard, I605/Imperial Highway, I-605/Rosecrans Avenue. In response to this request, a traffic analysis study area was determined based on collaboration with the City and project team. This study area included 10 key intersections where traffic volumes were anticipated to be most affected by both land use plan buildout and circulation network modifications (i.e., signal phasing changes, roadway reconfiguration due to new bike facilities, etc.). One of the 10 intersections was the I-5 Southbound Ramps/San Antonio Drive intersection. Note that the Project does not propose any circulation network modifications at the freeway interchanges mentioned in the Caltrans comment letter.
To further confirm the adequacy of the analysis study area, the Project’s traffic engineering firm, Iteris, has reviewed the SCAG regional modeling outputs (which were also used for the CEQA analysis) for both existing and “with Project” scenarios in order to estimate the relative effects that Project-related traffic would have on the freeway interchanges in the vicinity. Based on the review, the daily model volume differences between existing and “with Project” ranged from 2% – 6% at the freeway interchange ramps, with a weighted average of 1.5% difference (when considering all interchanges). Thus, it can be concluded that the Project’s effects on safety/off-ramp queuing at the freeway interchanges would be minimal, thus not requiring further detailed analysis.
Utilities and Service Systems
follows:
According to a service letter prepared for the Norwalk Entertainment District, the Los Coyotes WRP currently processes an average flow of 23.1 MGD. Wastewater generated by future individual development within the Proposed Plan will be treated at the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an average recycled flow of 21.0 MGD.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-1 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING &
REPORTING PROGRAM
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is the intent of this program to: (1) verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures of the Program EIR (PEIR); (2) provide a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation measures; (3) provide a record of the Monitoring Program; (4) identify monitoring responsibility; (5) establish administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures; (6) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and (7) use existing review processes wherever feasible.
This MMRP describes the procedures that will be used to implement the mitigation measures adopted in connection with the approval of the project and the methods of monitoring such actions. Each mitigation measure is identified in Table 3.0-1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix.
3.0 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-2 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Table 3.0-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Monitoring
Timing
Responsible Monitoring Entity
Impact – Air Quality MM AQ-1: Dust-Control Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. a. Applicability Threshold: Any project whose Ground Disturbance Activities construction activities involve the use of construction equipment and require a permit from City of Norwalk Community Development Department.
b. Standard: Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403, best available dust control measures shall be implemented during Ground Disturbance Activities and active construction operations capable of generating dust.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
MM AQ-2: Equipment Maintenance.
a. Applicability Threshold: Any project whose construction activities involve the use of construction equipment and require a permit from City of Norwalk Community Development Department. b. Standard: Maintain construction equipment in good, properly tuned operating condition, as specified by the manufacturer, to minimize exhaust emissions. Documentation demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications shall be maintained per the proof of compliance requirements for a minimum of five years after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
MM AQ-3: Vehicle Idling Limit and Notification Signs.
a. Applicability Threshold: Any project whose construction activities involve the use of construction equipment and require a permit from City of Norwalk Community Development Department. b. Standard: Vehicle idling during construction activities shall be limited to five minutes as set forth in the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2449. Signs shall be posted in areas where they will be seen by vehicle operators stating idling time limits.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
MM AQ-4: Non-Diesel Fueled Electrical Power.
a. Applicability Threshold: Any project whose construction activities involve the use of construction equipment and require a permit from City of Norwalk Community Development Department. b. Standard: Electricity from power poles rather than temporary gasoline or diesel-powered generators shall be used to the extent available and feasible.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
3.0 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-3 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Monitoring
Timing
Responsible Monitoring Entity
MM AQ-5: Emissions Standard for Off-Road Construction Equipment Greater than 50 Horsepower. a. Applicability: Any project whose construction activities involve the use of construction equipment, require a permit from City of Norwalk Community Development Department, and involve at least 5,000 cubic yards of on-site cut/fill on any given day. b. Standard: All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment equal to or greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) Tier 4 emission standards during construction. Operators shall maintain records of all off-road equipment associated with Project construction to document that each piece of equipment used meets these emission standards per the proof of compliance requirement for a minimum of five years after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. In lieu of compliance with the above requirement, an air quality study prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Handbook may be provided by the Applicant or Owner demonstrating that project construction activities would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional and localized construction thresholds.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
MM AQ-6: Use of Low Polluting Fuels.
a. Applicability Threshold: Any project whose construction activities involve the use of construction equipment, require a permit from City of Norwalk Community Development Department, and involve at least 5,000 cubic yards of on-site cut/fill on any given day. b. Standard: Construction equipment less than 50 horsepower shall use low polluting fuels (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline).
In lieu of compliance with the above requirement, an air quality study prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Handbook may be provided by the Applicant or Owner demonstrating that project construction activities would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional and localized construction thresholds.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
MM AQ-7: Emission Standards for On-Road Haul Trucks.
a. Applicability Threshold: Any project whose construction activities involve the use of construction equipment, require a permit from City of Norwalk Community Development Department, and involve more than 90 round-trip haul truck trips on any given day for demolition debris and import/export of soil. b. Standard: Construction haul truck operators for demolition debris and import/export of soil shall use trucks that meet the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 g/bhp-hr. of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr. of nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions. Operators shall maintain records of all trucks associated with Project construction to document that each truck used meets these emission standards per the proof of compliance requirements in Subsection I.D.6.
In lieu of compliance with the above requirement, an air quality study prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Handbook may be provided by the Applicant or Owner demonstrating that project construction activities would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional and localized construction thresholds.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
3.0 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-4 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Monitoring
Timing
Responsible Monitoring Entity
MM AQ-8: Routes for On-Road Haul Trucks.
a. Applicability Threshold: Any project whose construction activities involve the use of construction equipment and require a permit from City of Norwalk Community Development Department. b. Standard: Construction contractors shall reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or Sensitive Uses, as feasible. The burden of proving that compliance is infeasible shall be upon the Applicant or Owner. Where avoiding Sensitive Uses and congested streets altogether is infeasible, routing away from Sensitive Uses shall be prioritized over routing away from congested streets.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
MM AQ-9: During a case review of individual projects, the City shall consider the application of the following strategies to reduce mobile emissions to the maximum extent feasible:
• Provide preferential carpool/vanpool parking spaces for office uses. • Provide for shuttle/mini bus services for hotel uses. • Provide onsite child-care centers.
• Provide transit design features within development.
• Employ a transportation/rideshare coordinator at commercial uses. • Implement a rideshare program.
• Provide incentives for employees to rideshare or take public transportation. • Provide bicycle paths that link to an external network. • Provide pedestrian facilities. • Integrate affordable and below market rate housing. • Provide electric vehicle charging.
• Reduce parking supply.
• Implement subsidized or discounted transit program.
• Implement bike-sharing program.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
Impact – Cultural ResourcesMM CUL-1: Historical Built Environmental Studies.
For projects where demolition of structures greater than 50 years is proposed, prior to the issuance of any demolition permits, the applicant shall prepare an inventory of buildings proposed for demolition located on the project site. The project applicant, under the direction of the City, shall retain a historian or architectural historian who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards to document and evaluate the historical significance of the affected buildings or structures in accordance with CEQA. If such documentation and evaluation indicate that the building or structure qualifies as a significant historical resource, the resource shall be avoided, and significant features shall be preserved in place if feasible. If avoidance or preservation is not feasible, a Historical Resources Treatment Plan, or similar proposed plan, shall be prepared and implemented. Further documentation may be required and may include but is not limited to archival quality photographs, measured drawings, oral histories, interpretive signage, and/or other measures including, potentially, alteration of the resource in accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards or relocation of the resource.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
3.0 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-5 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Monitoring
Timing
Responsible Monitoring Entity
As defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 4(3) Section 15126.4 (b)(2), in some circumstances, documentation of a historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. In these cases, the Historical Resources Treatment Plan, or comparable plan, shall also evaluate the feasibility of retaining significant buildings or structures in their original locations and rehabilitating them according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. MM CUL-2: Archaeological Resource Studies.
Prior to any approval by the City for projects that involve any demolition, grading, trenching, or other ground disturbance, a Phase I Cultural Resources Study conducted by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior standards in archaeology shall be required. A Phase I study shall include a pedestrian survey of the project site to identify potential surficial archaeological resources and sufficient background archival research and field sampling to determine whether subsurface prehistoric or historic remains may be present. If the project site is completely paved and/or developed, a pedestrian survey may not be required. Archival research should include, at minimum, a records search conducted at the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC) and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search conducted with the NAHC of the project site. If the Phase I does not indicate any archeological resources, no further study is required. If the Phase I Report indicates potential for important archeological resources that may be eligible for CRHR, a Phase 2 report may be required if the identified resources cannot be avoided and preserved in place. Where preservation is not feasible, a Phase 2 evaluation for significance and eligibility for listing in the CRHR may be required. The Phase 2 evaluation shall include any necessary archival research to identify significant historical associations as well as mapping of surface artifacts, collection of functionally or temporally diagnostic tools and debris, and excavation of a sample of the cultural deposit to characterize the nature of the sites, define the artifact and feature contents, determine horizontal boundaries and depth below surface, and retrieve representative samples of artifacts and other remains. Cultural materials collected from the sites shall be processed and analyzed in the laboratory according to standard archaeological procedures. The age of archaeological resources shall be determined using radiocarbon dating or other appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. The significance of the sites shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR. The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Content and Format (1990 or latest edition)”. Upon completion of the work, all artifacts, other cultural remains, records, photographs, and other documentation shall be curated at an appropriate curation facility. All fieldwork, analysis, report production, and curation shall be fully funded by the applicant. If any of the resources meet CRHR significance standards, the City shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of impacts are incorporated into the final design and any permits issued for development. Any necessary archaeological data recovery excavation shall be carried out by a Registered Professional Archaeologist Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
3.0 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-6 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Monitoring
Timing
Responsible Monitoring Entity
according to a research design reviewed and approved by the City prepared in advance of fieldwork and using appropriate archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof. As applicable, the final Phase 1 Inventory, Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation, Phase 3 Data Recovery reports shall be submitted to the City prior to final inspection of a construction permit.
Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities including, at minimum, requirements to follow for unanticipated archaeological discoveries during construction.
MM CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. Consistent with the regulatory provisions to address the handling of human remains in California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, PRC § 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(e), in the event that human remains are discovered, it requires that disturbance of the site shall be suspended, encountered during site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities on the project site, the construction contractor shall halt work within 25 feet of the discovery. The Project Applicant shall immediately notify the City of Norwalk and the Los Angeles County Coroner. The coroner shall conduct an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in § 5097.98 of the PRC. The coroner is required to make a determination within two working days of notification of the discovery of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall consult with the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours, to designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who shall recommend appropriate measures to the landowner regarding the treatment of the remains. If the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the MLD may request mediation by the NAHC.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
MM CUL-4: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that a cultural resource of Native American origin is identified in the Plan Area during the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-2 or during any project-related ground disturbance, the City of Norwalk, as Lead Agency, shall consult with local Native American tribes who have requested notification of projects under AB 52. If the City, in consultation with the local Native American tribe(s), determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with representatives of the Native American tribe(s). The mitigation plan may include but would not be limited to avoidance, capping in place, excavation and removal of the resource, interpretive displays, sensitive area signage, or other mutually agreed upon measures.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
3.0 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-7 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Monitoring
Timing
Responsible Monitoring Entity
Impact – Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1: For discretionary projects within the Plan Area, prior to construction activities onsite, a Phase I investigation shall be conducted to assess if there are any reasons to suspect that hazardous materials could be present. If current or past use of contaminants of potential concern are discovered through the Phase I investigation, or if the property has ever contained a gas station, dry cleaners or hazardous chemical storage tanks, a Phase II would be required. The Phase II investigation shall be conducted in accordance with guidelines developed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for site assessments. The Phase II investigation shall estimate the potential threat to public health and the environment if concentrations of pesticides are encountered using methods outlined in DTSC’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual and DTSC’s Screening Level Human Health Risk Assessment guidance for implementing screening level risk analysis. The Phase II investigation shall be submitted to the City of Norwalk for review and approval by an independent third-party reviewer. If the Phase II testing reveals concentrations of contaminants above healthbased screening levels for residential exposure, remediation of the site shall be required to address residual contamination above health-based level of concern. Remediation may include excavation and disposal of impacted soil or capping elevated areas beneath paved areas. The Construction Contractor shall implement the recommendations outlined in the Phase II.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
Impact – Noise MM NOI-1: During case-by-case review of individual projects, the City shall consider the application of the following strategies to reduce construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible:
x Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, as applicable, shall be in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. During construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. x Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities. x Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from the adjacent sensitive receptors as feasible.
x Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.
x Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction activity.
x Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
3.0 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-8 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Monitoring
Timing
Responsible Monitoring Entity
x Disturbance Coordinator. Project applicants shall designate a disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and identify remedies to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
MM NOI-2: During case-by-case review of individual projects, the City shall consider the application of the following strategy to reduce construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible:
x Temporary Sound Barriers. For construction activities located directly adjacent to sensitive receivers (e.g., residences, schools), temporary sound barriers shall be installed and maintained by the construction contractor between the construction site and adjacent receivers during the demolition, site preparation, grading phases, and building phases of construction. Temporary sound barriers shall consist of either sound blankets or other sound barriers/techniques such as acoustic padding or acoustic walls placed near adjacent residential buildings that have been field-tested to reduce noise.
Barriers shall be placed such that the line-of-sight between noise-generating construction equipment and adjacent sensitive land uses is blocked and shall be placed as close to the source equipment as feasible. As an alternative, applicants may prepare a Noise Study that demonstrates construction noise would not exceed noise standards at nearby sensitive resources. The Noise Study shall incorporate best management practices and other noise reduction measures to reduce noise levels.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
MM NOI-3: Prior to any grading or construction activity within 25 feet of an extremely fragile building (as defined in Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020) or any construction activity associated with the rehabilitation of an extremely fragile building, applicants shall prepare a Vibration Control Plan. The Vibration Control Plan shall be prepared by a qualified structural engineer and shall include methods to minimize vibration, including but not limited to:
x Use of drilled piles or the use of a sonic vibratory pile driver rather than impact pile driving. x Use of rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment. x Avoiding the use of vibrating equipment when allowed by best engineering practices.
The Vibration Control Plan shall include a pre-construction survey letter establishing baseline conditions at potentially affected buildings. The survey letter shall provide a shoring design to protect the buildings from potential damage. The structural engineer may recommend alternative procedures that produce lower vibration levels, such as sonic pile driving or caisson drilling instead of impact pile driving. Development projects shall implement the structural engineer’s recommendations.
A Statement of Compliance signed by the Applicant and Owner is required to be submitted to Building and Safety at plan check and prior to the issuance of any permit. The Vibration Control Plan, prepared as outlined above, shall be documented by a qualified structural engineer, and shall be provided to the City upon request.
Ongoing as projects are proposed
City of Norwalk Department of Public Services, City of Norwalk Community Development Building and Safety Division.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-1 Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Final PEIR 1335.007 October 2025
4.0 LIST OF EIR PREPARERS
Impact Sciences, Inc., has prepared this environmental document for the City of Norwalk. Persons directly involved in the review and preparation of this report include:
CITY OF NORWALK
12700 Norwalk Blvd.
Norwalk, CA 90650
Alexander Hamilton, Interim Director of Community Development Nancy Lee, Development Services Manager
Carlos Rojas, Senior Planner
THE ARROYO GROUP – SPECIFIC PLAN
40 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite B
Pasadena, CA 91150
Phil Burns, AICP, Principal
Margaret Muñoz, Associate Planner
ITERIS, INC. – TRANSPORTATION
801 South Grand Avenue, Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Deepak Kaushik, PE, Principal
Sean Daly, Senior Planner
IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. – EIR PREPARATION
811 W. 7th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Jessica Kirchner, AICP, CEO & Managing Principal
Brett Pomeroy, Associate Principal
Kara Yates Hines, Manger, Publications & Proposals
Eleni Getachew, ENV SP, Planner
Annalie Sarrieddine, Planner
Amber Williams, Technical Specialist
Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan City of Norwalk
Errata To Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025 1 HEART OF NORWALK SPECIFIC PLAN
ERRATA TO THE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Norwalk (City) prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the proposed Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan (Proposed Plan). The PEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, §15000 et seq.).
The City prepared and circulated the Draft PEIR for a period of 45 days, beginning June 23, 2025, and ending on August 7, 2025. The PEIR evaluates the impacts associated with the Proposed Plan. The Final PEIR was posted with the State Clearinghouse and made available to the public on October 31, 2025. During the Final PEIR review period, minor corrections to the analysis for Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise section of the PEIR were made. Accordingly, this Errata identifies and documents all necessary revisions to the PEIR to make minor changes to the analysis provided in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section and the Noise section regarding proximity to airports. This Errata has been prepared by the City to fulfill its responsibility as the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. STATUTORY BACKGROUND (CEQA REQUIREMENTS)
The City of Norwalk is the CEQA lead agency responsible for the Project. State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a) requires that a lead agency re-circulate an EIR when significant new information is added to an EIR after publication. Significant new information includes: (1) a new significant environmental impact that would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts and/or (4) the draft EIR was so fundamentally inadequate that meaningful public review was precluded. New information is not significant unless the EIR has changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Recirculation is not required when new information is added that merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications.
Attachment No. 9
Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan City of Norwalk
Errata To Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025 2 3. ADDITIONAL STAFF INITIATED TEXT CHANGES TO THE PEIR During the Final PEIR public review period, two typographical errors were identified in the PEIR, both related to the location of airports. The correct airports are identified below; the analysis is not materially changed as a result of this modification regarding airport location. The Project is not within the boundary of an airport land use plan, as correctly stated in the PEIR.
The following text changes are made to the PEIR and incorporated as part of the PEIR. The following changes are made to clarify the PEIR based on the corrections to Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise. Recirculation of the PEIR is not required as none of these changes meet the definition of significant new information provided in Guidelines Section 15088.5. Changes to the text are noted with underline and bold for added text and strikethrough for removed text.
The following text is changed to page 3.5-30 of the PEIR:
The nearest boundary of the Plan Area is approximately 5 miles northwest of the Fullerton Municipal Airport. The nearest airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 6.2 miles northeast of the Plan Area. The Plan Area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan.1 Therefore, future development in the Plan Area would not create a safety hazard associated with any airport.
In addition, as discussed in Section 3.11, Noise and Vibration, the Plan Area would not be located within an airport’s noise contours.2 As such, the Proposed Plan would not expose people residing or working in the Plan Area to excessive airport-related noise levels. As such, there would be no impacts.
The following text is changed to page 3.8-32 of the PEIR:
The Plan Area is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan.3 The nearest boundary of the Plan Area is approximately 5 miles northwest of the Fullerton Municipal Airport. The nearest boundary of the Plan Area is approximately 9.2 miles northeast of the Long Beach Airport. As such, the 1 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. Airports, Plans and Maps. Available online at:
https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=acf2e87194a54af9b266bf07547f240a, accessed December 4, 2023.
2 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, “Airports, Plans and Maps.” Available online at:
https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=acf2e87194a54af9b266bf07547f240a, accessed December 4, 2023.
3 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. Airports, Plans and Maps. Available online at:
https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=acf2e87194a54af9b266bf07547f240a, accessed August 8, 2024.
Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan City of Norwalk
Errata To Program Environmental Impact Report November 2025 3 Proposed Plan would not expose people residing or working in the Plan Area to excessive airportrelated noise levels, and there would be no impact.
4. CONCLUSION
The revisions discussed above do not constitute significant new information in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, including a new significant environmental effect, or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental effect. As such, none of the changes materially modify the analysis or conclusions of the document, but instead, further substantiate conclusions and/or clarify aspects of the previously circulated document.
811 W. 7th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 935-1901
www.impactsciences.com
PROJECTS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Norwalk, Planning Commission Job No. 1335.007 From: Impact Sciences, Inc., and Iteris, Inc.
Subject: Heart of Norwalk Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Caltrans District 7 Comment Letter
Date: November 13, 2025
Impact Sciences, in coordination with Iteris, Inc., has reviewed the comments submitted by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on November 10, 2025, and has prepared the following responses.
1. BACKGROUND
On May 3, 2024, Caltrans District 7 submitted a comment letter (attached) in response to the Notice of Preparation. The comment letter requested multi-modal conflict/safety analysis be performed across the Project area and seven intersections outside of the Project area. The comment further requested that any impacts be addressed with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) or similar measures. A similar comment (attached) was provided on the Draft EIR. Upon receipt of the Final EIR, Caltrans submitted an additional comment via email reiterating the requests above and providing additional detail about the level of analysis requested. The comment focused on three areas, which are responded to below: trip generation and assignment, buildout queuing, and mitigation measures. The comments were reviewed by the Project team, and the following is a summary of the responses provided as well as anticipated next steps.
2. ANALYSIS APPROACH
Trip generation and assignment. In the development of the Draft EIR, transportation modeling was undertaken.
As no specific projects are included in the EIR, the approach taken was to determine the number of trips anticipated through project buildout based on proposed land use changes and anticipated development. This generalized approach is appropriate for plan level documents when individual projects are not known. Trips were then distributed across the plan area based on existing trip patterns. Without detailed project information, additional trip generation or assignment would be speculative.
Further, as stated in the Final EIR and provided to Caltrans, the study area included 10 key intersections where traffic volumes were anticipated to be most affected by both land use plan buildout and circulation network modifications (i.e., signal phasing changes, roadway reconfiguration due to new bike facilities, etc.). One of the 10 intersections was the I-5 Southbound Ramps/San Antonio Drive intersection, where lane modifications along San Antonio Drive are proposed, although there are no changes to the off-ramp or on-ramp lane configurations at this location. The Project does not propose any circulation network modifications at the other six freeway interchanges mentioned in the Caltrans letter.
Attachment No. 10
PROJECTS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
To further confirm the adequacy of the study area, Iteris reviewed the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional modeling outputs (which were used for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis) for both existing and “with project” scenarios in order to estimate the relative effects that Project-related traffic would have on the freeway interchanges in the vicinity. Based on the review, the daily model volume differences between existing and “with project” ranged from 2 percent to 6 percent at the freeway interchange ramps, with a weighted average of 1.5 percent difference (when considering all interchanges). Based on this review, it was reasonably determined impacts to freeway interchanges would be less than significant.
Buildout Queuing Analysis. Caltrans requested additional queuing analysis for ramps outside of the Project area.
As stated above, based on the modeling conducted for the Project, impacts on ramps in the Project area were determined to be less than significant, as such, there is no evidence to suggest that ramps outside of the Project area (as trips would be further dissipated) would be impacted by development associated with the Project.
Nonetheless, as a gesture of good faith, the City of Norwalk (City) is exploring the possibility of conducting the requested modeling. The City has requested a meeting with Caltrans to review the methodology and data needs that would be necessary to conduct the modeling at some or all intersections requested. It is the City’s hope that Caltrans can provide the necessary data to Iteris, Inc., in a timely manner, to allow the City to proceed with an anticipated December adoption of the Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures. The EIR does not identify a specific mitigation measure related to ramp queuing as 1) impacts were determined to be less than significant, and 2) the timing of future projects is unknown. Subsequent land use development projects may require mitigation measures, including, but not limited to, TDM measures to reduce a project’s trip generation, investments in active transportation or transit system amenities, and/or operational changes to the ramp terminal, such as lane reassignment, traffic signalization, and signal phasing or timing modifications. The Project is a plan-level document, and no specific improvements are proposed at this time. The EIR does not identify specific mitigation measures as the timing of future projects is unknown. As individual projects are identified, individual measures will be developed appropriate to each project, including, as necessary, the City working with Caltrans to identify project-specific mitigation measures as appropriate.
It is further noted that the Specific Plan prioritizes alternative modes of travel, such as bicycling and public transit, to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, VMT, and greenhouse gas emissions, and the EIR demonstrates the benefits of these improvements. Overall, consistent with Caltrans’ comment, the Plan supports complete streets and pedestrian safety as it includes updates to several enhanced street networks throughout the plan area.
In summary, the City will continue to work with Caltrans to resolve these issues and hopes to come to a successful resolution prior to the December 2, 2025, council meeting.
Attachment No. 10
City Council Agenda Report
December 2, 2025
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Alex Hamilton, Interim Director of Community Development SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 25-54 – UPHOLDING AN APPEAL DENYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT THE
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2024101066) AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PLAN AND APPROVAL OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN NO. 2023-06 AT 14830 CARMENITA ROAD OR RESOLUTION NO. 25-63 – UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE
IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS
Background:
In December 2023, Ben Martin (“Applicant”), on behalf of Rexford Industrial Realty LP, the property owner, submitted an application for Planned Development Plan (PDP) No. 2023-06, requesting approval to demolish two existing multi-tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 square feet to construct a new 138,972± square foot industrial warehouse building at 14830 Carmenita Road (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property, at 7.03 acres in size, has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial and zoning classification of M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing). It is situated on Carmenita Road, between Excelsior Drive to the south and Pumice Street to the North (also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number “APN” 8069-002-085).
The Subject Site is bounded by Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) zone to the north, south, and west.
Properties to the east are within the City of Santa Fe Springs city limits and are zoned Heavy Manufacturing (M-2). The proposed 138,972± SF industrial warehouse building will consist of 132,227 square feet of warehouse space, 3,715 square feet of ground-floor office space, and 3,030 square feet of mezzanine office space. The new building is single-story with a mezzanine and has a maximum height of 45 feet at the top of the parapet wall. In addition, the project will feature 22 loading dock doors along the southern side of the building and provide 141 off-street parking spaces and landscape improvements to the site (“Proposed Project”).
City Council December 2, 2025
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06
Page No. 2
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 for the proposed project. Based on the City’s 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 MND began on October 24, 2024, and ended on November 12, 2024. The Planning Commission (PC) public hearing was scheduled for December 11, 2024.
On December 11, 2024, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of CREED LA provided written comments that there is a need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for the Proposed Project. A written response was prepared by EPD Solutions, an authorized representative of the Applicant. The response included analysis which concluded that none of the issues that were raised by CREED LA would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15065. At the request of the applicant, the item was continued to January 8, 2025. Subsequently, the item was continued to February 12, 2025, then tabled to an undetermined future date.
The Applicant notified staff in July 2025 that they were ready to move forward. Out of an abundance of caution and to reaffirm staff’s position on the Proposed Project’s impacts to address any changed conditions, the IS/MND was revised.
Pursuant to the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines of the City, the IS/MND was recirculated for a secondary public review due to refinements to the previously circulated document. The 20-day public comment period began on September 12, 2025 and ended on October 1, 2025. The purpose of the recirculation was to clarify the construction stages for the project which included crushing as part of demolition activities, to address Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment modeling revisions made in response to the public comments received, and to address the request for mitigation received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. A link to the recirculated IS/MND can be found below:
14830 Carmenita Rd - Rexford Industrial Project Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The PC reviewed PDP No. 2023-06, at a duly noticed public hearing, on October 8, 2025. A link to the Planning Commission staff report can be found below:
PDP No. 2023-06 Planning Commission Staff Report
A letter of concern was sent to the PC from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development (CREED LA) on the same day.
During the hearing, two speakers on behalf of Laborers Local 1309 LiUNA (in which a group of members were seated in the audience) spoke in favor of the project, citing support from the City Council December 2, 2025
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06
Page No. 3
union. Specifically, it was stated that the project would create union jobs and the union members would ensure that the project is built to the high standards.
One representative, on behalf of CREED LA, spoke in opposition and requested that the PC continue the hearing so that an EIR can be prepared as the IS/MND is insufficient in analyzing the environmental impacts.
During the public hearing, the Planning Commission asked questions of the Applicant. The minutes of the October 8, 2025 Planning Commission minutes can be found in the following link:
October 8, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
After public testimony, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to:
1. Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan contained therein; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-13, approving PDP No. 2023-06 subject to Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” which contained the MMRP.
Appeal
On October 17, 2025, Alaura McGuire from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development (CREED LA), submitted an appeal of the PC’s action (Attachment No. 3) stating the action taken by the PC did not comply with CEQA or applicable land uses laws. Per §17.02.205.E (Decision, Transmittal, Appeal) of the Norwalk Municipal Code (“NMC”), City Council has the authority to uphold, modify, or reverse the PC’s decision.
The Appellant asserts that the project may have several significant and unmitigated impacts which would require the City to prepare an EIR to comply with CEQA. The appellant also states that approval of the project in reliance on a deficient MND may result in significant, unmitigated air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utility impacts.
A written response to the appeal has been prepared by EPD Solutions (Attachment No. 4). In the response, the analysis upholds the conclusion that none of the conditions that arose would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064,15065, or 15002. No significant environmental impact would result from the proposed project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. No substantial evidence supporting the fair argument of any new significant environment impacts that would result from the proposed project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented has been brought forward in these comments. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required.
City Council December 2, 2025
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06
Page No. 4
Pursuant to Section 17.02.205.A of the NMC, a PDP may be granted if the proposed project is consistent with the character of the community, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and does not adversely affect property values. The General Plan has objectives and policies to enhance the economic viability of industrial properties and to maintain a high caliber of industrial development through the improvement of industrial properties in Norwalk.
The proposed project will enhance the surrounding area by revitalizing an underutilized site and introducing use that is compatible with the surrounding area. The project complies with applicable city codes; and based on submitted reports and recommended conditions of approval, it provides adequate parking, vehicular circulation, and pedestrian access. The development will create visual interest along a major street corridor, attract new businesses to support the City’s economic growth, and promote jobs for the community.
The analysis provided by the applicant’s authorized representative, EPD Solutions upholds the conclusion that none of the conditions set forth in the appeal letter require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15065, or 15002. Furthermore, the PC’s action was based on information submitted and raised during the public hearing including the compatibility of the use with the desired vision for the corridor, revitalization of an underutilized site, promotion of industrial development through improvement of an industrial property, and provision of adequate buffers between industrial and residential uses.
November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting
On November 18, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing, City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the IS/MND with the MMRP and adopt Resolution No. 25-13, approving PDP No. 2023-06. During the public hearing, the following questions were asked by City Council members:
• How many dock doors are on the existing property? There was concern that the increase in loading docks may lead to more deliveries for the completed development. • How was this conclusion made that there would be no impacts to the traffic and the environment? What are CEQA thresholds and baseline conditions? • Concerns about approving a project without knowing the future use/end user.
After public testimony, City Council voted 4-1 to uphold the appeal and directed staff to formulate findings for a Resolution to uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. City Council also requested information on existing site conditions and proposed uses for consideration. Therefore, the supplemental information below is provided for City Council consideration.
In relation to the questions that were previously asked about CEQA compliance, baselines and thresholds of significance, the applicant has prepared the following CEQA materials provided in Attachment 5. In addition, the IS/MND contains a technical memorandum to determine whether a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for the project. A link to the memorandum can be found below:
City Council December 2, 2025
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06
Page No. 5
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
Since the City has not formally adopted VMT guidelines nor TIA guidelines, the project was evaluated using the County of Los Angeles (LA County) Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020) for Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment and Level of Service Assessment, respectively.
Based on the analysis provided, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact and is below LA County TIA Guidelines’ thresholds; therefore, no further analysis would be required.
Further, as background for City Council, the existing site consists of two existing multi-tenant industrial tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 square feet. There is a total of 15 dock doors between both existing warehouses. The Subject Property has a zoning classification of Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) and will be subject to Land Uses listed in NMC §17.11.010 (see Attachment No. 6 for existing site photographs). Condition of Approval No. 14 also provides limitations on maximum allowable floor area that may be designated for Warehouse, General Light Industrial, and cold storage based on proposed plans presented and traffic calculations. The proposed project is designed with 22 dock doors.
In light of the previous City Council discussion, there are three options for City Council to consider:
1. Uphold the appeal and deny PDP No. 2023-06 (no CEQA analysis is required);
2. Reverse the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s October 8, 2025 action to approve the MND and PDP No. 2023-06; or
3. Continue the public hearing and consider taking other action or provide further direction.
Fiscal Impact:
Should City Council vote to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, the fiscal impacts would include positive benefits in jobs for project construction, permanent jobs when the building is occupied and increase in property taxes.
Citizens Advised:
Notice of this public hearing was published in The Norwalk Patriot and posted at the City’s three designated posting sites and the City Website on November 20, 2025, as well as mailed to 59 property owners and interested parties within 500 feet of the property on November 20, 2025.
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
Goal 3 – Create and sustain a resilient and economically prosperous City. Objective 2 – Diversity and grow the economy.
City Council December 2, 2025
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06
Page No. 6
Recommended Action:
Staff recommend City Council consider:
1. Resolution No. 25-54, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORWALK SETTING FORTH ITS FINDING OF FACT AND DECISION OF UPHOLDING
AN APPEAL REQUEST FILED BY ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO AND REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT THE
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATECLEARING HOUSE NO. 2024101066) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN AND APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2023-06 AT 14830 CARMENITA ROAD; or
2. Resolution No. 25-63, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORWALK SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION OF UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT THE
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATECLEARING HOUSE NO. 2024101066) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN AND APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2023-06 AT 14830 CARMENITA ROAD; or
3. continue action on the appeal for a period of time deemed appropriate by the City Council and provide further direction to City staff.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 25-54 – Uphold the Appeal and Deny PDP No. 2023-06
2. Resolution No. 25-63 – Uphold the Planning Commission’s Approval of PDP No. 2023-06
3. 10/17/2025 Appeal filed by CREED LA
4. Response to Appeal prepared by EPD Solutions dated 11/4/2025
5. California Environmental Quality Act Overview
6. Existing Building Footprint and Site Photographs
Resolution No. 25.54 Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 25-54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK
SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION OF
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL REQUEST FILED BY ADAMS BROADWELL
JOSEPH AND CARDOZO ON BEHALF OF COALITION FOR
RESPONSIBLE EQUITABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
DENYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT THE
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2024101066) AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN AND APPROVAL
OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2023-06 AT 14830
CARMENITA ROAD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Planning Commission received Precise Development Plan (PDP) No. 2023-06, a request from Ben Martin on behalf of Rexford Industrial Realty LP to demolish two existing industrial buildings totaling 89,870 square feet (SF) and construct a new 138,972± square foot industrial warehouse building along with related site and landscaping improvements (Proposed Project) on a property that is
7.03 acres in size at 14830 Carmenita Road (Subject Property); also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 8069-002-085; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is designated as Heavy Industrial by the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is currently located within the zoning classification of Heavy Manufacturing (M-2); and
WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of a Precise Development Plan (PDP) is to ensure that new development will be aesthetically and functionally compatible with the existing and future land uses on adjacent and surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, Section 17.02.205.D.1 (Precise Development Plans, Standards and Review Criteria) of the Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) states that the Community Development Director may at their discretion refer any request to the Planning Commission for review; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (State Clearinghouse No. 2024101066) was prepared for the Proposed Project, and it was determined that with the imposition of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, PDP No. 2023-06 was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing, at which time oral and documentary evidence relative to the application were received; and Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 25.54 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, after public testimony and input, the Planning Commission adopted the recirculated MND and MMRP, and adopted Resolution No. 25-13, approving PDP No. 2023-06 with conditions of approval and the MMRP with a 5 to 0 vote; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2025, Alaura McGuire from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development (CREED LA), submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s (1) adoption of the recirculated IS/MND and MMRP; and (2) adoption of Resolution No. 25-13, approving Precise Development Plan (PDP) No. 2023-06 with conditions of approval and MMR’s action approving the project; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the appeal was reviewed by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing, at which time oral and documentary evidence relative to the application was received and the City Council voted 4-1 to approve the appeal request and directed staff to return with a resolution to uphold the appeal; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council considered additional oral and documentary evidence relative to the application was received and the City Council voted _______ to approve the appeal and deny PDP No. 2023-06; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.02.205.E (Decision, Transmittal, Appeal) of the NMC, the action of the City Council shall be final.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Norwalk, State of California, does hereby deny PDP No. 2023-06 without prejudice.
Section 2. That the City Council’s denial of PDP No. 2023-06 is exempt from review under CEQA, Section 15270, which states, “CEQA does not apply to projects to which a public agency rejects or disapproves”.
Section 3. The City Council finds that PDP No. 2023-06 is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use element objective in that the proposed project would not prevent industrial land uses from generating adverse impacts on adjacent land uses.
Section 4. The development is inconsistent with the NMC in that the project will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding areas. Based upon testimony received at the public hearing, the Proposed Project is not consistent with the character of the community. Potential environmental and traffic impacts generated by the project will not be compatible with residential uses within close proximity to the Subject Property. The construction of a new warehouse building could potentially increase traffic flow along a congested intersection. In addition, a Level of Service Screening Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis were conducted to determine whether Resolution No. 25.54 Page 3 of 3
such traffic studies would be require for the development. Since the City of Norwalk has not formally adopted Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines and Vehicle Miles Traveled guidelines, the County of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines were used to assess the project and determined that no further analysis would be required. However, the increase in trips generated compared to that of the existing site will adversely affect public welfare.
Section 5. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix his 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 2nd day of December 2025.
______________________________
TONY AYALA
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
THERESA DEVOY, CMC
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 25-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK
SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION OF
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT
THE RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2024101066) AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN AND APPROVE
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2023-06 AT 14830 CARMENITA ROAD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Planning Commission received Precise Development Plan (PDP) No. 2023-06, a request from Ben Martin on behalf of Rexford Industrial Realty LP to demolish two existing industrial buildings totaling 89,870 square feet (SF) and construct a new 138,972± square foot industrial warehouse building along with related site and landscaping improvements (Proposed Project) on a property that is
7.03 acres in size at 14830 Carmenita Road (Subject Property); also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 8069-002-085; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is designated as Heavy Industrial by the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is currently located within the zoning classification of Heavy Manufacturing (M-2); and
WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of a Precise Development Plan (PDP) is to ensure that new development will be aesthetically and functionally compatible with the existing and future land uses on adjacent and surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, Section 17.02.205.D.1 (Precise Development Plans, Standards and Review Criteria) of the Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) states that the Community Development Director may at their discretion refer any request to the Planning Commission for review; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (State Clearinghouse No. 2024101066) was prepared for the Proposed Project, and it was determined that with the imposition of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, PDP No. 2023-06 has been reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2025, at a duly noticed public, at which time oral and documentary evidence relative to the application were received; and
WHEREAS, after public testimony and input, the Planning Commission adopted the recirculated MND and MMRP, and adopted Resolution No. 25-13, approving PDP Attachment No. 2
No. 2023-06 with conditions of approval and the MMRP with a 5 to 0 vote; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2025, Alaura McGuire from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development (CREED LA), submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s (1) adoption of the recirculated IS/MND and MMRP; and (2) adoption of Resolution No. 25-13, approving Precise Development Plan (PDP) No. 2023-06 with conditions of approval and MMR’s action approving the project; and
WHEREAS, PDP No. 2023-06 has been reviewed by the City Council on December 2, 2025, at which time oral and documentary evidence relative to the application was received; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.02.205.E (Decision, Transmittal, Appeal) of the NMC, the action of the City Council shall be final.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Environmental. That in accordance with the criteria and authority contained in the CEQA of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines as amended, an IS and MND were prepared to assess the short-term, long-term and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Project and identify any required mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to less than significant.
Possible impacts identified in the IS/MND include issues associated with Geology/Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The IS/MND and supporting documentation were made available for public review which began on October 24, 2024 and ended on November 12, 2024. Recirculation of the IS/MND and supporting documentation were also made available for public review which began on September 12, 2025 and ended on October 1, 2025. Publication and public circulation of the IS/MND and recirculated IS/MND were effectuated by the City in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21091–21092.6 of CEQA and Sections 15072-15073 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines, as applicable, prior to adoption of the MND.
Section 2. General Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Norwalk General Plan as the development will enhance the City’s economic base and promote a positive image of the City of Norwalk.
Section 3. Zoning. The proposed industrial project is in compliance with the regulations contained within the NMC. The Proposed Project consists of an industrial building of 138,972± SF, and will comply with minimum setbacks, height, landscaping, and design standards of the Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) zone.
Section 4. Finding. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or adversely affect property values or the present and future Resolution No. 25-63 Page 2 of 22
development of surrounding areas with the incorporation of conditions of approval.
Further, the proposed commercial development will have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood, redevelop an industrial site, and improve the economic vitality of the site. New landscape improvements and architectural building treatments will enhance the overall area. Lastly, the Proposed Project, consisting of site improvements, would improve property values in the vicinity and not interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the surrounding area, in that the design of the Proposed Project is compatible and appropriate in relation to the surrounding vicinity.
Section 5. The City Council of the City of Norwalk, State of California, does hereby approve Precise Development Plan No. 2023-06 subject to the Conditions of Approval in attached Exhibit “A” and the Mitigation Measures in attached Exhibit “B”.
Section 6. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix his 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 2nd day of December 2025.
______________________________
TONY AYALA
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
THERESA DEVOY, CMC
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 3 of 22
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2023-06
The following Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans, and a copy of these conditions shall be placed on the first sheet of the final building plans:
STANDARD:
1. The Proposed Project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans presented to the City Council on appeal on November 18, 2025.
2. The Applicant shall sign and submit an affidavit accepting all conditions of approval pertaining to Precise Development Plan (PDP) No. 2023-06 prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. Construction and/or modification of the project shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans as described in the Agenda Report to the Planning Commission and as approved by the Planning Commission. The Director of Community Development (“Director”) shall determine whether a modification is in substantial conformance. All changes shall return to the original review authority except that the Planning Commission shall review all major changes involving items that were originally authorized by the City Council. Notices shall be given in the same manner as what was required for the original application.
4. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
5. All equipment, including lighting, shall be maintained in good condition at all times.
6. No barbed wire or razor wire shall be permitted on the premises.
7. Approval of this PDP shall be valid for two (2) years from the date of final approval and shall become null and void unless construction has commenced within this time period or an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date. The Director at his or her discretion may grant two (2) one-year extensions. The Planning Commission may grant a final one-year extension. Prior to the granting of the final extension request, notice shall be given in the same manner as required for the original application. Commencement of development shall mean that appropriate permits have been obtained and the Resolution No. 25-63 Page 4 of 22
development has successfully completed the first Building and Safety Division inspection.
LEGAL:
8. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Norwalk, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (collectively, the "City") from any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of, or the exercise of the rights permitted by this approval, or any other related land use entitlement or approval granted by the City, and from any and all claims or losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury, or death arising out of, or connected in anyway, with the use permitted by the City on the property. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City shall include, but not be limited to, paying all legal fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice, including expert witness fees, in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorney's fees in any such lawsuit or action.
CONSTRUCTION:
9. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall provide the following information to the Planning Division for review and approval:
a. Operational details of the recycling of the aggregate from the existing site, including the following:
i. Start and completion dates of the aggregate recycling activities; ii. List of equipment to be used for the aggregate recycling activities; iii. Noise, air quality, and vibration analysis;
iv. Location of crushing activities on the Subject Property; and v. Storage location of the aggregate materials.
10.Clearly visible and weatherproof signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the construction site identifying the working hours, name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding any construction/grading activity.
11.Prior to and during construction, the following shall be completed:
a. The subject site shall be maintained free and clear of weeds, trash, junk, or debris.
b. The applicant shall regularly water the site to control fugitive dust to the satisfaction of the Director and the Building Official.
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 5 of 22
12.Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall record a maintenance agreement to ensure the ongoing repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements on a form approved by the City Attorney. Such improvements should include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. The removal of trash and debris found on the property; b. The proper and timely removal of graffiti;
c. The timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements. The timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking areas/striping, pedestrian pathways/open space areas, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, landscaping and related landscape improvements.
PROJECT SPECIFIC:
13.The use and development of the property shall be in substantial conformance with the Project Plans presented to the City Council on appeal on November 18, 2025.
14.Per the approved plans and traffic calculations, the proposed project may be designated for Warehouse use (ITE Land Use Code 150). A maximum allowable of 20 percent of the Proposed Project’s floor area may be designated for General Light Industrial (ITE Land Use Code). A maximum of 21,735 SF of the Proposed Project’s floor area may be used for cold storage. The tenant/business owner shall demonstrate compliance with this condition of approval prior to Planning Division approval of a business license application. Any variation in project usage may result in substantial conformance review by the city and additional traffic and other studies, as required by the Community Development Department.
15.Any other uses not expressly allowed by ITE Land Use Code 150 shall be subject to review by the Community Development Director, under a Director Approval Request application. The Community Development Director, at his or her discretion may refer the Director Approval Request application to the Planning Commission.
16.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall provide documentary evidence to the Community Development Department that construction of the proposed project shall not interfere with the required exiting or opening protection for the adjacent building to the west located at 14820 Carmenita Road or the building to the west shall be modified as necessary subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department, to not require any opening protection between it and the proposed project.
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 6 of 22
17.At the discretion of the Community Development Director, the applicant may be required to secure a third-party construction monitor to ensure that construction impacts and concerns are adequately addressed relative to the Proposed Project.
18.Trash enclosures shall be constructed per City standards. Adjacent site drainage shall be diverted so as to not enter the trash area. Trash enclosures shall be covered or shall be provided with a drain to an approved clarifier.
19.Trash enclosure shall be fully enclosed with view-obscuring gates, conveniently located for service vehicles, placed adjacent or within buildings, and architecturally coordinated with the remainder of the development. Vinyl and/or chain link materials are not acceptable.
20.Landscaping shall be provided on the exterior walls of the trash enclosure to deter graffiti and loitering.
21.The project shall provide a minimum four-foot wide landscaping strip with trees along the north property line and a minimum of five-foot wide landscaping with trees along the east and south property lines.
22.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. The following easements shall be quitclaimed in accordance with City of Norwalk or easement holder requirements or the applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department to support the retention of said easements:
b. Easements for utility, drainage, sanitary sewer and rights incidental thereto, as delineated on or as offered for dedication on Parcel Map No. 1428; c. An easement for water and rights incidental thereto as set forth in the document recorded April 13, 1970, as Instrument No. 1813, of official records;
d. An easement for public utilities as set forth in the document recorded April 5, 1973, as Instrument No. 4487, of official records;
e. An easement for public utilities as set forth in the document recorded October 27, 1981 as Instrument No. 81-1059466 of official records; f. “Covenant and Agreement Regarding Easement” recorded February 1, 2000 as instrument No. 00-159720 of official records;
g. An easement for public utilities as set forth in the document recorded October 26, 2000 as Instrument No. 00-1680841 of official records; and h. “Yard Agreement” as set forth in the document recorded May 11, 2001, as Instrument No. 01-0815201, of official records.
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 7 of 22
LANDSCAPING:
23.All planters and landscaped areas shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Any dead or missing landscaping shall be replaced. Any broken or malfunctioning irrigation components shall be repaired or replaced.
24.Landscaping, including shrubs and trees, shall not hinder visibility for vehicles or pedestrians or provide cover for any potential hiding places.
25.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. Landscape and irrigation plans prepared and “wet” signed by a registered landscape architect shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval, and shall show the following:
i. The landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, quantity, spacing and location of all plant materials, and location of irrigation equipment.
ii. The plan shall depict an automatic permanent irrigation system. iii. Six-inch concrete curbs shall surround all planter areas adjacent to driveways.
iv. Compliance with Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
v. Landscape plan check fee shall be submitted.
SURVEILLANCE:
26.Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed:
a. A security plan (including surveillance camera system) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Public Safety or his/her designee. b. The surveillance camera system is to be maintained operational at all times, including during non-business hours. The system features and functions shall be accessible by business management staff at all times during normal business hours. The system shall provide a video feed of sufficient quality to permit the Public Safety Department and Norwalk Sheriff Station to utilize the feed for law enforcement purposes, whether emergency or investigatory. Business shall ensure all video recordings/feeds remain accessible on a Digital Video Recording system for a minimum of 30 days. c. Business shall make all video stored on the Digital Video Recording system available to the Public Safety and Norwalk Sheriff’s Station at any time. The Public Safety and/or Sheriff’s Station may request copies of recorded Resolution No. 25-63 Page 8 of 22
videos. Business must provide the requested video recording within 24 hours of the Public Safety/Sheriff request.
d. Surveillance cameras shall be placed in a position to provide visual coverage of all entrances/exits, cash registers, safes, office/storage areas, and adjacent parking areas.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
27.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record an easement to the satisfaction of the City of Norwalk Department of Public Services to provide:
a. A 28’ fire lane access easement from Carmenita Rd., through 14820 Carmenita Rd (8069-002-084) to serve as additional access to the subject property.
b. A 28’ fire lane access easement for a portion of the required hammerhead turnaround on the northwest corner of the project site, onto 14820 Carmenita Rd (8069-002-084). If the hammerhead turnaround easement cannot be provided, the project shall be redesigned to place the entire hammerhead turnaround on the project site.
28.Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, any existing damaged public right-of-way improvements and any damage caused during the construction shall be repaired in accordance with Section 5600 et seq of the California Streets and Highways Code and with the Norwalk Municipal Code before occupancy will be granted. (Property owner is responsible for the repair and maintenance of curb/gutter, sidewalk and drive apron). Removals and reconstruction shall be per City of Norwalk Engineering Standard Plans and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
29.Per NMC Section 12.12.030, a construction permit is required for any work to be done in the public right-of-way and shall meet with the City Inspector before starting any construction within the public right-of-way.
30.Per NMC Section 12.04.010, all work within the public right of way shall be done in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (latest ed.); the Standard Plans for Public Works Construction, and City of Norwalk Standard Plans. All costs incurred to meet these requirements shall be borne by the developer/applicant.
31.Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, a drainage plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted for approval by the City. No property Resolution No. 25-63 Page 9 of 22
drainage shall be allowed to cross over sidewalks (parkways) or drive approaches.
Yard basins, concrete gutters, and under sidewalk (parkway) drains shall be constructed to adequately drain the subject property. Under sidewalk drains shall be per Norwalk City Standard No. 107. Minimum slope on concrete flow lines shall be 0.50%. Minimum slope on asphaltic concrete or turf shall be 1.0%. Existing elevations of adjacent property and street flowlines must be shown around the perimeter of the proposed development.
32.New sewer lateral construction within Excelsior Drive shall be 6” VCP piping. Note:
mainline connection is to a City of Santa Fe Springs mainline.
33.Per NMC Section 12.12.130, the developer, at his/her cost, shall be responsible for the relocation as necessary of any public or private utility or other obstruction to facilitate the construction within the public right-of-way.
34.Property is currently comprised of two lots. The two lots must be merged into one lot per the City Lot Line Adjustment process if all of the buildings are to be served by only one main line sewer connection to Carmenita Avenue. If each lot has a separate main line sewer connection, the lots shall remain separate.
35.Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the Developer shall submit improvement plans to the Engineering Division showing all the required improvements in the public right of way for review and approval of the City Engineer. A copy of the approved conditions of approval shall be attached to the plans when submitted.
36.Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, reconstruct existing drive approach on Excelsior Drive per City Standard No. 101 Type R3, W=26 feet and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Drainage is not permitted to cross over drive aprons.
37.Fire Protection: This development will require construction of fire protection improvements. Prior to the issuance of any development plans, the applicant is required to contact Los Angeles County Fire Department, Engineering Division, 5823 Rickenbacker Road, City of Commerce, CA 90040, (323) 890-4125 and obtain the fire flow and access requirements for any proposed development. The applicant will also be required to contact the City of Norwalk Water Division to determine the existing fire flow rate in this area. If the existing fire flow capabilities are below the required minimum, the applicant shall provide the necessary means for meeting the fire flow rates required by the Fire Department.
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 10 of 22
38.The landowner must submit a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent (NOI), accompanied by the filing fee, prior to the start of any clearing or grading activity. Submit to: State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Attn: Storm Water Permit Unit, P.O. Box 1977, Sacramento, CA 95812-1977. A copy of Notice of Intent and a receipt for NPDES Construction Permit shall be presented to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of any permits.
39.Federal, State and local statutes for a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) require that the developer incorporate appropriate SUSMP requirements into this project. The SUSMP contains a list of the minimum Best Management Practices (BMP's) that must be used for a project. Copies of the SUSMP applicable to the Los Angeles County area are available from the office of the City Engineer.
The developer's plan must be approved prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits.
40.Prior to the issuance of building permit, site grading may raise the property elevation at boundary walls. Boundary walls are to be reconstructed as necessary to support the revised grading and comply with the required minimum heights of boundary walls.
41.Off-site improvements (e.g. driveways, sidewalk, parkway drains, trees, curb/gutter etc.) shown on the grading plans must provide a concurrent submittal to City of Norwalk Engineering Division. As an alternative, off-site improvements may be shown on a separate set of street improvement plans. Prior to issuance of Grading Permit, developer shall obtain drainage clearance from City of Norwalk Engineering Division.
42.Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Developer shall submit an electronic copy of approved plans (i.e., Water, Sewer, Street and/or Storm Drain Improvements, whichever applies), to the City of Norwalk – Engineering Division.
43.Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Low Impact Development (LID) Plan specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff.
The LID Plan shall clearly show the locations of structural BMPs and assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the recorded Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the general form and content shown in the LID Plan template and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 11 of 22
44.RECORDATION OF MASTER COVENANT AND AGREEMENT: Prior to approval of the LID Plan, the applicant/developer shall prepare and record a Master Covenant and Agreement per requirements of the City Engineer.
45.Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Developer shall execute and provide to the City Engineer, a written statement from the local utility(s) provider for water service (City of Santa Fe Springs) and sewer service (City of Norwalk), indicating that the water system and sewer system will be operated by the purveyor and that under normal conditions, the system will meet the requirements for the development and that water and sewer service will be provided to each building.
Property sewer shall have its own separate connection to the public sewer system.
Comply with the MMRP recommended by the water and sewer system purveyor(s).
46.Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the proposed development is subject to the following:
a. All infrastructures necessary to serve the proposed development (water, sewer, storm drain, and street improvements) shall be in operation. b. The Developer shall submit an electronic copy of approved plans (such as, Sewer, Street and/or Storm Drain Improvements, whichever applies), to the City of Norwalk – Engineering Division.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
47.Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, review and approval by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Prevention Engineering Section Building Plan Check Unit is required. Contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department at 323.890.4125 for additional information and EPICLA submittals.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN:
48.Project shall comply with MMRP, hereby attached as Exhibit “B”, as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, to the satisfaction of the City of Norwalk Community Development Department prior to Planning Division plan check approval.
-END OF CONDITIONSResolution No. 25-63 Page 12 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-1
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves or carries out a project for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been certified which identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects and where findings with respect to changes or alterations in the project have been made, to adopt a “…reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6).
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented. The City of Norwalk is the Lead Agency for the Project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This section describes the MMRP for the Project and identifies the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in the MMRP.
4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The MMRP for the Project will be active through all phases of the Project, including design, construction, and operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for the Project. The table identifies mitigation measures required by the City to mitigate or avoid significant impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, the timing of implementation, and the responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance.
The MMRP also includes a column that will be used by the compliance monitor (individual responsible for monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual Plan, Program, and Policies (PPP) and mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the MMRP, indicating that the required actions have been completed.
This MMRP incorporates all the mitigation measures from the Recirculated IS/MND for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project.
EXHIBIT B
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 13 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-2
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 14 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-3
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Table 4-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
AIR QUALITY
PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD
guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
During construction Construction
contractors; site
supervisors
The City Building and
Safety Division will
examine Project
contracts for these
requirements and
monitor for
compliance.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
During construction Construction
contractors; site
supervisors
The City Building and
Safety Division will
examine Project
contracts for these
requirements and
monitor for
compliance.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
PPP AQ-3: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
During construction
and operation
Project developers/
applicant and
construction
contractors
The City Building and
Safety Division will
examine Project
contracts for these
requirements and
monitor for
compliance.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the Project will be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur within 50 feet of the discovery until Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
as well as during
Construction
Contractor; City
Building and Safety
The City will verify
that all construction
within 50 feet of the
remains will cease
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 15 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-4
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. grading and
trenching
Department; County
Coroner
until the County
Coroner has made a
determination of the
origin. The County
Coroner must be
notified of the find
immediately and if
the remains are
determined prehistoric then the
Native American
Heritage Commission
will be notified.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discoveries. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Norwalk Building & Safety Division shall verify that all Project grading and construction plans and specifications state that in the event that potential archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the City or County List of Qualified Archaeologist has evaluated the find to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code. Any resources identified shall be treated in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g). If the discovered resource(s) appears Native American in origin, a Native American Monitor shall be contacted to evaluate any potential tribal cultural resource(s) and shall have the opportunity to consult an appropriate treatment and curation of these resources.
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
as well as during
grading and
trenching
City of Norwalk
Building and Safety
Department;
Construction
Contractor;
Qualified
Archeologist; and
Native American
Monitor
The City will verify
that all construction
within 50 feet of the
archeological
resource will cease
until a Qualified
Archeologist has
evaluated the find.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
ENERGY
PPP ENG-1: CalGreen Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 15.30) to ensure efficient use of energy.
CalGreen specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of building permit approval.
Prior to the issuance
of a building permit
Applicant; City of
Norwalk Building
and Safety
Department
The City will verify
that the Project is in
compliance with the
CALGreen Building
Code prior to the
issuance of building
permits.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 16 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-5
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of Project approval.
Prior to the issuance
of the grading
permit and during
grading
Applicant; City of
Norwalk Building
and Safety
Department
The City will verify
Project compliance is
incorporated into the
grading plan and a
condition to the
approval of the
Project.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Norwalk Planning Division, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County, stating that the paleontologist has been retained to provide services for the project. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the City. The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for
paleontological resource surveillance. The PRIMP shall also require paleontological monitoring for ground disturbing activities greater than eight feet in depth within native soil, as determined by the Project paleontologist.
In the event paleontological resources are encountered, grounddisturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered.
Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit.
If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
Applicant; City of
Norwalk Planning
Division; Qualified
Paleontologist
The City will not issue
a grading permit until
compliance is met
and there will be an
onsite paleontologist
monitoring
construction during
ground disturbing
activities.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 17 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-6
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist.
Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PPP HAZ-1: SCAQMD Rule 1403. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project Applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that an asbestos survey has been conducted on the structures proposed for demolition. If asbestos is found, the Project Applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require that the following actions be taken: notification of SCAQMD prior to construction activity, asbestos removal in accordance with prescribed procedures, placement of collected asbestos in leak-tight containers or wrapping, and proper disposal.
Prior to the issuance
of demolition
permits
Project Applicant;
City Building and
Safety Division
The City will not issue
a demolition permit
prior to receiving an
asbestos survey.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PPP WQ-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ (General Construction Permit). The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other NPDES regulations to limit the potential of erosion and polluted runoff during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by the City of Norwalk staff or its designee to confirm compliance.
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
Qualified SWPPP
Developer; Project
Developer;
Construction
Contractor; City of
Norwalk staff
The City staff will
confirm compliance
through periodic
inspections.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
PPP WQ-2: Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall have a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) approved by the City for implementation. The Project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Section 18.04.105 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
Project applicant;
Construction
Contractor; City of
Norwalk Planning
Division
The City will not issue
a grading permit until
SUSMP is approved
by the City.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 18 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-7
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other pollutants during construction and operations of the Project.
NOISE
PPP N-1: Construction Hours: Section 09.04.150(E) of the Norwalk Municipal Code states that construction-type devices may be utilized between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or sunset whichever is later.
During construction Construction
Contractors
The City Building and
Safety Division would
ensure that the
Project complies.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Mitigation Measure N-1: Construction Vibration. The Project Applicant shall require that all construction contractors restrict the operation of any large bulldozers that is powered by a greater than 150 horsepower engine or any vibratory rollers from operating within 25 feet of any off-site structure. The Project Applicant shall require the use of a small bulldozer (i.e., D1, D2, or D3 dozers) or other type of equipment that is less than 150 horsepower to perform all demolition and grading activities that are located within 15 feet of any off-site structure.
During construction Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
The City Building and
Safety Division would
ensure that the
Project complies.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
PUBLIC SERVICES
PPP PS-1: Payment of Applicable Development Impact Fees: The Project Applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees, service fees, and other required fees established by the City of Norwalk prior to the issuance of building permits. These fees are intended to offset the Project’s contribution to the demand for public services, including police protection provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Norwalk Station).
Prior to the issuance
of building permits
Applicant The City Planning
Division will assure
compliance.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
PPP PS-2: School Fees: Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit final inspection, the Applicant shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the applicable school districts related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.
Prior to the issuance
of a certificate of
occupancy or prior
to building permit
final inspection
Applicant The City Planning
Division will assure
compliance.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
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 issuance of
permits associated
with grounddisturbing activities.
Project Applicant;
City of Norwalk
Planning Division;
Construction
Contractor; and
The City Planning
Division will assure
submission of signed
monitoring contract;
field observation logs
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 19 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-8
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials 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 City of Norwalk Planning Division 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 shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing
activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, culturalrelated materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project applicant/City of Norwalk upon written
request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon either of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a
designated point of contact for the Project applicant/City of Norwalk Planning Division 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/City of Norwalk Planning Division that no future, planned
construction activity and/or development/construction
Native American
Monitor
documenting tribal
monitoring presence;
and actions taken to
protect resources.
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 20 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-9
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials phase at the Project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) A. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for
educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
During all grounddisturbing activities.City of Norwalk Planning Division
and Native
American Monitor
The City will verify
that all construction
within 50 feet of TCR
discovery will cease
until a Native
American monitor has
evaluated the find.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC
5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according
to this statute.
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods
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.
During all ground
disturbing activities.
City of Norwalk
Planning Division;
Qualified
Archeologist; and
Native American
Monitor
The City Planning
Division will verify
field inspection;
coordination with
County Coroner,
Native American
Heritage Commission,
and Most Likely
Descendant, as
applicable.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 21 of 22
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-10
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
UTILITIES
PPP UT-1: Solid Waste. As required by Municipal Code Section
8.48.630, prior to construction of the Project, the Applicant shall submit to the Waste Management Plan Compliance Official documentation that the diversion requirement has been met. The diversion requirement shall be that the Applicant has diverted at least 65 percent of the total construction and demolition debris generated by the Project via reuse or recycling.
Prior to construction Project applicant;
Waste Management
Plan Compliance
Official
The Waste
Management Plan
Compliance Official
will ensure the
diversion requirement
has been met prior to
construction.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63 Page 22 of 22
7612-012acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
ISABEL TAHIR
Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
MARC D. JOSEPH
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
amcguire @adamsbroadwell.com
printed on recycled paper
October 16, 2025
Via Hand Delivery, Email and Overnight Mail
Norwalk City Council
Attn: Theresa Devoy, City Clerk
Norwalk City Clerk’s Dept.
12700 Norwalk Blvd. Rm. 10
Norwalk, CA 90650
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Kristy Wong, Associate Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Appeal of 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024101066; PDP No. 2023-06)
Dear Ms. Devoy, Councilmembers, and Ms. Wong:
Pursuant to City of Norwalk Municipal Code Section 17.02.205(E), we submit this appeal on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Development (“CREED LA”) of the City of Norwalk (“City”) Planning Commission’s October 8, 2025, approval actions for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024101066), also known as the Rexford Industrial Project (“Project), including the Commission’s adoption of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (“RMND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”), approval of the Precise Development Plan (“PDP”) No. 2023-06, and any and all other approval actions taken by the Planning Commission related to the Project. The Project is proposed by Rexford Industrial (“Applicant”).1
1 City of Norwalk, Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (October 8, 2025) (hereinafter “agenda”), available at: https://norwalk.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=5924; City of Norwalk, October 8, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Synopsis, available at:
https://norwalk.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=5929&compileOutput Type=1.
Attachment No. 3
October 16, 2025
7612-012acp
printed on recycled paper
The Project proposes to demolish two existing multi-tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 square feet (SF) and to construct an approximately 138,972 SF industrial warehouse building with a parking lot, ornamental landscaping, and associated infrastructure on the 7.03-acre lot.2 The proposed building would include 132,227 SF of warehouse space, 3,715 SF of ground floor office space, and 3,030 SF of mezzanine space.3 The Project would be located in southeastern Los Angeles County at 14830 Carmenita Road, Norwalk, California 90650 and consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 8069-002-085.4 CREED LA hereby appeals all actions taken by the Planning Commission with regard to the Project at its October 8, 2025, meeting. The reasons for this appeal are set forth herein and described in greater detail in the attached comments, which document the City’s failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)5 and land use laws.6 Pursuant to City of Norwalk Municipal Code Sections 17.02.205(E), 1.18.020, and 1.18.050 the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, provided such appeal meets the following requirements:
1. A written appeal is filed within ten (10) calendar days after the date that notice of the Planning Commission decision is mailed to the applicant;
2. The request is filed with the City Clerk;
3. The requisite fees are included;
4. The written appeal states the specific grounds for the appeal.7 This appeal is timely filed, includes the $1,750 fee8, and includes all the information required by Norwalk Municipal Code Sections 17.02.205(E), 1.18.020, and 1.18.050.
5 Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
6 Attachment A: Letter from ABJC to City re Agenda Item No. 2 Precise Development Plan No. 2023-06 and Recirculated Final MND for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024101066) (October 8, 2025).
7 Norwalk Municipal Code §§17.02.205(E), 1.18.020, 1.18.050. 8 City of Norwalk, User and Regulatory Fee Schedule, available at:
https://norwalkca.gov/Documents/Departments%20&%20Services/Finance/Fees%20And%20Taxes/Fe es%20For%20Services,%20Fines,%20And%20Penalties/Adopted%20-%20Norwalk%20- %20Fee%20Schedules%20for%20FY%2025-26.pdf?t=202507021041380.
October 16, 2025
7612-012acp
printed on recycled paper
I. Appellant Information
This appeal is filed by CREED LA, care of Alaura McGuire, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000, South San Francisco, CA 94080. Email: [email protected]. Telephone number: (650) 589-1660, Ext. 19.
CREED LA is a non-profit organization formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The organization’s members include Norwalk residents Alejandro Lopez, Wilfredo Gutirrez, and Phillip Templeton, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, and their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in and around the City of Norwalk and the Los Angeles region. CREED LA’s members stand to be directly affected by the Project’s impacts.
II. Grounds for Appeal
The grounds for this appeal are that the City has not complied with CEQA9 or applicable land use laws. The Planning Commission abused its discretion and proceeded in a manner inconsistent with law and without substantial evidence to support the approval findings10 by approving the Project in reliance on a deficient MND which fails to disclose and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts. The grounds are set forth generally herein and in detail in the attached letter submitted to the Planning Commission on October 8, 2025, responding to the RMND and October 8 Planning Commission hearing Staff Report.11 In summary, CREED LA and their expert consultants submitted written comments to the City on the original MND providing substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated 9 Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
10 Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(b); Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.
11 Attachment A: Letter from ABJC to City re Agenda Item No. 2 Precise Development Plan No. 2023-06 and Recirculated Final MND for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024101066) (October 8, 2025).
October 16, 2025
7612-012acp
printed on recycled paper
air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utility impacts.12 These issues were not resolved in the RMND approved by the Planning Commission.
For example, CREED LA’s air quality expert demonstrated that the RMND failed to account for 3.68 tons of NOx and 608 tons of CO2 that may be produced by the Project. The RMND did not analyze the Project’s impacts together with nearby warehouses and thus fails to disclose significant cumulative health risk impacts.
The City also did not propose any mitigation to address these impacts.
CREED LA’s transportation expert demonstrated that the City failed to accurately describe the existing uses on the Project site, which overestimates the existing VMT levels. The City also underestimated the Project’s VMT levels by failing to analyze the Project’s potential future use as a parcel hub or fulfillment center. Our transportation expert provided substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project’s VMT impacts are potentially significant and that the City improperly screened the Project from a VMT analysis.
CREED LA’s noise expert demonstrated that Project would have potentially significant operational and construction noise impacts that the RMND failed to disclose or mitigate. The RMND underestimates operation noise impacts by failing to accurately estimate the number of HVAC units that will be needed for the Project. Furthermore, the RMND fails to establish accurate baseline noise levels, rendering its subsequent impact analysis unsupported. The RMND also fails to analyze the Project’s construction noise increase over ambient noise levels as required by CEQA and the City’s own Municipal Code.
The RMND’s energy analysis also failed to meet CEQA’s requirement that an MND analyze energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project. The RMND failed to consider common and effective measures to reduce the Project’s energy consumption, resulting in potentially significant, unmitigated energy impacts.
The City also failed to provide substantial evidence to show that the Project will have adequate fire flow, as required by CEQA and the City’s own general plan. 12 Letter from ABJC to City re Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Rexford Industrial Project (14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project) (SCH No. 2024101066) (November 12, 2024); Letter from ABJC to City re Agenda Item No. 2 Rexford Industrial Project (14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project) (SCH No. 2024101066) (December 11, 2024).
October 16, 2025
7612-012acp
printed on recycled paper
In sum, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have several significant and unmitigated impacts which require the City to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) to comply with CEQA. The Commission’s approval of the RMND and related entitlements must be vacated, and the Project remanded back to staff so that an EIR can be prepared.
Furthermore, the Commission lacked substantial evidence to support the requisite findings to approve the Projects’ Precise Development Plan (“PDP”) under Norwalk Municipal Code Section 17.02.205.D. Section 17.02.205.D requires the Commission to find that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will not adversely affect the present and future development of surrounding areas. The Commission’s approval of the PDP was unsupported by substantial evidence due to the Project’s potentially significant air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utility impacts. The Commission’s approval of the PDP must also be vacated.
III. Conclusion
CREED LA respectfully requests that the City Council set a hearing on this appeal, and that the City Council uphold this appeal, vacate the Planning Commission’s actions related to the Project, and remand the Project to staff to prepare and circulate a legally compliant EIR before reconsidering Project approval.
Sincerely,
Alaura McGuire
Attachments
ARM:acp
ATTACHMENT A
7612-011j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
ISABEL TAHIR
Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
MARC D. JOSEPH
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
a m c g u i r e @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m
printed on recycled paper
October 8, 2025
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Attention: Community Development
Department
City Council Chambers
Norwalk City Hall
12700 Norwalk Boulevard,
Norwalk, CA 90650
Email: [email protected]
Chair Linda Lopez and Commissioners
City of Norwalk Planning Commission
City Council Chambers
Norwalk City Hall
12700 Norwalk Boulevard,
Norwalk, CA 90650
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Kristy Wong, Associate Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 2: Precise Development Plan No. 2023-06 and Recirculated Final MND for the 14830 Carmenita Road
Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024101066)
Dear Chair Lopez, Commissioners, Director Hamilton, and Ms. Wong:
On behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development (“CREED LA”), we submit these comments on Agenda Item No. 2, the Precise Development Plan No. 2023-06 and the Recirculated Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (“RIS/MND”), also known as the Rexford Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024104066) (“Project”) proposed by Rexford Industrial (“Applicant”). The Planning Commission (“Commission”) is scheduled to consider approval of the Project’s RIS/MND and Precise Development Plan at a public hearing on October 8, 2025.
The Project proposes to demolish two existing multi-tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 square feet (SF) and to construct an approximately 138,972 SF industrial warehouse building with a parking lot, ornamental landscaping, and associated infrastructure on the 7.03-acre lot.1 The 1 RIS/MND, p. 21.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
proposed building would include 132,227 SF of warehouse space, 3,715 SF of ground floor office space, and 3,030 SF of mezzanine space.2 The Project would be located in southeastern Los Angeles County at 14830 Carmenita Road, Norwalk, California 90650 and consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 8069-002-085.3 On November 12 and December 11, 2024, CREED LA submitted comments on the Project’s original Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”). CREED LA’s comments included expert reports which presented the City with substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utility impacts that were not disclosed or mitigated in the original IS/MND. For example, the City underestimated emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), underestimated and failed to disclose significant public health impacts resulting from exposure to these contaminants, and failed to consider significant cumulative emissions impacts from nearby warehouses. The City also underestimated the Project’s VMT levels that led to the City improperly screening the Project from a VMT analysis. The City also failed to provide any evidence to show that the Project will have adequate fire flow as required by CEQA and the City’s own general plan. These impacts required the City to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act4 (“CEQA”).
Instead of preparing an EIR, as required by CEQA, the City subsequently prepared written responses to CREED LA’s comments and revised some of its environmental analysis in the Final IS/MND,
5 then proceeded to prepare the
instant RIS/MND. We reviewed the RIS/MND with air quality and hazards expert 2 Id.
3 Id. at p. 4.
4 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). 5 Finial Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (January 2025), available at:
https://www.norwalk.org/Documents/Departments%20&%20Services/Community%20Development/C armenita%20Warehouse%20Final%20MND.pdf?t=202501071938090; Response to Comment Letter O1: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (representing the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development “CREED LA”) (responding to November 12, 2024 comments), available at; https://norwalk.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId=f d3b0aa3-977b-4e2b-a6fe-a5a183c3224e; EPD Solutions, Response to Letter L1: CREED LA, dated December 11, 2024 (responding to December 11, 2024 comments), available at:
https://norwalk.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId=b 2c07dae-ddde-4dc7-ad44-cebf2a4dd739.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
Dr. James Clark, Ph.D.,6 noise expert Jack Meighan,7 and transportation expert, Norm Marshall,8 Our review finds that the RIS/MND still fails to comply with CEQA.
These comments address legal and factual deficiencies in the RIS/MND and the Staff Report, and include expert evidence from air quality and hazards expert Dr. James Clark, Ph.D., noise expert, Jack Meighan, and transportation expert, Norm Marshall. These experts provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant air quality, health risk, noise, and transportation impacts that are not adequately disclosed and are not reduce to less than significant levels by the mitigation measures proposed in the RIS/MND.
In particular, Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated cumulative air quality impacts from DPM emissions. He also demonstrates that the City lacks substantial evidence that the Project will not result in significant operational emissions of NOx and CO2.
Mr. Meighan provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant, unmitigated operational and construction noise impacts. Mr. Meighan further explains that the RIS/MND fails to establish accurate baseline noise levels, underestimates operation noise impacts from HVAC units, and fails to analyze the Project’s construction noise increase over ambient noise levels as required by CEQA.
Mr. Marshall provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant transportation impacts. Mr. Marshall further explains that the City underestimates the trip generation from the existing uses on the Project site and improperly screens the Project from a VMT analysis.
In sum, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant and unmitigated environmental impacts. The City cannot approve the Project until the City complies with CEQA by preparing an EIR which fully discloses and mitigates all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. The 6 Exhibit A, James Clark, Comments on the Staff Report and RIS/MND for the Rexford Industrial Project (hereinafter “Clark Comments”).
7 Exhibit C, Jack Meighan, Review and Comments on the RIS/MND for the Rexford Industrial Project (hereinafter “Meighan Comments”).
8 Exhibit B, Norm Marshall, Comments on the Staff Report and RIS/MND for the Rexford Industrial Project (hereinafter “Marshall Comments”).
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
Commission also lacks substantial evidence to support the findings require to approve the Projects’ Precise Development Plan (“PDP”) under Section 17.02.205.D of the City’s municipal code.
9 We respectfully request that the Commission continue the hearing until after the City has prepared and circulated an EIR that fully complies with CEQA and.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is a non-profit organization formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The organization’s members include Norwalk residents Alejandro Lopez, Wilfredo Gutirrez, and Phillip Templeton, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, and their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in and around the City of Norwalk and the Los Angeles region.
Individual members of CREED LA live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Norwalk and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
9 Norwalk Municipal Code (“NMC”) Section 17.02.205.D.1 requires the Commission to find that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will not adversely affect the present and future development of surrounding areas.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
II. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE
PROJECT MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED IMPACTS
CEQA is designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project.10 “CEQA’s fundamental goal [is] fostering informed decision-making.”11
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA because it acts as an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.”12 The EIR aids an agency in identifying, analyzing, disclosing, and, to the extent possible, avoiding a project’s significant environmental effects through implementing feasible mitigation measures.13 The EIR also serves “to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the Agency has analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.”14 Thus, an EIR “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.”15
In limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR. However, because “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration…has a terminal effect on the environmental review process” by allowing the agency to dispense with the duty to prepare an EIR, negative declarations are allowed only in cases that satisfy the fair argument standard.
16 10 CEQA Guidelines § 15002.
11 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 406; Public Resources Code § 21100.
12 Dunn-Edwards v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220. 13 Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a), (f). 14 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 86. 15 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 16 Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440; Pub. Res. Code October 8, 2025
7612-011j
The “fair argument” standard is an exceptionally “low threshold” favoring environmental review in an EIR rather than a negative declaration.17 Under the fair argument standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.18 The phrase “significant effect on the environment” is defined as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.”19 “Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”20As a matter of law, substantial evidence includes both expert and lay opinion.21 Accordingly, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.22
With respect to this Project, the RIS/MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The RIS/MND fails to adequately disclose, investigate, and analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts during construction and operation, and fails to provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level.23 Additionally, as discussed in detail §§ 21100, 21064.
17 Consolidated Irrigation District v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.
18 Pub. Res. Code §§21080(d), 21082.2(d); 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v.
City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601-1602.
19 Pub. Resources Code, § 21068.
20 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
21 Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (e)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(5). 22 Pub. Resources Code § 21064.5 (emphasis added).
23 Pub. Ressources Code § 21064.5.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
below, there is substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the Project may result in several potentially significant impacts. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR.
III. THE RIS/MND’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
SETTING IS INADEQUATE
The RIS/MND fails to adequately describe the environmental setting against which the Project’s environmental impacts are to be measured. This contravenes the fundamental purpose of the environmental review process, which is to determine whether there is a potentially substantial, adverse change compared to the existing setting.24 CEQA requires that a lead agency include a description of the physical environmental conditions, or “baseline,” in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time environmental review commences.25 As the courts have repeatedly held, the impacts of a project must be measured against the “real conditions on the ground.”26 The description of the environmental setting constitutes the “baseline” physical conditions against which the lead agency assesses the significance of a project’s impacts.27 An environmental setting is required “to give the public and decision makers the most accurate and understandable picture practically possible of the project’s likely near-term and long-term impacts.28 As discussed below, the RIS/MND fails to accurately describe the existing uses on the Project site resulting in an overestimated trip generation and fails to establish accurate baseline noise levels against which to compare the Project’s noise impacts.
A. The RIS/MND Fails to Accurately Describe Existing Uses Related to Trip Generation
The Project site is currently developed with two multi-tenant buildings totaling 89,870 SF, which are currently occupied by RV Storage Depot, an RV self24 CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d). 25 CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a); Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.
26 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.; Save Our Peninsula Com. V. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-22; City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Bd. Of Supervisors of Monterey County (986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246.
27 CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a); Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 48 Cal. 4th at 321.
28 CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a).
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
storage company.29 The RIS/MND estimates that the existing uses of these facilities generate 154 daily vehicle trips.30 However, the City uses an incorrect trip generation rate that is not representative of the existing uses on the Project site and it mischaracterizes the existing RV storage uses as 24/7 operations.
The RIS/MND improperly uses ITE warehousing trip generation rate category 150 to estimate the number of daily trips the existing use generates.31 As Mr. Marshall explains, the existing use at the Project site does not store materials, and therefore does not fall under the list of uses defined for the warehousing category, and does not generate truck trips related to transport of materials. 32 In
fact, Mr. Marshall comments that the current use of the Project as a self-storage facility does not match any of the categories in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. 33 Given that there is no appropriate trip generation rate for the existing use, Mr.
Marshall recommends a traffic count be conducted at the Project site to accurately capture Project’s trip generation. This would likely result in a much lower trip generation rate than the one used in the RIS/MND.34 This is because the passive storage operations of the current RV Storage Depot generate little truck traffic and likely no 4+-axle trucks compared to the “warehousing” use analyzed in the RIS/MND.35 Use of a more accurate trip generate rate may also reveal significant impacts that were not disclosed or mitigated.
The Staff Report claims that the existing buildings on the Project site are accurately represented by the ITE 150 trip generation rate because they are permitted for warehousing uses and are utilized for storage.36 The City refers to pictures of the interior of each building located on pages 53 to 56 of Appendix G of the RIS/MND as evidence that each building is utilized for warehouse storage.37 Mr. Marshall explains that the Staff Report fails to adequately address the RIS/MND’s misapplication of the ITE warehousing trip generation rate for several reasons. First, the RIS/MND fails to describe the “existing conditions” in the Project vicinity as required by CEQA. 38 The photos referenced in the Phase 1 29 RIS/MND, p. 4.
30 Id.
31 RIS/MND, p. 111.
32 Marshall Comments, p. 2, 5.
33 Marshall Comments, p. 4.
34 Marshall Comments, p. 4.
35 Marshall Comments, p. 5.
36 Staff Report, Response L1.10, p. 183; Staff Report, Response L1.25, p. 188. 37 Staff Report, Response L1.10, p. 183; Staff Report, Response L1.25, p. 188. 38 14 Cal Code Regs §15125(a).
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
Environmental Site Assessment dated May 25, 2017, show past warehouse uses. 39 Although the exact date of the images are unknown, it is likely that they were taken in 2017–the same year as the environmental impact report. Because the uses of the Project site in 2017 may differ greatly from the existing uses–RV storage–this fails to provide an accurate baseline against which to measure the significance of the Project’s environmental impacts.
Second, the RIS/MND fails to provide any information about how much of the Project site is allocated for each use (i.e., RV storage, self-storage, storage of materials).40 This is important because, as Mr. Marshall explains, the RV storage facility was operating in 2017 and thus it is possible that most of the site was used for RV storage/self-storage even then.41 As discussed above, the use of the Project site as a self-storage facility does not match any of the categories in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and underestimates the Project’s true impacts. Therefore, the RIS/MND still lacks substantial evidence to support a fair argument that its use of the ITE 150 warehouse category to calculate the Project’s baseline trip generation, rendering the RIS/MND’s assessment of baseline conditions unsupported.
The RIS/MND also mischaracterizes the existing uses on the Project site as 24/7 operations.42 Because of this, the City claims that the implementation of the proposed Project would not differ from the current uses on the Project site because both uses operate 24 hours a day.
43 However, as Mr. Marshall explains, the RV
Storage Depot is not open to the public 24/7.44 By characterizing the existing use as a 24/7 operation, this overestimates the existing trip rate. 45 The Staff Report
attempts to justify the RIS/MND’s mischaracterization by stating that, even though the RV Storage Depot is not open to the public 24/7, “existing onsite operations and site lighting occurs 24 hours a day.”46 However, this fails to adequately address Mr.
Marshall’s comment. As Mr. Marshall explains, because the “onsite operations” are not specified, they could be as limited as a single security guard.47 Having a lighted parking lot and a single employee onsite does not meet the definition of 24/7 operations.48 Furthermore, these existing “24/7 operations” are very different from 39 Marshall Comments, p. 5.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 RIS/MND, p. 37.
43 Id.
44 Marshall Comments, p. 5.
45 Id. at p. 5.
46 Staff Report, Response L1.10, pp. 183-184; Staff Report, Response1.25, p. 188. 47 Marshall Comments, p. 5.
48 Id.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
the 24/7 operations proposed at the Project site, which may be used for parcel hub or fulfillment center uses. For instance, Parcel Hub and Fulfillment Centers often involve delivery trucks bringing products to the warehouse during the day and night. In contrast, the existing site generates little traffic and likely no 4+-axle trucks at all.49 Thus, it is misleading to describe the existing uses on the Project site as operating 24 hours a day similar to the proposed Project.
For these reasons, the RIS/MND overestimates the existing trip generation at the Project site and thus does not have an accurate baseline against which to measure the Project’s significant impacts. The City must prepare an EIR that establishes an accurate baseline trip generation rate and mitigates any significant impacts found.
B. The RIS/MND Fails to Establish Accurate Baseline Noise Levels at the Project Site
The RIS/MND fails to accurately establish the baseline noise levels on the Project site. Mr. Meighan’s comments explain that environmental noise can vary widely throughout the day (perhaps +/- 10 dBA or more for areas with intermittent local traffic).50 Thus, an accurate noise baseline is critical to a meaningful assessment of a project’s impacts.51
Here, the RIS/MND’s noise analysis improperly relies on three short-term measurements – each of less than an hour in duration.52 Mr. Meighan identifies two errors in relying on these measurements.53 First, each measurement in the RIS/MND was likely about 15 minutes in length, which only represents 1% of a 24- hour period.54 Second, the RIS/MND lacks evidence showing that the three shortterm measurements relied upon are representative of the rest of the day or even of worst case (quietest conditions).55
49 Id.
50 Meighan Comments, p. 3.
51 Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 CA4th 310, 336; Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 87 CA4th 99, 119. 52 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id. at p. 3.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
To correct these errors, Mr. Meighan explains that, because the RIS/MND states that the proposed Project will be operated 24 hours a day, baseline noise levels must be established for evening and nighttime conditions.56 Without this data, Mr. Meighan states that “it is not possible to evaluate the significance of noise based on increases over ambient levels” as required by CEQA.57 In order to determine a Project’s existing noise levels, Appendix E of the Federal Transit Administrations’ Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”) recommends a minimum of three one-hour Leq noise measures to estimate the 24-hour Ldn/CNEL during three distinct timeframes: peak-hour roadway traffic, midday, and nighttime.58 The City does not conduct a similar noise study despite this industry standard regulatory guidance. Because of the high variability in noise levels throughout the day, the RIS/MND’s current baseline noise measurements may overestimate the existing noise at the Project site, effectively masking potentially significant increases in noise that the Project may cause.59 Therefore, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant noise impacts. An EIR should be prepared that establishes accurate baseline noise levels and reanalyzes the Project’s expected noise levels against this baseline.
IV. THE RIS/MND FAILS TO ANALYZE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
WAREHOUSE USES
The Project is proposed as a speculative warehouse without specific end uses or tenants.60 CEQA requires an environmental review document to include all relevant parts of a project, including future actions that will foreseeably result from project approval.61 Here, the RIS/MND fails to analyze impacts related to potential parcel hub or sort fulfillment center uses, which are not prohibited and thus reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project.
56 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
57 Meighan Comments, p. 2; King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 887, 893; Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 733 (holding that increase in noise level must be considered, not just absolute noise level). 58 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
59 Meighan Comments, p. 3.
60 RIS/MND, p. 21.
61 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 CA3d 1438; 14 CCR § 15126.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
Under CEQA, all phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including: planning, acquisition, development, and operations.62 An analysis of the environmental effects of future actions must be included if (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant.63 In Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court discussed the issue of what circumstances require consideration of future action related to the proposed project.64 There, the EIR acknowledged that the University of California in San Francisco in relocating the biomedical research facilities of its school of pharmacy would someday occupy more of the Laurel Heights building moved into than that portion identified in the EIR.65 The Supreme Court held that, since the remainder of the Laurel Heights building would at some future time be occupied by UCSF, the future expansion was a reasonably foreseeable future use, even if the precise use of the remainder of the building was then unknown; the future use needed to be discussed in the EIR.66
Similar to Laurel Heights, the RIS/MND fails to analyze reasonably foreseeable end uses of the proposed Project. Instead, the RIS/MND limits its analysis of the Project’s impacts, including in particular, transportation impacts, to only low-intensity warehouse uses.67 Specifically, in order to determine the trips generated by the proposed Project, the RIS/MND utilizes statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual for the proposed Project’s land uses.68 The RIS/MND derived the daily trip generation rate for this Project by applying two different trip generation rates: warehousing and general light industrial.69 Warehousing is one of the lowest trip generation rates among several trip generation rates available for warehouses.70 Mr. Marshall explains that because this Project is proposed as a speculative warehouse, if the Project site is used for parcel hub or sort fulfillment uses actual trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed in the RIS/MND.71 62 14 CCR § 15126.
63 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396. 64 Id.
65 Id.
66 Id. at p. 398.
67 RIS/MND, p. 111.
68 RIS/MND, p. 111.
69 RIS/MND, p. 111; Marshall Comments, p. 5.
70 Marshall Comments, p. 6.
71 Marshall Comments, p. 7.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
In response to CREED LA’s comments filed on December 11, 2024, the City claims that the Project would not include parcel hub or sort fulfillment uses.72 However, the City has not imposed any binding restrictions on these warehouse uses that would prevent them from occurring after Project buildout. One of the Project’s proposed Conditions of Approval (“COA”) states that “the proposed project may be designated for Warehouse use (ITE Land Use Code 150).”73 But, as Mr.
Marshall explains, this designation does not prevent the future use of the Project as a parcel hub or fulfillment center, nor does it restrict the truck and vehicle trips generated from these type of uses.
74 ITE Land Use Code 150 is defined as a
warehouse “primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas.”75 The parcel hub and fulfillment center warehouse categories, which have higher trip generation rates, also satisfy this generic definition of a “warehouse.”76 Therefore, the Project could reasonably be used as a parcel hub or fulfillment center. This would result in a significantly higher trip generation that needs to be disclosed and analyzed in an EIR.77 Due to the self-described “speculative” nature of the Project’s proposed end uses and the City’s failure to impose binding restrictions limiting the types of warehouse uses that may occur after Project buildout, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project may operate as a high-intensity warehouse. High intensity use would result in a higher trip generation rate than analyzed in the RIS/MND, resulting in potentially significant transportation impacts than discussed in the RIS/MND.
The City has a duty to analyze the impacts of all reasonably foreseeable warehouse uses of the Project site under CEQA. In this case, that includes higher intensity uses, such as parcel hub and fulfillment center uses. By omitting an analysis of these common warehouse uses, the RIS/MND fails to disclose and mitigate the more severe air quality, transportation, energy, and noise impacts that would result from these foreseeable uses, as required by CEQA.78 Further, adoption of a mitigation measure or COA does not excuse the City from its duty to analyze the potentially significant impacts that would result from parcel hub and fulfillment center uses. Rather, CEQA requires separate analysis of the Project’s unmitigated 72 Staff Report Attachment H, Response L1.7, p. 182
73 Resolution No. 25-13, Condition of Approval #13.
74 Marshall Comments, p. 2.
75 Marshall Comments, p. 2.
76 Marshall Comments, p. 2.
77 Marshall Comments, p. 2.
78 Marshall Comments, p. 2.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
and mitigated impacts.
79 The City must prepare an EIR that properly analyzes the Project's reasonably foreseeable end uses and mitigates any potentially significant impacts identified.
V. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR
ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT,
UNMITIGATED AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated construction and operation-related air quality impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) and carbon dioxide (“CO2”) which the RIS/MND fails to accurately analyze . Dr. Clark also provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in significant cumulative health risks to nearby residences that the RIS/MND failed to mitigate.
A. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Operational NOx and CO2 Emissions The RIS/MND fails to accurately calculate the number of forklifts that will be utilized onsite, leading to an underestimation of the Project’s potential operational emissions impacts. Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that NOx and CO2 emitted by forklifts during Project operation may result in significant impacts that must be disclosed and mitigated in an EIR.80 The City’s air quality analysis estimates that one compressed natural gas forklift will be used per 10,000 SF for operational purposes, leading to a total of fourteen forklifts.81 These fourteen forklifts are estimated to generate 1.61 tons of NOx and 323 tons of CO2.82 However, as Dr. Clark explains, this calculation relies on the lowest rate of forklift usage referenced in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) High-Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Results (“Summary”).83 The SCAQMD Summary 79 Lotus v. Dept of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656; . 80 Clark Comments, p. 2.
81 RIS/MND Appendix A, p. 2.
82 Clark Comments, p. 2.
83 Id.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
actually references a range of forklift usage rates, from a low of .2 forklifts per 10,000 sf to 4 forklifts per 10,000 sf.84 By only using the lower end of this range, the RIS/MND fails to analyze potentially significant operational impacts that could result after Project buildout.
85 For instance, using the upper end of the range of forklifts reported by SCAQMD, Dr. Clark calculates that the Project could have as many as forty-six forklifts onsite.86 These thirty-two additional forklifts would generate an additional
3.68 tons of NOx and 608 tons of CO2 per year, resulting in potentially significant emissions.
87 These emissions were not included in the RIS/MND’s emissions calculations, nor is mitigation proposed to ensure these emissions would remain below significance thresholds.
Because there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant operational impacts from emissions of NOx and CO2, the City must prepare an EIR.
B. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Result In Significant Cumulative Air Quality Impacts The RIS/MND fails to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant cumulative air quality emissions by failing to consider the Project’s impacts in conjunction with existing warehouses near the Project site. Instead, the RIS/MND asserts that any projects that result in daily emissions that exceed any SCAQMD thresholds would have both an individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant air quality impact, while emissions that fall below those thresholds are considered less-than-significant.88 As a result, the RIS/MND concludes that the Project’s construction and operational emissions would be less-than-significant because they would not exceed the project-level thresholds.89 This approach is inadequate because it fails to analyze the Project’s cumulative effects with the existing and proposed development near the Project site in violation of CEQA, Attorney General warehouse guidance, and updated SCAQMD guidance. 84 Id.
85 Id.
86 Clark Comments, p. 2.
87 Clark Comments, p. 2
88 RIS/MND, pp. 43, 125.
89 RIS/MND, p. 43.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
Additionally, Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant cumulative impacts when Project emissions are considered together with the emissions of nearby warehouses.90 Under CEQA, an environmental review document must evaluate a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.”91 This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental impacts “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”92 Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources.
These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.”93
The RIS/MND’s approach has been rejected by the courts for failing to comply with CEQA’s requirement that a project mitigate impacts that are “cumulatively considerable.”94 A leading case on this issue is Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford.
95 In Kings County, the city prepared an EIR for a 26.4-megawatt coal-fired cogeneration plant. Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR found that the project region was out of attainment for PM10 and ozone, the city failed to incorporate mitigation for the project’s cumulative air quality impacts from project emissions because it concluded that the Project would contribute “less than one percent of area emissions for all criteria pollutants.”96 The city reasoned that, because the project’s air emissions were small in ratio to existing air quality problems, that this necessarily rendered the project’s “incremental contribution” minimal under CEQA. The court rejected this approach, finding it “contrary to the intent of CEQA.” The court stated:
90 Clark Comments, pp. 2-3.
91 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a).
92 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
93 Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.
94 Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15130; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 719-21.
95 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (“Kings County”); see also, Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841-42. 96 Kings County, supra, at 719.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
We find the analysis used in the EIR and urged by GWF avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling. Under GWF's "ratio" theory, the greater the over-all problem, the less significance a project has in a cumulative impacts analysis. We conclude the standard for a cumulative impacts analysis is defined by the use of the term "collectively significant" in Guidelines section 15355 and the analysis must assess the collective or combined effect of energy development. The EIR improperly focused upon the individual project's relative effects and omitted facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality.
97 The RIS/MND’s analysis is similarly flawed because it improperly focuses on the individual project’s relative effects and omits facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality. The Staff Report attempts to justify this omission by claiming that they are merely relying on SCAQMD’s recommended methodology because there is currently “no methodology to quantify the cumulative areawide or localized health risks within a communitywide area.”98 These assertions are specious, ignore standard air quality analysis methodology used in CEQA documents throughout the State, including in the City of Norwalk, and are not supported by substantial evidence. First, it is well established that an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts must consider the Project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and foreseeable 97 Id. at 721 (emphasis added) ; see also People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No.
CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wpcontent/uploads/case-documents/2021/20210723_docket-CIVSB2121829_petition-for-writ-ofmandate.pdf (“The MND’s cumulative air quality impact analysis does not account for—or even acknowledge—the multitude of other warehouses near the Project. Rather than consider the environmental setting within which the Project will be situated, the MND simply states that the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions because the Project’s individual air quality impacts will be less than significant. The MND even applies this reasoning to its analysis of health impacts from localized emissions, despite making no attempt to determine or disclose the severity of the existing health impacts from localized emissions in the community”) 98 Staff Report, Response L1.16, p. 185; Staff Report, Response L1.32, p. 190.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
future projects within the Project’s vicinity.99 Therefore, the RIS/MND’s failure to consider the Project’s impacts in addition to impacts from existing warehouses within the Project’s vicinity violates the CEQA Guidelines.
Second, CEQA Guidelines state that “[c]ompliance with [a threshold of significance] does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.”100 Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant cumulative air quality impacts.101 Specifically, Dr. Clark identifies 19 existing warehouse projects within 5 kilometers of the Project site.
102 Data from the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC shows that the existing projects generate 1,000 daily truck trips, producing 1.4 pounds (lbs) of DPM per day and 156 lbs of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day.103 Dr. Clark calculates that this would contribute .2 tons of DPM, which would be nearly 1.10 lbs of DPM per day.104 This essentially doubles the amount of DPM being released in the community, which is already in the top 7% of all communities in the State of California impacted by pollution. 105 The City’s
cumulative impact analysis does not discuss this fact and does not propose mitigation to address the Project’s further exacerbation of an already severe rate of exposure to pollutants in the area. The City’s failure to address these potentially significant cumulative health risks in the RIS/MND violates CEQA and the legal precedent of Kings County Farm Bureau.
The approach used in the RIS/MND also directly conflicts with the recent Attorney General guidance document setting forth best practices for evaluating the environmental impacts of warehouse projects, like this one, under CEQA.106 With respect to cumulative air quality and GHG emissions analysis, the Attorney 99 CEQA Guidelines § 15130; Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (updated September 2022) (, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf. 100 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15064(b)(2).
101 Clark Comments, pp. 2-3.
102 Id. at p. 2.
103 Id.
104 Id. at p. 3.
105 Id. at pp. 3-4.
106 CEQA Guidelines § 15130; Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, p. 7 (Updated September 2022) (“[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold.”), available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf October 8, 2025
7612-011j
General’s guidance states that best practices include “[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold.” 107
Third, the RIS/MND attempts to argue that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(d)108, additional cumulative impacts analysis is not required because the City of Norwalk General Plan EIR thoroughly analyzed “areawide cumulative impacts related to industrial development in the City.”109 However, the proposed project analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR included “only the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County.”110 Here, the proposed Project is located within Norwalk, CA, which is an incorporated area of Los Angeles County.111 Therefore, the Norwalk General Plan EIR did not analyze the areawide cumulative impacts of the area that encompasses the proposed Project site and must conduct a separate cumulative impacts analysis for the Project as required by CEQA.
Therefore, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in cumulatively significant air quality impacts. To comply with CEQA, the City must (1) prepare an EIR that analyzes the Project’s impacts in combination with the 19 existing Projects identified and (2) mitigate any significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant, Unmitigated Cumulative Air Quality and Public Health Impacts Under the Draft SCAQMD Thresholds The RIS/MND’s cumulative impacts analysis relies on a 2003 SCAQMD guidance document titled White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution.112 The City of Fontana was recently sued 107 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (updated September 2022) (, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf. 108 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(d) (“No further cumulative impacts analysis is required when a project is consistent with a general…plan where the lead agency determines that the regional or areawide cumulative impacts of the proposed project have already been adequately addressed.”). 109 RIS/MND, p. 125.
110 City of Norwalk General Plan EIR (2014), p. 1-5.
111 Auditor-Controller: Los Angeles County, Incorporated Areas Cities, available at:
https://auditor.lacounty.gov/incorporated-areas-cities/; County of Los Angeles, Cities within the County of Los Angeles, available at: https://redistricting.lacounty.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/1043530_09-10CitiesAlpha.pdf. 112 RIS/MND, Appendix B, p. 8.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
by the State Attorney General for erroneous reliance on this guidance.113 The Attorney General’s petition explained: “[t]o the extent that the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper asserts that any project with less than significant individual air quality impacts also necessarily has less than significant cumulative air quality impacts, it is inconsistent with CEQA.”114 The Attorney General’s litigation resulted in a settlement which requires compliance with an ordinance adopted on April 12, 2022 that establishes sustainability standards for warehouses in Fontana, including standards intended to address cumulative air quality impacts. For example, the standards include requirements that rooftop solar panels supply 100% of power for non-refrigerated portions of facilities with buildings over 400,000 square feet, trees in automobile parking areas, zero emission motorized operational equipment, other equipment electrification requirements, and solar-ready building roofs.115 SCAQMD is in the process of updating its guidance to reflect modern science and CEQA’s requirements, specifically referencing the City of Fontana case.116 SCAQMD’s November 6, 2024, Working Group’s draft cumulative impacts guidance recommends that agencies lower the cancer risk significance threshold to better reflect cumulative impacts.117 The draft SCAQMD protocols lower the cancer risk threshold from 10 in one million if certain factors reflecting high pollution burden are met.118 These factors include determining (1) the background cancer risk affecting the Project area via the SCAQMD Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES), (2) if there are 951 daily heavy-duty truck trips or more that would traverse the truck route, and (3) if the Project is located in a SB 535 disadvantaged community or an AB 617 community.
119 The RIS/MND’s failure to consider
pollution burden in its analysis of cumulative health risks thus violates CEQA. 113 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/casedocuments/2021/20210723_docket-CIVSB2121829_petition-for-writ-of-mandate.pdf. 114 Id.
115 Id., Stipulation For Entry Of Final Judgment On Consent, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/20220414_docketCIVSB2121605-CIVSB2121829_stipulation.pdf. 116 SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting #6, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects, November 6, 2024, https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6- 20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13, pg. 4; see SCAQMD, Analyzing Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics in CEQA Documents, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policydevelopment-(new). 117 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development-(new); https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6- 20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13.
118 Id.
119 SCAQMD, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No. 2023070241) (December 20, 2024), pp.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project’s health risk impacts would exceed SCAQMD’s draft cumulative impacts significance thresholds. Although new protocols have not yet been formally adopted, SCAQMD comments on similar warehouse projects recommending that the draft protocols be applied.120 This demonstrates that the new thresholds are supported by substantial evidence, unlike the outdated 2003 guidance.
The draft SCAQMD protocols include a flowchart lowering the cancer risk significance threshold (from 10 in one million) if certain factors reflecting high pollution burden are met.121 Dr. Clark applied the SCAQMD flowchart protocols and found that the Project’s impacts would be significant.122 Step 1 of the flowchart is to determine the background cancer risk affecting the Project area via the SCAQMD Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES”).
Per the MATES V Data Visualization Tool, the location of the Project site is in the 85th percentile of highest cancer risks in the South Coast Air Basin (“SCAB”), with a cancer risk of 546 in one million.123 Per the draft thresholds, areas experiencing a background excess cancer risk in the 90th to 50th percentile would result in a drop of the Cancer Risk Threshold from 10 in one million to 5 in one million.124 Step 2 of the WG 6 flow diagram is to determine if there are 951 daily heavyduty truck trips or more that would traverse the truck route to the freeway with Existing + Project + Future volumes.125 As currently analyzed in the RIS/MND, the Project would not exceed 951 heavy duty truck trips.126 Step 3 is to determine if the Project is located in an SB535 disadvantage community or an AB617 community. If the project is within such an area, then the threshold would be reduced from 5 in one million to 3 in one million.127 Dr. Clark 2-62–2-63, available at: https://www.cityofbrea.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17864/DJT4-ParcelDelivery-Facility-Final-EIR-. 120 Id.
121 SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting #6, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects, November 6, 2024.
122 Clark Comments, pp. 5-6.
123 Id.
124 Clark Comments, p. 8.; SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting #6, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects, November 6, 2024, pg. 8.
125 Id.
126 RIS/MND, Appendix B, pdf p. 297; Clark Comments, p. 9. 127 Clark Comments, p. 9.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
demonstrates that the Project is located in an SB535 community.128 This lowers the significance threshold from 5 in one million to 3 in one million.
The RIS/MND calculates that the cancer risk from the Project’s DPM emissions during operation would be as high as 6.22 in one million for the residences near the Project site, while the Project’s combined construction and operational cancer risk would be as high as 6.5 in one million.129 These health risk impacts would exceed the 3 in one million significance threshold applicable to the Project and require mitigation.
The City fails to propose any mitigation that would ensure cumulative health risks are reduced to less than significant levels. In order to mitigate these impacts, Dr. Clark recommends that the City require Tier 4 final construction equipment.130 Dr. Clark also provides a list of other mitigation measures that should be implemented to ensure impacts are reduced, including, but not limited to: antiidling rules, installing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations, and lower speed limits within the vicinity of the Project.131
This constitutes substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant impacts that require disclosure and mitigation in an EIR.
VI. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR
ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT,
UNMITIGATED NOISE IMPACTS
A. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument That The Project May Have Significant, Unmitigated Construction Noise Impacts The RIS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s construction noise impacts to identify the increase above ambient noise levels in violation of CEQA. 132 This also
violates the FTA guidelines, which state that “Project construction criteria should 128 Id.
129 RIS/MND, Appendix B, p. 26.
130 Clark Comments, p. 10.
131 Id. at p. 11.
132 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v County of Kern (2020) 45 CA5th 814, 887,893; Keep Our Mountains Quiet v County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 CA4th 714, 733 (holding that increase in noise level must be considered, not just absolute noise level).
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use.”133
Section 9.04.140(B) of the City’s Noise Ordinance states that a measured noise level exceeding the ambient noise level at the property line of any residential land by more than 5 dB is a violation of the noise regulations. Here, the projected construction noise level is only evaluated against the FTA guideline criteria of 80 dBA.134 As discussed above, the measured ambient noise level may not be representative of the rest of the day.135 Because of this, a more accurate baseline noise level may reveal an increase in ambient noise above the City’s 5 dB threshold.
This renders the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in significant noise impacts unsupported136 This also constitutes substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the Project may result in a significant noise impact that must be evaluated in an EIR.
Additionally, the RIS/MND improperly states that the Norwalk Noise Ordinance exempts construction related activities from noise regulations provided the activities take place during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever is later.137 Municipal Code Section 9.04.150(E) does not state that construction activities conducted during certain hours are exempt from noise regulations. Section 9.04.150(E) provides that construction activities are unlawful if conducted “other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or sunset” unless the Applicant receives a permit from the Building Official or Director of Community Development.
138 Therefore, the general noise regulations in Municipal Code Section 9.04.140 do apply and must be used to ensure the Project does not result in significant, unmitigated impacts.
139
133 Meighan Comments, p. 3.
134 RIS/MND, p. 98; Meighan Comments, p. 3.
135 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
136 RIS/MND, p. 97; Meighan Comments, p. 3.
137 RIS/MND, p. 98.
138 Norwalk Municipal Code § 9.04.150(E).
139 Municipal Code § 9.04.140(B) (“Prima Facie Violation. An average noise level reading measured pursuant to Section 9.04.130 which exceeds the ambient noise level at the property line of any residential land (or if a condominium or apartment house, within any adjoining apartment) by more than five decibels shall be deemed to be prima fade evidence of a violation of the provisions of this article.”).
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
Therefore, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant, unmitigated construction noise impacts. The City must prepare an EIR that properly analyzes the Project’s noise impacts and mitigates any significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
B. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant, Unmitigated Operational Noise Impacts The RIS/MND relies on unrealistic equipment assumptions, resulting in underestimation of the Project’s operational noise impacts. Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant, unmitigated operational noise impacts that must be analyzed in an EIR.
First, the RIS/MND assumes that the Project will use rooftop HVAC units to only cool the office areas of the proposed warehouse.140 The RIS/MND lacks substantial evidence to support this assumption because the Project is a speculative warehouse, which means that more HVAC units may be required depending on what the actual end uses are.141 For instance, according to the American Society of Heating Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, the minimum ventilation rate for warehouses is .06 CFM per square foot, per person, which must be adjusted for occupancy rates, indoor air quality, and other factors.142 Based on the Project’s square footage of 138,972 and expected employees of 107, Mr. Meighan calculates that the Project would need at least twenty-two 25-ton units (spread out across the roof) to properly ventilate the space.143 Accordingly, Mr. Meighan found that the projected operational noise level expected from twenty-two HVAC units is 41-51 dBA at a distance of 1,020 feet, which is 21 to 31 dB higher than the RIS/MNDS’s 20 dB projection for rooftop noise.144
Second, the RIS/MND says that part of the warehouse may be used for cold storage145, but fails to adequately analyze the cooling equipment needs for this use.
Cold storage has significantly different needs than office spaces.146 Because of this, Mr. Meighan explains that if a portion of the warehouse space is used for cold 140 Meighan Comments, p .3.
141 Id. at p. 3; RIS/MND, p. 21.
142 Meighan Comments, pp. 3-4.
143 Id. at p. 4.
144 Id.
145 RIS/MND, p. 21.
146 Meighan Comments, p. 3.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
storage, air cooled chillers would be required in addition to standard HVAC units.147 The RIS/MND fails to analyze the potential impacts that would result from the use of both air-cooled chillers and standard HVAC units. The typical sound power level for an air-cooled scroll chiller (“chiller units”) can be up to 100 dBA.148 If four of the twenty-two 25-ton HVAC units are replaced with chiller units (approximately 20% of the rooftop units), then the projected noise level from the rooftop units is 49 to 52 dBA at a distance of 1,020 feet.149 This is 29 to 32 dBA higher than the RIS/MND’s 20 dB projection for rooftop noise.150
Third, Mr. Meighan highlights that the RIS/MND did not measure the nighttime ambient noise level for the Project and thus it is unknown.151 Because of this, it is also unknown whether the noise levels due to the rooftop HVAC equipment would be higher than the existing ambient noise levels.152 Mr. Meighan explains that the City must analyze this because high nighttime HVAC equipment noise levels can be disruptive and disturb sleep, which poses a potentially significant impact that the RIS/MND failed to analyze.153 Furthermore, as discussed above, the City’s Noise Ordinance states that a significant operational noise impact would occur with a 5 dB increase in ambient noise.
154 Mr. Meighan provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that this threshold may be exceeded, resulting in a significant, unmitigated noise impact.
155 The City of Norwalk Municipal Code presumes an ambient noise level no lower than 45 dBA at night and 55 dBA during the day for residential zones.156 The RIS/MND currently projects HVAC equipment noise levels of 20 dBA at the nearest residential receiver, below the nighttime ambient noise level of 45 dBA.157 But, if the projected noise level due to rooftop HVAC equipment uses more realistic equipment assumptions, noise levels due to rooftop HVAC units could be as high as 51 dBA.158 This is more than 5 dB above the presumed ambient noise level, which is a significant impact that the RIS/MND fails to disclose and mitigate.159 Similarly, if 147 Id. at p. 4.
148 Id.
149 Id.
150 Id.
151 Id. at p. 5.
152 Id.
153 Id.
154 Norwalk Municipal Code § 9.04.140(B).
155 Meighan Comments, p. 5.
156 Norwalk Municipal Code § 9.04.120(B); Meighan Comments p. 5. 157 Meighan Comments, p. 5.
158 Id.
159 Id.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
the projected noise level due to both rooftop HVAC and chiller units uses more realistic equipment assumptions, Mr. Meighan calculates that the noise level could be as high as 52 dBA.160 This is more than 6 dB above the presumed ambient noise level, which is also a significant impact that the RIS/MND fails to disclose and mitigate.161
Therefore, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant operational noise impacts. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that properly analyzes and mitigates these potentially significant impacts.
C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project’s Roadway Noise Impacts May be Significant and Unmitigated The RIS/MND lacks substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project’s traffic noise impacts will be less than significant.162 The Project’s traffic noise impacts are underestimated and potentially significant because they rely on inaccurate trip generation data. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic.163
Here, the RIS/MND’s analysis of the Project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project.164 However, as discussed above, the RIS/MND overestimates the average daily trips (“ADT”) from the existing land uses on the Project site. Without an accurate baseline trip generation rate, it is impossible to accurately establish the volume of traffic that would result from the Project. If a traffic count is conducted at the existing land use, the real trip generation rate would likely be much lower than assumed in the RIS/MND. Because estimating the level of traffic noise relies on traffic volume, the RIS/MND’s offsite traffic noise impact is underestimated and potentially significant.
In addition to masking the net daily trips generated by the Project by overestimating trips from the existing use, the RIS/MND underestimates the gross number of trips generated by the Project by low-intensity categories of warehouse uses. As Mr. Marshall’s chart below demonstrates, the RIS/MND assumes a trip 160 Id.
161 Id.
162 RIS/MND, p. 100.
163 RIS/MND, p. 100.
164 RIS/MND, p. 100.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
generation rate of 1.71 per 1,000 sf for warehousing, which is lower than many other categories of warehouse uses possible for the Project.165 For example, the Project would have a trip generation rate of 4.63 if used as a parcel hub or 6.44 if used as a fulfillment center. Because the RIS/MND underestimates the gross daily trips generated by the Project, traffic noise is underestimated and potentially significant.
Furthermore, Mr. Meighan identified an error in the RIS/MND’s analysis of the Project’s offsite traffic noise impacts.166 The RIS/MND states that “[i]n order for project-generated vehicular traffic to increase the noise level on any of the nearby roads…by 1.5 dBA, the ADT would have to increase by 50 percent.”167 Mr. Meighan explains that this is incorrect and that a 50 percent increase in the ADT would increase the noise level by 1.76 dBA.168 This error further calls into question the validity of the RIS/MND’s noise analysis.
For these reasons, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant roadway noise impacts, requiring preparation of an EIR. The City must (1) analyze the Project’s potential traffic noise impacts using accurate baseline trip generation data and calculations and (2) mitigate any significant impacts found prior to Project approval. 165 RIS/MND, p. 111.
166 Meighan Comments, p. 5.
167 RIS/MND, p. 100.
168 Meighan Comments, p. 5.
1.40 1.71 1.81 2.12
4.63 6.44
1.71 154 Transload
and ShortTerm Storage
Warehouse
150
Warehousing
155
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
157 Cold
Storage
Warehouse
156 Parcel
Hub
Warehouse
155
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
MND
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
D. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT
THAT THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT,
UNMITIGATED TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
The City improperly concludes that a transportation VMT analysis does not need to be prepared for the Project.169 To support this conclusion, the City relies on Section 3.1.2.3 of the Los Angeles County guidelines, which states that non-retail projects that generate fewer than 110 net daily passenger trips are generally exempt from preparing a VMT analysis.170 The RIS/MND claims that the Project screens out of a VMT analysis because the Project would only generate 99 net new trips per day.171
However, this calculation is based on the assumption that the existing land use on the Project site generates 112 passenger trips per day.172 As discussed more fully above and in Mr. Marshall’s comments, the RIS/MND mischaracterizes the existing uses on the Project site and utilizes an incorrect trip generation rate. As a result, the trip generation from the existing land uses on the Project site are overestimated.173
Additionally, the RIS/MND underestimates the trips that would be generated by the new Project by relying on a low, unsupported trip generation rate.174 If a more accurate trip generation rate was used, the proposed Project would likely be found to generate more than the threshold of 110 net new trips per day, which requires a full VMT analysis.175 For example, if the Parcel Hub trip generation rate of 4.63 daily trips per day is substituted for the warehouse rate applied in the RIS/MND, the Project would generate 678 daily trips instead of the currently estimated 339 daily trips.176 This new trip generation includes 603 passenger vehicle trips, which when subtracted from the current existing use passenger trip estimate of 112, would result in a new net passenger trip generation rate of 491.177 This far exceeds the 110 net daily passenger trips screening threshold and requires a VMT analysis to be conducted.178
169 RIS/MND, p. 110.
170 RIS/MND, p. 110.
171 RIS/MND, p. 110.
172 Marshall Comments, p. 7.
173 Marshall Comments, p. 7.
174 Id.
175 Id.
176 Marshall Comments, pp. 7-8.
177 Id.
178 Id.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
Mr. Marshall further explains that the site plan supports a much higher trip generation than assumed in the RIS/MND.179 For instance, the RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate 339 daily trips including 211 passenger vehicle trips per day.180 This equates to 105.5 daily round trips.181 In contrast, the Project includes 141 passenger car parking spaces.182 This would mean that the parking lot would never be more than 75% full.183 And, because of the nature of typical warehouse operations, which includes things like drop-offs, pick-ups, or business service visits, Mr. Marshall explains that the parking lot would likely have much more excess capacity than 25%.184 Therefore, the Project could generate more than 110 net trips a day.185
For these reasons, the RIS/MND lacks substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project would not result in significant VMT impacts. The City must prepare an EIR that conducts a VMT analysis and mitigates any significant impacts found.
E. THE RIS/MND IMPERMISSIBLY DEFERS ANALYSIS OF THE
PROJECT’S FIRE FLOW CAPACITY
The RIS/MND fails to adequately analyze whether the Project meets applicable fire flow requirements and instead defers this analysis until after Project approval in violation of CEQA. Fire flow refers to the rate of a water supply that is available at surrounding fire hydrants for firefighting purposes.
Under CEQA, a public utilities impact is considered significant if a project would “[r]equire or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.”186
Additionally, Norwalk General Plan Utility Policy 3-3 requires “the provision of adequate fire flow rates in all new development.” Thus, failure to ensure adequate fire flow is inconsistent with the City’s own General Plan. 179 Id. at p. 8.
180 Marshall Comments, p. 8; RIS/MND, Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8. 181 Marshall Comments, p. 8.
182 Marshall Comments, p. 8; RIS/MND, p. 27.
183 Marshall Comments, p. 8.
184 Id.
185 Id.
186 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (“Utilities and Service Systems”).
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
The RIS/MND states that “the Project would install 590 linear feet of a 12- inch water line… for fire water service.”187 The RIS/MND goes on to state that “[t]he analysis of the construction activities related to the proposed water service line is included as a part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this [RIS/MND].”188 This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence that supports a fair argument of no significant impacts because the RIS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s fire flow requirement or the ability of existing infrastructure to supply adequate fire flow.
The City claims that the Los Angeles County Fire Department (“LACoFD”) reviewed and approved the proposed water line along with a fire flow assessment.189 However, the City fails to attach the fire flow assessment to its response, or include any other evidence of LACoFD’s approval. Thus, the City lacks the substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project will have adequate fire flow. In fact, the City’s own Conditions of Approval (“COA”) indicate that this analysis has not been conducted and is instead planned for after Project approval. Specifically, COA 29 states:
prior to issuance of any development plans, the applicant is required to contact Los Angeles County Fire Department…and obtain the fire flow and access requirements for any proposed development. The applicant will also be required to contact the City of Norwalk Water Division to determine the existing fire flow rate in this area. If the existing fire flow capabilities are below the required minimum, the applicant shall provide the necessary means for meeting the fire flow rates required by the Fire Department.190 This violates CEQA’s prohibition against deferred analysis. “By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. 191 CEQA documents should be prepared with enough analysis to provide decisionmakers with the information necessary to make an informed decision that considers the environmental consequences.192 While the evaluation of environmental effects need not be exhaustive, the sufficiency of an CEQA analysis is assessed based on what is reasonably feasible.193 A lead agency may determine 187 RIS/MND, pp. 22, 89, 116.
188 RIS/MND, p. 116.
189 RIS/MND, pp. 89, 105.
190 Norwalk Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-13, p. 10. 191 Sundstrom (1998) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 305.
192 CEQA Guidelines § 15151.
193 Id.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
that an impact is too speculative for evaluation after considering whether a reasonably feasible analysis of the impact can be conducted.194 However, when a standard, accepted methodology is available to assess a significant impact, the agency must evaluate that impact unless a reasoned basis for not doing so is provided.195
Therefore, the City must conduct this analysis before the Project can be considered for approval. This is particularly important because if the 12-inch water line planned for the Project is inadequate to provide the requisite fire flow, it may need to be upsized. These improvements would result in construction-related impacts greater than analyzed in the RIS/MND. Additionally, inadequate fire flow would result in increased fire severity, limiting firefighting capabilities, increased loss of life and property, and increased risk of fire spread—a significant impact under CEQA. Without an evaluation of the Project’s fire flow, this Project’s public utility impact remains unanalyzed and potentially significant.
F. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT
THAT THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT,
UNMITIGATED ENERGY IMPACTS
The RIS/MND concludes that the construction and operational energy impacts of the Project would be less than significant.196 This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because it fails to comply with CEQA’s requirement to analyze energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project.
CEQA requires an environmental document to discuss mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts, including “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.”197 The CEQA Guidelines require discussion of energy conservation measures when relevant, and provide the following examples in Appendix F:
194 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15144, 15145; East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (20230 89 CA5th 1226, 1249-1251; City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 CA4th 889, 914; Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 CA4th 1173, 1182. 195 Berkeley Jet (2001) 91 CA4th 1344, 1370.
196 RIS/MND, pp. 58-59.
197 Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 930.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
• Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. • The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste.
• The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
• Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. • Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.198 Courts have rejected CEQA documents that fail to include adequate analysis investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for a project.199 In California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”), the Court of Appeal reviewed an EIR for a shopping center on undeveloped agricultural land.
200 The EIR in CCEC concluded that, due to the
proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 guidelines and regulations, the project would be expected to have a less-than-significant impact regarding the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.201 But the lead agency’s EIR did not include discussion regarding the different renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project.202 The Court held “the City's EIRs failed to comply with the requirements of Appendix F to the Guidelines by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.”203 The lead agency argued that compliance with the Building Code sufficed to address energy impact concerns for the project.204 But the Court explained:
Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of a new commercial construction, it does not address many of the considerations required under Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines… These considerations include whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope. Here, a 198 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”). 199 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256; Spring Valley Lake Ass’n v.
City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91.
200 CCEC (2014) 225 CA4th 173.
201 Id. at 184.
202 Id. at 213.
203 Id. at 213.
204 Id. at 210, 211.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
requirement that Gateway II comply with the Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of the project.205
The Supreme Court agreed with the CCEC court’s decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer (“League to Save Lake Tahoe”), holding that even projects that find a less-than-significant energy impact must “discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project.”206 In Save Lake Tahoe, the Court considered an EIR for a land use specific plan and rezoning to permit residential and commercial development and preserve forest land near Truckee and Lake Tahoe.
207 The EIR did not consider
whether it was feasible to power the project on 100 percent renewable electrical energy or some lesser percentage, nor evaluate strategies for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, increasing reliance on renewable resources, reducing peak loads, and reducing the impacts of relying on remote generation facilities.208 The lead agency reasoned that this analysis was not required because energy impacts would be less than significant.209 Citing CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, subdivision (b) and the decision in CCEC, the Court held that when an EIR analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project.210 The Court found that the EIR violated CEQA for not discussing whether the project could increase its reliance on renewable energy sources to meet its energy demand.211 Here, the RIS/MND concludes that the Project’s construction and operational energy impacts would be less than significant because the building would be designed and constructed in accordance with the State’s Title 24 guidelines and regulations.212 As the case’s above demonstrate, compliance with Title 24 regulations alone does not support a conclusion that energy impacts are less than significant. Additionally, similar to League to Save Lake Tahoe, the City does not discuss any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the Project.
For example, use of Tier 4 engines during construction or installing solar panels. 205 Id. at 211.
206 League to Save Lake Tahoe (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167–68. 207 Id. at 70.
208 Id. at 165-166.
209 Id. at 166.
210 Id. at 167-168.
211 Id. at 168.
212 RIS/MND, pp. 58-59.
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
The Staff Report attempts to justify this omission by claiming that the analysis in the RIS/MND provides an adequate discussion of renewable energy features because the Project would be designed to achieve LEED Gold certification and would be designed with a solar-ready roof.213 But the City’s response is inadequate for several reasons. First, the requirement to achieve LEED Gold Certification is not included as a mitigation measure, a condition of approval, or in the Project’s mitigation monitoring or reporting program. Therefore, these requirements are not binding.
Second, stating that the Project would meet LEED Gold Certification fails to provide any specifics about the different types of renewable energy options that are available for the Project. LEED Gold Certification is obtained through achieving points through the use of renewable energy and energy efficient systems.214 There are no requirements for what renewable energy and energy efficient systems must be implemented. Rather, the only requirement to obtain Gold Certification is that a total of 60-79 points be earned.215 Thus, this does not guarantee that the measures chosen will go beyond what is already required by Title 24 and it fails to satisfy CEQA’s requirement that a Project’s energy impacts analysis include a discussion regarding the different renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the Project.216
Third, including a solar-ready roof, which suggests that solar panels could be installed after the Project is constructed, does not guarantee subsequent installation and the RIS/MND lacks a discussion of whether these or any other renewable energy features could be incorporated into the Project in order to meet the energy demand as required by CEQA.217 For example, the RIS/MND fails to consider installing solar panels during Project construction or discuss why installing solar panels as part of the Project is not being considered. 213 Staff Report Attachment H, Responses L1.19 and L1.20, p. 187; RIS/MND pp. 58-59, 88. 214 U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., Guide to LEED Certification: Commercial (last visited 2/2/25), available at: https://www.usgbc.org/tools/leed-certification/commercial. 215 U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., Guide to LEED Certification: Commercial (last visited 2/2/25), available at: https://www.usgbc.org/tools/leed-certification/commercial. 216 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”); California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173; League to Save Lake Tahoe (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63.
217 League to Save Lake Tahoe (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167–68 (holding that when an EIR analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project that could increase the Project’s reliance on renewable energy sources to meet its energy demand).
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
The City also fails to discuss other potentially available renewable energy technology, such as incorporating a battery energy storage system, using biofuels for construction vehicles and generators, or using electric or hybrid construction equipment. Additionally, the City deleted the original IS/MND’s proposed mitigation measure AQ-1, which would have required Tier 4 construction equipment be used. Tier 4 equipment are more energy efficient then lower tiers of construction equipment.218 The City did not explain why this measure was deleted or provide any evidence to support a conclusion that it is no longer a feasible energy conservation measure. Failure to include a discussion about potential renewable energy options, even when a Project’s energy impacts would be less than significant, violates CEQA.219
Fourth, Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a project may result in significant energy impacts depending on “the degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.”220
The RIS/MND states that the Project would comply with existing energy standards because it would comply with Title 24 standards, but fails to evaluate the feasibility of meeting voluntary standards described in Appendix A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen”). These standards include energy consumption measures applicable to this project. Appendix A4 A5 describes two tiers of voluntary measures – Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 2 standards would result in greater reductions in energy consumption.
CALGreen Section A5.106.5.1.2 calls for 50% spaces to be reserved for clean air vehicles. CALGreen Section A5.106.5.3 calls for an increased number of EV capable spaces, depending on the total number of spaces.221 Tier 2 standards require large projects with 201 or more parking spaces to provide 45% EV capable spaces.222 CALGreen Section A5.203.1.2 sets energy budgets that are less than permitted by the mandatory Title 24 energy standards.223 CALGreen Section A5.303.2.3 calls for reductions in water consumption by requiring plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings that would reduce the use of potable water by 20% in the case of Tier 2 standards.224 These measures and others in Appendix A5 are potentially applicable to Project. 218 Sustainable Nine, Energy Efficiency Tier Rating: What you Need to Know, available at:
https://sustainable9.com/news/energy-efficiency-tierrating#:~:text=Tier%20Two%2C%20Three%2C%20and%20Four,CEE%20Energy%20Rating. 219 League to Save Lake Tahoe (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 167-68. 220 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, subd. II (C)(4).
221 CALGreen, Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1
222 Table A5.106.5.3.1, A5.106.5.3.2.
223 CALGreen Sections A5.203.1.2.1, A5.203.1.2.2.
224 CALGreen Sections A5.303.2.3.1, A5.303.2.3.2
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
The RIS/MND’s statement that it would meet LEED Gold standards does not address consistency with the CalGreen voluntary standards. The RIS/MND’s analysis is thus incomplete and not supported by substantial evidence that supports a fair argument because it does not contain any evidence that these measures are inapplicable to the Project or would be infeasible to implement.
In sum, the RIS/MND’s energy analysis fails to adequately analyze measures that would reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, and fails to meaningfully address Appendix F’s considerations of whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building’s envelope.225 This analysis must be provided in an EIR.
G. THE CITY CANNOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS TO
APPROVE THE PROJECT’S ENTITLEMENTS
The Project requires the City to approve the RIS/MND and PDP.226 However, as discussed herein, the RIS/MND fails to adequately analyze or mitigate several significant environmental impacts. As a result, the City cannot make the requisite findings to approve the Project’s PDP.
A PDP may only be approved if it complies with the Norwalk Municipal Code and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or adversely affect property values or the present and future development of surrounding areas.227 If the proposed development is found to substantially depreciate property values or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity—due to excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding vicinity—such findings may endanger the public health, safety, convenience and welfare and may be cause for denial of a PDP.228
As detailed herein, and in the expert consultant reports attached hereto, the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts which cause inconsistencies with the Municipal Code. In particular, the City violates the Municipal Code by failing to analyze whether the Project increases the existing noise levels by more than 5dB.229 225 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256, 264. 226 RIS/MND, p. 23.
227 Norwalk Municipal Code § 17.02.205(D).
228 Id.
229 Norwalk Municipal Code § 9.04.140(B).
October 8, 2025
7612-011j
There is also substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the Project will result in detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the public by interfering with the use or enjoyment of property in the Project’s vicinity.
Specifically, the Project may result in significant, unmitigated related to (1) health risk from DPM emissions, (2) excessive construction noise, and (3) heightened VMT, and (4) inadequate fire flow. The City therefore cannot make the necessary findings to support approval of the Project’s entitlements, absent additional analysis and mitigation of the Project’s significant environmental impacts in an EIR.
H. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant air quality, noise, transportation, public utility, and energy impacts that were not adequately analyzed or mitigated in the RIS/MND. In order to comply with CEQA, the City must prepare and circulate an EIR that provides legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts.
CREED LA respectfully requests that the Commission continue the hearing on the Project, and remand the Project to staff to prepare an EIR. Until an EIR has been prepared and circulated, the City may not lawfully approve the Project.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.
Sincerely,
Alaura McGuire
ARM:ljl
EXHIBIT A
1 October 7, 2025
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Ms. Alaura R. McGuire
Subject: Comments On Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (RIS/MND) for the 14830
Carmenita Road Warehouse Project, Norwalk,
California 90650 and the Staff Report for the October 8, 2024 Norwalk Planning Commission Hearing
At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (“ABJC”), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed the Staff Report for the October 8, 2024, Norwalk Planning Commission hearing and the air quality, health risk, and GHG impact analysis for the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“RIS/MND”) for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (“Project”).
Clark’s review does not constitute validation or endorsement of the conclusions or content presented in the RIS/MND. Any lack of comment on specific items should not be interpreted as acceptance or approval of those items.
Specific Comments
1. The Air Quality Analysis Provided In The RIS/MND Fails To Accurately Calculate The Number Of Forklifts That Will Be Utilized Onsite.
On page 2 of the Revised Air Quality/Energy/GHG Summary1, 1 EPD. 2025. Revised Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Carmenita Norwalk Project EPD Project Number 23-078. Memorandum to City of Norwalk Development prepared by A.J. Garber and E.
Chambers. Dated 1/2/2025. Pg 2
Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.
OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
EMAIL
[email protected]
2 EPD Solutions Inc. (EPD) states that based on the SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Results,
2 1 compressed natural gas (CNG) forklift will be used per 10,000 square feet (sf) for operational purposes. EPD calculated that 14 forklifts will be utilized, which will generate 1.61 tons of oxide of nitrogen (NOx) and 323 tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq). However, the referenced document shows that the rate of forklift usage ranges from a low of 0.2 forklifts per 10,000 sf to 4 forklifts per 10,000 sf (Table 9). The RIS/MND’s estimate only uses the low end of this range. Using the upper end of the range of forklifts reported by SCAQMD, the Project could have as many as 46 forklifts onsite. These 46 forklifts would generate 5.29 tons of NOx and 1,061 tons of CO2eq. This is an additional 3.68 tons of NOx and 608 tons of CO2 per year than what was analyzed in the RIS/MND. In order to accurately analyze the Project’s potentially significant operational impacts, the City must prepare an EIR that includes these unaccounted-for emissions of NOx and CO2eq.
2. The City’s Cumulative Impact Analysis Fails To Incorporate A Quantitative Analysis For The Substantial Impacts From Nearby Warehouse Projects.
The RIS/MND does not analyze the cumulative impact of the proposed Project with existing warehouse projects in the area. According to data from the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC (presented on the Warehouse CITY website)3, within 5 km of the Project Site there are 19 existing warehouses covering 1,480,000 square feet (this includes the existing buildings on the Project Site). There are also 2 more vacant warehouses (totaling 120,000 sq ft). The existing projects within 5 kilometers (km) of the Project site generate 1,000 daily truck trips, producing
1.4 lbs of DPM per day and 156 lbs of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day 2 SCAQMD. 2014. High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Results. 3 Warehouse City v. 1.21. Accessed October 6, 2025. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ 3 Figure 1: Warehouses Near Project Site
According to the City’s CalEEMod analysis the Project would contribute 0.2 tons of DPM (this would be 400 lbs or nearly 1.10 lbs of DPM per day). This would effectively double the amount of DPM being released in the community and would be a significant impact for the area. The City’s cumulative impacts analysis does not address the doubling of emissions, therefore the City must consider these significant impacts in an EIR for the Project.
3. The Project Site Is Located In The Top 7% Of Zipcodes In California For Exposure To Air Pollutants, The Top 24% For Exposure To PM2.5, And Is In The Top 15% Of Zipcodes In The South Coast Air Basin For Exposure To Diesel Particulate Matter The Project Site is located in census tract 6037552400 (zip code 90650). Using the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA’s) California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool Version·4.0 (CalEnviroScreen) it is possible to assess the existing concerns for 4 the census tract in which the Project is located.
Figure 2: Enviroscreen 4.0 Map Of Project Site
Based on the CalEnviroScreen summary of zipcode 90650, it is clear that the area is in the top 7% of all communities in the State of California impacted by pollution.
The Project site is also located in a Senate Bill 535, Disadvantaged Community. According to CalEPA, there are four categories of geographic areas as disadvantaged:
1. Census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (1,984 tracts).
2. Census tracts lacking overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 due to data gaps, but receiving the highest 5 percent of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 cumulative pollution burden scores (19 tracts).
3. Census tracts identified in the 2017 DAC designation as disadvantaged, regardless of their 5 scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (307 tracts).
4. Lands under the control of federally recognized Tribes. For purposes of this designation, a Tribe may establish that a particular area of land is under its control even if not represented as such on CalEPA’s DAC map and therefore should be considered a DAC by requesting a consultation with the CalEPA Deputy Secretary for Environmental Justice, Tribal Affairs and Border Relations at [email protected].
Figure 3: SB-535 Disadvantaged Communities And Project Location According to the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) study, zip code 90650 (the location of the Project Site) has a cumulative cancer risk of 546 in 1 million placing it in the top 15% of communities in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) impacted by TACs. 6 Figure 4: MATES Cancer Risk Analysis Of Project Location Increasing the number of sources of ozone precursors and DPM within the community via the construction and operation of the Project will exacerbate pollution levels, resulting in a substantially greater health burden on the community which the RIS/MND fails to disclose. 7 3. The RIS/MND Fails To Analyze The Project’s Health Impacts from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Consistent With The Latest SCAQMD Working Group Guidance On The Aggregation Of Warehouses
The RIS/MND’s air quality analysis fails to consider cumulative impacts in light of existing pollution levels or emissions from other nearby projects. Instead, the RIS/MND relies on SCAQMD’s outdated cumulative threshold which looks only at project-specific emissions rather than emissions from cumulative sources.
For cumulative impacts, SCAQMD has initiated a public process to update existing guidance due to community concerns about high-risk health impacts from air toxics, particularly from aggregation of warehouses. Since 2022, SCAQMD has held six Working Group (WG) meetings to develop additional guidance for analyzing such potential impacts.4 The first two WG meetings focused on Information Gathering and Analysis as well as the Initial Objective and Scope of the WGs. The third WG meeting was specific to the Initial Objective and Scope of the WGs and pushed into the Conceptual/Potential Cumulative Health Risk Assessment protocols. WG meetings #4 and #5 focused only on the Conceptual/Potential Cumulative Health Risk Assessment protocols. WG meeting #6 (WG 6), held in November of 2024, refined the proposed Conceptual/Potential Cumulative Health Risk Assessment protocols based on public comments. The result of WG 6 was a draft process/analysis flow diagram which is intended to be used to inform the drafting of a planned Draft Guidance Document for conducting Cumulative Health Risk Assessments in the South Coast Air Basin.
Step 1 of the WG 6 process for determining the cumulative significance threshold is to identify the background cancer risk affecting the Project area via the SCAQMD Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES).5 As documented above, according to SCAQMD’s MATES V study, zip code 90650 (the location of the Project Site) has a cumulative cancer risk of 546 in 1 million, placing it in the top 15% of communities in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) impacted by TACs. 4 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development-(new). 5 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6-20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13. 8 Figure 5: MATES Cancer Risk Analysis Of Project Location Per WG 6, areas experiencing background excess cancer risk in the 50th percentile to 90th percentile would result in a drop of the Cancer Risk Threshold from 10 in one million to 5 in one million.
9 Step 2 of the WG 6 flow diagram is to determine if there are 951 daily heavy duty truck trips or more that would traverse the truck route to the freeway with Existing + Project + Future volumes.
The Project as analyzed in the RIS/MND does not meet this criteria.
Step 3 of the WG 6 flow diagram is to determine whether the sensitive receptors along the truck route are a health sensitive population (either within an SB 535 or SB 617 area). Here, the Project meets this criteria because it is an SB-535 community. This lowers the Cancer Risk Threshold from 5 in one million to 3 in one million.
Figure 6: SB 535 Classification Of Project Area
10 The RIS/MND’s attempt to analyze cumulative impacts without considering these background conditions or comparing cumulative exposures against SCAQMD’s new draft threshold is unsupported, fails to provide basic information related to the Project, and is contrary to both CEQA’s cumulative impact analysis directives and SCAQMD’s draft guidance on cumulative impacts.
To comply with CEQA and the SCAQMD’s Working Group guidance, the Project’s cumulative impacts should be evaluated against an adjusted cumulative cancer risk threshold of 5 in one million rather than the 10 in one million cited in the RIS/MND. According to the revised health risk assessment presented in the RIS/MND, the risk from the operational phase and the combined construction and operational phases will exceed the SCAQMD’s Working Group threshold guidance.
Figure 7: Risk Calculations From RIS/MND
These are potentially significant impacts that require mitigation. The City fails to propose any air quality mitigation in the RIS/MND. In order to mitigate these impacts, the City should require Tier 4 final construction equipment and focus on mitigation measures to reduce DPM emissions during the 11 operational phase of the Project. Until heavy duty trucks are electrified the City should consider a number of other mitigation measures:
• First, anti-idling rules (less than 3 minutes) would reduce potential emissions of DPM while onsite. Under this measure the Proponent would be required to post both interior- and exteriorfacing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the local air district, and the building manager.
• Second, the City can require the Proponent to construct zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project. • Thirdly, the City can require the Proponent to install only zero-emission or near-zero emission equipment on site. This would include using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook ups to the power grid rather than use of dieselfueled generators to supply their power. • Fourth, the City can restrict all vehicles entering the site to be model year 2018 or newer. • Fifth, the City should consider the use of double-deck trailers. This reduces the number of heavy-duty trucks entering and exiting the site.
• Sixth, the City can require a check of tire pressures to ensure maximum efficiency of the vehicles. As tire pressure goes down, gas mileage decreases and the GHGs emitted per mile of the trip increase.
• Seventh, the City can require that Project optimize the routes utilized by all trucks. This would require coordination of all trips to and from the site to ensure stops are reduced. • Eighth, the City can require that speeds for all vehicles within the vicinity of the Project site to be reduced.
In order to accurately assess the Project’s true health risk impacts, the City must re-evaluate the health risks against this lower health risk threshold in an environmental impact report (EIR) and propose mitigation for any significant impacts found.
12 Conclusion
The facts presented in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts if allowed to proceed based on the RIS/MND. An EIR is necessary to address these substantial concerns fully and transparently.
Sincerely,
James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.
Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling
Education:
Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience:
Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research.
Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following:
LITIGATION SUPPORT
Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd.
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action.
NC041739
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: O’Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants.
Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O’Brien, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G.
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL.
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.
The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray-Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Opinions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question.
Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant.
Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247
Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.
The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.
Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant.
SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.
Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.
Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.
Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California
Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals.
Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.
Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.
EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri
Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD.
Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment.
Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY
Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.
Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California
Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands.
Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.
Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for nonpublic health professionals.
Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill.
This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia
Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort.
Client: Confidential, Escondido, California
Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense nonaqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.
Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site.
Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fiftyyear old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.
Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site.
Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school).
The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology.
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.
IT Corporation, North Carolina
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels.
Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
California Redevelopment Association (CRA)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations:
Books and Book Chapters
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.
Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.
Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.
Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water:
Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.
Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.
Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment.
Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.
Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI.
Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.
Journal and Proceeding Articles
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN.
March 20, 2003.
Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.
Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.
Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD).
Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.
Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water.
Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.
Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors.
Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998.
Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.
Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996.
Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14.
Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118.
Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.
Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.
McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.
Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.
Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.
EXHIBIT B
1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]
October 8, 2025
Alaura R. McGuire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Rexford Industrial Project (14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project) Dear Ms. McGuire,
I have reviewed the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“RIS/MND”) for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project in the City of Norwalk dated October 2025, as well as the Staff Report for the October 8, 2024, Norwalk Planning Commission hearing. I make the following findings:
1) The RIS/MND overestimates passenger vehicle and truck trip generation for the existing RV Storage Depot use by misapplying the ITE Trip Generation category “Warehousing” to a business that does not meet the definition.
2) The RIS/MND also falsely states that the RV Storage Depot operates 24/7. 3) The proposed project is “speculative,” and actual trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed in the RIS/MND. Without knowing more about the tenants and usage, it is conservative to apply a higher trip generation rate in the traffic analyses. 4) The RIS/MND claims that the project would generate fewer than 110 net daily passenger trips per day, but this claim is predicated on overestimating trip generation for the existing use.
Unless the existing trip generation assumed can be substantiated with a traffic count, A full VMT analysis of the project should be done, and if there are significant VMT impacts, they should be mitigated.
I previously reviewed the original MND for this Project dated October 2024, and made the same findings in comments dated December 11, 2024. An EPD Solutions Inc. memorandum dated January 2, 2025 and included as Attachment H in the City of Norwalk Planning Commission October 8, 2025 Staff Report includes responses to my December 2024 comments. However, as documented below, none of these responses adequately address my comments and the City continues to rely on deficient analysis and 2 ignores substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant transportation impacts.
Existing Use Trip Generation
The RIS/MND fails to accurately describe the baseline conditions at the existing Project site against which the Project’s impacts are measured.
The RIS/MND states:
The Project site is currently developed with two multi-tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 SF. The existing buildings are currently occupied by RV Storage Depot, an RV storage company. (p. 4)
The RIS/MND estimates that the existing use generates 154 daily trips by applying the Institute of Transportation (“ITE”) Trip Generation rate for category 150, “Warehousing.” (RIS/MND, Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8)
The Trip Generation definition for category 150, “Warehousing,” is:
A warehouse is primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas. High-cube transload and short-term storage warehouse (Land Use 154), high-cube fulfillment center warehouse (Land Use 155), high-cube parcel hub warehouse (Land Use 156), and high-cube cold storage warehouse (Land Use 157) are related uses.
This definition is fairly broad but does not encompass the existing use which does not store “materials.” The existing use really is a self-storage facility as illustrated in these screenshots from RV Storage Depot’s website for its Norwalk operation.1
1 https://www.rvstoragedepot.com/storage-units/california/norwalk/rv-storage-depot-348022/ 3 4
There is no category in ITE Trip Generation that matches the existing use. The definition for category 151, “Mini-Warehouse” is:
A mini-warehouse is a building in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the storage of goods. They are typically referred to as “self-storage” facilities. Each unit is physically separated from other units, and access is usually provided through an overhead door or other common access point.
These mini-storage spaces have average storage space per customer that is significantly smaller than the RV storage, and the average size of the surveyed sites is much smaller than the existing use. Therefore, trip generation likely is also significantly lower for the RV Storage Depot than for these mini-storage spaces. Given that there is no appropriate Trip Generation rate for the existing use, the correct way of assessing its trip generation would be to count traffic at the site.
The Staff Report responses fail to resolve this issue and instead reassert that the existing RV Storage Depot meets the ITE definition of “Warehousing.” (October 8, 2025 Staff Report, p. 457 of 460) To support this claim, the City refers to RIS/MND Appendix G, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 5 dated May 25, 2017, and particularly to photos on pages 53-56. These photos show some past warehouse use, presumably from 2017 when the report was prepared. However, the RV storage facility also was operating on the site in 2017, and the report provides no information about how much of the site was used for each use. Given that even in the past, it is possible that most of the site was used for RV storage. It has not been demonstrated that the existing use was or is primarily warehouse.
The RIS/MND further mischaracterizes the existing use in estimating truck trip generation by relying on the 2014 Southern California Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) Warehouse Truck Study, which evaluated truck trips at 33 warehouses. This study focused specifically on high-cube warehouse operations, which generate daily heavy duty diesel truck traffic. In contrast, the RV Storage Depot facilities are passive storage uses. Thus, unless the RVs are characterized as “trucks,” the existing site generates little truck traffic and likely no 4+-axle trucks at all. Because of this, the Truck Study is not applicable to the existing use, and the daily truck trip generation estimates given in RIS/MND, Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8 (7 2-axle trucks, 9 3-axle trucks, and 26 4+-axle trucks) are overestimated.
The RIS/MND also states that the existing use operates 24 hours a day:
The existing use currently operates 24 hours per day, so implementation of the proposed Project, which would also operate 24 hours per day, would not differ from the current usage. (RIS/MND, p. 37)
The current use does not operate 24 hours a day as is shown in this screenshot from the website:2 The Staff Report responses attempt to justify this error by stating that “. . . while the RV Storage Facility is not open to the general public 24 hours a day, existing onsite operations and site lighting occurs 24 hours a day.” (October 8,2025 Staff Report, p. 457 of 460) These “onsite operations” are not specified and could be as limited as a single security guard. A lighted parking lot with possibly only a single employee onsite does not meet that definition of 24/7 operations. The City has not adequately addressed my comments.
By failing to accurately describe the existing conditions at the Project site, the Project’s baseline trip generation rate is overestimated and the RIS/MND’s assessment of the Project’s impacts is unsupported.
2 https://www.rvstoragedepot.com/storage-units/california/norwalk/rv-storage-depot-348022/ 6 Proposed Use Trip Generation
The RIS/MND states:
The proposed speculative 138,972 SF industrial warehouse building would be inclusive of 132,227 SF of warehouse space, 3,715 SF of ground floor office space, and 3,030 SF of mezzanine space. The building would be single-story with a mezzanine and would have a maximum height of 45 feet at the parapet. (RIS/MND, p. 21) Approximately 21,735 SF of the building would be speculatively used for cold storage. (RIS/MND, pp. 21, 109)
The RIS/MND trip generation analysis assumes 115,921 sq. ft. of warehouse (category 150) plus 28,902 sq. ft. of light industrial (category 110) for a total of 144,901 sq. ft. (RIS/MND, p. 111). These numbers are based on the Project’s previous site plan, which the City claims is done to provide a conservative analysis. (RIS/MND, Appendix L, p. 1). The Trip Generation rates applied are 4.87 per 1000 sq. ft. for Light Industrial and 1.71 per 1000 sq. ft. for Warehousing resulting in 339 daily trips. (RIS/MND, Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8) This results in a blended rate of 2.34 daily trips per 1000 sq. ft. as applied to the trip generation total of 144,901 sq. ft. or an effective rate of 2.44 daily trips per 1000 sq. ft. relative to the proposed 132,227 sq. ft.
Warehousing is only one of several warehouse categories in Trip Generation and it is one of the lowest rates, as demonstrated by the table below.
Given that the proposed project is “speculative,” meaning no end uses have been specified, actual trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed in the RIS/MND. Without knowing more about the tenants and usage, it is conservative to apply a higher trip generation rate in the traffic analyses.
Therefore, using the numbers from the previous site plan is inappropriate because it fails to accurately assess the Project’s actual impacts.
The Staff Report assumes that the building would not be used for Parcel Hub or Sort Fulfillment Center uses and if the future tenant would generate more trips than assumed in the RIS/MND “then additional
1.40 1.71 1.81 2.12
4.63 6.44
1.71 154 Transload
and ShortTerm Storage
Warehouse
150
Warehousing
155
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
157 Cold
Storage
Warehouse
156 Parcel
Hub
Warehouse
155
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
MND
7 evaluation would be required, including additional traffic analysis to evaluate the use.” (October 8, 2025 meeting packet, p. 451-452 of 460). These arguments fail to resolve the above issues regarding the Project’s underestimated trip generation rate and do not point to any binding restriction that would prohibit Parcel Hub or Sort Fulfillment Center uses, which are higher-intensity uses than those analyzed in the RIS/MND. Absent such restrictions to the allowable uses for the Project, it is foreseeable that the Project may be used for Parcel Hub and Fulfillment Center uses. If so, this would result in significantly higher trip generation that the City has not analyzed. The Norwalk Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-13 (“COA”) states:
“Per the approved plans and traffic calculations, the proposed project may be designated for Warehouse use (ITE Land Use Code 150). A maximum allowable of 20 percent of the Proposed Project’s floor area may be designated for General Light Industrial (ITE Land Use Code). A maximum allowable of 20 percent of the Proposed Project’s floor area may be used for cold storage. The tenant/business owner shall demonstrate compliance with this condition of approval prior to Planning Division approval of a business license application. Any variation in project usage may result in substantial conformance review by the city and additional traffic and other studies, as required by the Community Development Department.”3
The COA does not prevent the Project from being used as a Parcel Hub or Sort Fulfillment Center after buildout. A designation of “ITE Land Use Code 150” in the COA does not constrain the future usage from the higher trip generation categories. The ITE definition for category 150 is only: “A warehouse is primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas.” The more specific warehouse categories with higher trip generation rates also satisfy this generic definition of a “warehouse.” Although, the category 150 trip generation rates themselves do not adequately represent impacts of these other types of warehouses. Therefore, the COA would not prevent significantly greater impacts than disclosed in the RIS/MND from occurring.
Furthermore, no condition for VMT analysis is included in the COA. A requirement for VMT analysis should be made a condition of any project approval. If the Resolution is approved as written, significantly higher trip generation than disclosed could result without any additional review.
VMT Screening
The RIS/MND claims that the project would generate fewer than 110 net daily passenger trips per day. (RIS/MND, p. 110) It calculates that the proposed project would generate 339 trips per day, including 211 passenger trips. (RIS/MND, p. 111) The RIS/MND claims that the existing land use generates 112 passenger trips per day, so that the net increase in passenger trips is only 99 per day. (RIS/MND, p. 111) As discussed above, the RIS/MND underestimates trips that would be generated by the Project by relying on a low, unsupported trip generation rate. The RIS/MND also underestimates the net trip generation by overestimating trip generation from the existing land use. Because of this, the calculation resulting in 99 net new trips per day is unsupported. If an accurate trip generation rate was used and a traffic count was conducted at the existing land use, the proposed project would be found to generate more than the threshold of 110 net new trips per day, which requires a full VMT analysis. 3 Norwalk Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-13, p. 6. 8 For example, if the Parcel Hub trip generation rate of 4.63 daily trips per day is substituted for the warehouse rate applied in the RIS/MND, the Project would generate over twice as many daily trips—678 vs. 339, including 603 passenger vehicle trips. Comparing this to the current existing use daily passenger trip estimate of 112, this would result in a net new passenger trip generation rate of 491. This far exceeds the 110 net daily passenger trips screening threshold. Accordingly, an EIR should be prepared that includes a VMT analysis of the project and proposes mitigation for any significant impacts found.
The Staff Report response reiterates its assumptions about trip generation from the current use (October 8, 2025 Staff Report, p. 457-458 of 460). For the same reasons discussed above, this assumption is incorrect. Additionally, the site plan may support much higher trip generation than assumed in the RIS/MND. For the project, the RIS/MND estimates 339 daily trips including 211 passenger vehicle trips per day. (RIS/MND Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8 of 12). As these are one-way trips, this equals only 105.5 daily round trips. In contrast, the project includes 141 passenger car parking spaces (RIS/MND, p. 21). Therefore, even If there is a single shift, and all of the passenger vehicle trips are long-term (i.e. no drop offs, pick ups, or business services visits), the parking lot would never be more than 75% full. If there is more than one shift, which is typical for warehouses, the parking lot would have much more excess capacity. Therefore, the site plan supports much higher trip generation than assumed and the project may generate more than 110 net trips a day, resulting in a significant VMT impact that the City has not disclosed or mitigated.
Sincerely,
Norman L. Marshall
9 Resume
NORMAN L. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT
[email protected]
EDUCATION:
Master of Science in Engineering Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1982 Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 1977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (37 Years, 23 at Smart Mobility, Inc.) Norm Marshall helped found Smart Mobility, Inc. in 2001. Prior to this, he was at RSG for 14 years where he developed a national practice in travel demand modeling. He specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior and doing planning that coordinates multi-modal transportation with land use and community needs.
Regional Land Use/Transportation Scenario Planning
Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) – the Portland Maine Metropolitan Planning Organization. Updating regional travel demand model with new data (including AirSage), adding a truck model, and multiclass assignment including differentiation between cash toll and transponder payments.
Loudoun County Virginia Dynamic Traffic Assignment – Enhanced subarea travel demand model to include Dynamic Traffic Assignment (Cube). Model being used to better understand impacts of roadway expansion on induced travel.
Vermont Agency of Transportation-Enhanced statewide travel demand model to evaluate travel impacts of closures and delays resulting from severe storm events. Model uses innovate Monte Carlo simulations process to account for combinations of failures.
California Air Resources Board – Led team including the University of California in $250k project that reviewed the ability of the new generation of regional activity-based models and land use models to accurately account for greenhouse gas emissions from alternative scenarios including more compact walkable land use and roadway pricing. This work included hands-on testing of the most complex travel demand models in use in the U.S. today.
Climate Plan (California statewide) – Assisted large coalition of groups in reviewing and participating in the target setting process required by Senate Bill 375 and administered by the California Air Resources Board to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions through land use measures and other regional initiatives.
Chittenden County (2060 Land use and Transportation Vision Burlington Vermont region) – led extensive public visioning project as part of MPO’s long-range transportation plan update.
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization – Implemented walk, transit and bike models within regional travel demand model. The bike model includes skimming bike networks including on-road and off-road bicycle facilities with a bike level of service established for each segment.
Chicago Metropolis Plan and Chicago Metropolis Freight Plan (6-county region)— developed alternative transportation scenarios, made enhancements in the regional travel demand model, and used the enhanced 10 model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts.
Developed multi-class assignment model and used it to analyze freight alternatives including congestion pricing and other peak shifting strategies.
Municipal Planning
City of Grand Rapids – Michigan Street Corridor – developed peak period subarea model including nonmotorized trips based on urban form. Model is being used to develop traffic volumes for several alternatives that are being additional analyzed using the City’s Synchro model City of Omaha - Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non-motorized trips, transit trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. Scenarios with different roadway, transit, and land use alternatives were modeled.
City of Dublin (Columbus region) – Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for nonmotorized trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. The model was applied in analyses for a new downtown to be constructed in the Bridge Street corridor on both sides of an historic village center.
City of Portland, Maine – Implemented model improvements that better account for non-motorized trips and interactions between land use and transportation and applied the enhanced model to two subarea studies.
City of Honolulu – Kaka’ako Transit Oriented Development (TOD) – applied regional travel demand model in estimating impacts of proposed TOD including estimating internal trip capture.
City of Burlington (Vermont) Transportation Plan – Led team that developing Transportation Plan focused on supporting increased population and employment without increases in traffic by focusing investments and policies on transit, walking, biking and Transportation Demand Management.
Transit Planning
Regional Transportation Authority (Chicago) and Chicago Metropolis 2020 – evaluated alternative 2020 and 2030 system-wide transit scenarios including deterioration and enhance/expand under alternative land use and energy pricing assumptions in support of initiatives for increased public funding.
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin, TX) Transit Vision – analyzed the regional effects of implementing the transit vision in concert with an aggressive transit-oriented development plan developed by Calthorpe Associates. Transit vision includes commuter rail and BRT.
Bus Rapid Transit for Northern Virginia HOT Lanes (Breakthrough Technologies, Inc and Environmental Defense.) – analyzed alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) strategies for proposed privately-developing High Occupancy Toll lanes on I-95 and I-495 (Capital Beltway) including different service alternatives (point-to-point services, trunk lines intersecting connecting routes at in-line stations, and hybrid).
Roadway Corridor Planning
I-30 Little Rock Arkansas – Developed enhanced version of regional travel demand model that integrates TransCAD with open source Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) software, and used to model I-30 alternatives.
Freeway bottlenecks are modeled much more accurately than in the base TransCAD model. 11 South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) – In work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal South Caroline including a new proposed freeway.
Hudson River Crossing Study (Capital District Transportation Committee and NYSDOT) – Analyzing long term capacity needs for Hudson River bridges which a special focus on the I-90 Patroon Island Bridge where a microsimulation VISSIM model was developed and applied.
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (partial list)
DTA Love: Co-leader of workshop on Dynamic Traffic Assignment at the June 2019 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
Forecasting the Impossible: The Status Quo of Estimating Traffic Flows with Static Traffic Assignment and the Future of Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Research in Transportation Business and Management 2018.
Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the August 2018 Transportation Research Board Tools of the Trade Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities.
Vermont Statewide Resilience Modeling. With Joseph Segale, James Sullivan and Roy Schiff. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
Pre-Destination Choice Walk Mode Choice Modeling. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
A Statistical Model of Regional Traffic Congestion in the United States, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
EXHIBIT C
Letter EMY
WI #25-001
October 7, 2025
Alaura R. McGuire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
SUBJECT: 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Norwalk, California
Review and Comment on Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and October 8, 2024, Norwalk Planning Commission Staff Report Dear Ms. McGuire,
Per your request, we have reviewed the noise and vibration impact analysis for the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (RIS/MND) for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (Project), as well as the Staff Report for the October 8, 2024, Norwalk Planning Commission hearing. The proposed project involves the demolition of two existing warehouse buildings and the construction, use, and maintenance of a new 138,972 square foot (SF) industrial warehouse. The Project site has a Heavy Industrial land use designation. Surrounding sensitive receivers include Ramona School Preschool, approximately 1500 feet to the west, and residences approximately 1000 feet to the north. This letter focused on the Revised Appendix K, entitled Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Vista Environmental on February 2, 2025.
Wilson Ihrig is an acoustical consulting firm that has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our almost 59 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CadnaA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.
Adverse Effects of Noise1
The health effects of noise are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.
Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf)
WILSON IHRIG
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Comments on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration