Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise.
Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one’s voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result.
Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance.
Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human’s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the “fight or flight” response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease.
Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people’s abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes) and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments.
Baseline Conditions are Not Properly Established
The noise analysis of the RIS/MND relies on three short-term measurements of 15 minutes in length. 15 minutes comprises about 1% of a 24-hour period, so only 1% of the day is represented in the noise study. To conduct the CEQA analysis for a warehouse project, like this one, with 24/7 operations, the baseline must be established for evening and nighttime conditions as well. Without this data, it is not possible to evaluate the significance of noise based on increases over ambient levels.
The noise analysis refers to the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual2 (FTA Manual) for construction noise and vibration reference levels and thresholds. However, the FTA Manual also provides recommendations for determining existing noise that the RIS/MND does not follow. Specifically, Appendix E of the FTA Manual recommends a minimum of three one-hour Leq noise measurements to estimate the 24-hour Ldn/CNEL during three distinct timeframes: peak-hour roadway traffic, midday, and nighttime. In order to accurately 2 FTA Manual, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noiseandvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf
WILSON IHRIG
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Comments on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
analyze the Project’s potentially significant noise impacts, the City should prepare an EIR that conducts new noise measurements following guidance from the FTA Manual.
Furthermore, the City’s noise analysis relies on these short-term measurements without any discussion of how typical these data were for daytime conditions. There is no evidence provided that the time selected for noise measurements is representative of the rest of the day or even of worst case (quietest conditions). Environmental noise can vary widely throughout the day (perhaps +/- 10 dBA or more for areas with intermittent local traffic). Thus, the RIS/MND’s baseline noise measurements may overestimate the existing noise at the Project site, effectively masking potentially significant increase in noise that the Project may cause.
The RIS/MND Does Not Analyze the Project’s Construction Noise Increase Above Ambient Noise Levels
The RIS/MND’s projected construction noise level is only evaluated against the FTA guideline criteria of 80 dBA3, but the FTA specifically states that “Project construction criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use.”
4 This omission is particularly important, because, as
discussed above, the measured ambient noise level is inaccurate. A more accurate baseline might reveal an increase in ambient noise above the City’s 5 dB threshold. Thus, the City’s failure to both establish an accurate baseline and analyze the Project’s potentially significant noise increase above ambient noise levels, renders the RIS/MND’s noise analysis unsupported.
Additionally, contrary to the RIS/MND’s claim, the City’s Noise Ordinance Section 9.04.150(E) does not indicate an exception for construction noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Thus, the other regulations in the Norwalk Ordinance do apply and can be used to determine significance.
Specifically, Section 9.04.140(B) 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.
As discussed above, the measured ambient noise level may not be representative of the rest of the day, leading to an overestimation of existing noise levels. Because of this, it is possible that the Project’s construction noise levels would exceed the daytime ambient noise threshold, which is a significant impact under CEQA. An EIR should be prepared to analyze this potentially significant impact and implement mitigation for any significant impacts found.
Operational Noise Impact Analysis Underestimates HVAC
The operational noise analysis assumes that the Project will use rooftop HVAC units to only cool the office areas of the warehouse, as that is the configuration for the two existing warehouses owned by the Project applicant directly to the west of the Project. The RIS/MND does not specify what the future warehouse building will be used for, though it does state that for the analysis, no more than 21,735 square feet (SF) of the total building square footage (27,793 SF) would be used for cold storage.5 Cold storage has significantly different needs than office spaces, which also effects cooling unit requirements.
3 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, Table 7-3 4 Ibid, Page 179.
5 RIS/MND, page 21.
WILSON IHRIG
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Comments on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
For warehouses, The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) minimum ventilation rate is 0.06 CFM per square foot, per person, which must be adjusted for occupancy rates, indoor air quality, and other factors6. According to the RIS/MND, approximately 107 employees are expected for the 138,972 SF of industrial warehouse space7. The most common large unit size is 25 tons, with a typical sound power level of 85-95 dBA (the corresponding sound power level used in the noise analysis is 78 dBA8). A simple calculation using a rule of thumb for industrial buildings (see Figure 1 below) shows that a warehouse of this size would need at least twenty-two 25-ton units (spread out across the roof) to properly ventilate the space. 138,972 SF ÷ 250 SF per ton = 529 ton load
509 ton load ÷ 25 tons per unit = 22 units
If 22 units are conservatively assumed for the operational noise calculation and are assumed to be at the edge of the project, then the projected noise level for twenty-two 85-95 dBA sound power units would be 41-51 dBA at a distance of 1,020 feet, which is 21 to 31 dB higher than the RIS/MND’s 20 dB projection for rooftop noise. More realistically, the units would be spread out over the roof, and shielding from the rooftop parapet and neighboring buildings would provide some attenuation of the HVAC equipment noise level at the nearby sensitive receivers, but the operational noise calculation should be updated reflect more realistic equipment assumptions.
Figure 1 Industrial Building Cooling Load, Rule of Thumb9 If a portion of the warehouse space is to be used for cold storage, air cooled chillers would be required in addition to standard HVAC units. The typical sound power level from a air-cooled scroll chiller can be up to 100 dBA. 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 conservatively 49 to 52 dBA at a distance of 1,020 feet. This is 29 to 32 dBA higher than the RIS/MND’s 20 dB projection for rooftop noise.
In order to accurately analyze the Project’s potentially significant operational noise impacts, an EIR should be prepared where a realistic number of chillers and mechanical units are modeled at realistic 6https://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/technical%20resources/standards%20and%20guidelines/standards%20ad denda/62_1_2013_p_20150707.pdf
7 RIS/MND, page 103
8 RIS/MND Appendix K, Noise Impact Analysis, page 22
9 https://www.engproguides.com/hvac-rule-of-thumb-calculator.html
WILSON IHRIG
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Comments on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
locations on the roof. These can be propagated with shielding assumptions to model predicted noise levels where impacts and mitigation can be studied.
Project HVAC Noise May Increase Ambient Noise Levels
The City of Norwalk Municipal Code10 presumes an ambient noise level no lower than 45 dBA at night and 55 dBA during the day for residential zones. For example, this means that if the measured noise level is below 45 dBA at night, then the ambient is presumed to be 45 dBA. At the nearest residential receiver, the operational noise analysis projects HVAC equipment noise levels of 20 dBA, well below the presumed nighttime ambient noise level of 45 dBA. If the projected noise level due to rooftop HVAC equipment uses more realistic equipment assumptions, as discussed above, then the noise level due to rooftop HVAC units could be as high as 51 dBA. This would be more than 5 dB above the presumed ambient noise level in violation of Norwalk’s Noise Ordinance, which constitutes a potentially significant noise impact. Additionally, if the projected noise level due to rooftop HVAC equipment and air-cooled scroll chiller units uses more realistic equipment assumptions, then the noise level could be as high as 52 dBA, which would be more than 6 dB above the presumed ambient noise level and would constitute a significant impact that the MND did not disclose or mitigate.
As described in the above section, the 51 dBA and 52 dBA projections are conservative estimates.
However, for the purposes of CEQA, the project must be compared to the baseline condition to determine whether a substantial noise increase over the baseline condition would occur. Compliance with the Municipal Code is not the sole determination of whether a noise impact would be less than significant. The measured baseline condition and the potential noise increases must also be considered. Because the nighttime ambient noise level was not measured and is unknown, it is also unknown whether the noise levels due to the rooftop HVAC equipment would be higher than the existing ambient noise level. This would be a potentially significant impact, as high nighttime HVAC equipment noise levels can be disruptive and disturb sleep.
Mathematical Error
The noise study also contains a minor mathematical error. It states that “In order for projectgenerated vehicular traffic to increase the noise level on any of the nearby roads … by 1.5 dB, the ADT would have to increase by 50 percent.” That is not correct, as a 50 percent increase in the ADT would increase the noise level by 10 log10(1.5) = 1.76 dB. This further calls into question the validity of the RIS/MND’s noise analysis.
Conclusions
The RIS/MND underestimates the potential operational noise due to rooftop mechanical equipment.
The RIS/MND also relies on an inadequate baseline ambient measurement that may result in increases in the ambient noise level due to construction and operational noise sources. Evidence of these deficiencies in the RIS/MND’s analysis provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant noise impacts not analyzed or mitigated in the RIS/MND. An EIR should be conducted to analyze these potentially significant noise impacts. Failure to evaluate these potential impacts would be a violation of CEQA's core purpose of providing a transparent and comprehensive assessment of a project's environmental effects. 10 https://ecode360.com/43488794#43488794
WILSON IHRIG
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Comments on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.
Very truly yours,
WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan
Associate
JACK MEIGHAN
Associate
Jack joined Wilson Ihrig in 2021 and is an experienced acoustics engineer with expertise in projects involving rail transit systems, highways, CEQA analysis, environmental noise reduction, mechanical drawing reviews, and construction noise and vibration mitigation. He has hands-on experience with project management, including client coordination and presentations, as well as in designing, developing, and testing MATLAB code used in acoustics applications. Additionally, his expertise includes taking field measurements, developing test plans and specifying, purchasing, setting up and repairing acoustic measurement equipment. He has experience in using Traffic Noise Model (TNM), CadnaA, EASE, Visual Basic, LabView, and CAD software.
Education
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Project Experience
Metro Regional Connector, Los Angeles CA
Planned, took, and processed measurements as part of a team to determine the effectiveness of floating slab trackwork for a new subway in downtown Los Angeles that travels below the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Colburn School of Music.
Rodeo Credit Enterprise CEQA Analysis for New Construction, Palmdale, CA Wrote an accepted proposal and executed it for a noise study project to determine noise mitigation requirements on a new housing development. Led all aspects of the project and managed the budget during all phases of project completion. Completed 5 separate projects of this type for this developer.
Blackhall Studios, Santa Clarita, CA
Led the vibration measurement effort for a new soundstage directly adjacent to an existing freight and commuter rail line. Tested equipment, processed data, and analyzed results to determine the vibration propagation through the soil to the proposed soundstage locations, and was part of the team that developed mitigation techniques for the office spaces directly next to the rail line.
Octavia Residential Condos CEQA Study, San Francisco, CA Calculated the STC ratings for the proposed windows to meet Title 24 requirements, modeled the acoustic performance of floor and ceiling structures, researched noise codes, helped with a mechanical design review, and wrote a report summarizing the results for a new Condominium project being developed in San Francisco.
San Diego International Airport Terminal I Replacement, CA Conducted interior noise and vibration measurements, analyzed measurement data to help determine project criteria, modeled the existing and future terminals in CadnaA, and was part of a team that did a complete HVAC analysis of the entire terminal, as part of a CEQA analysis where a new terminal for the airport is being designed.
WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 2
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Five Points Apartments Noise Study, Whittier, CA
Took measurements, researched sound data and solutions, and recommended mitigation for a new apartment complex that was located next to an existing car wash, as part of a CEQA review.
USC Ellison Vibration Survey, Los Angeles, CA
Conducted vibration measurements as part of a survey to determine the effectiveness of vibration isolation platforms that are used to insulate cell growth in a cancer research facility. Determined the effectiveness and presented this information to the client. Researched and recommended a permanent monitoring system so the client could view data in real time.
TEN50 Condos ‘Popping’ Noise Investigation, Los Angeles, CA Was part of a team that investigated the noise source of an unwanted popping noise in luxury condos in Downtown Los Angeles. Helped isolate the noise source location with accelerometers to determine where vibrations were occurring first and used an acoustic camera to determine where in the condo the noise was coming from.
2000 University Project, Berkely, CA
Wrote a construction noise monitoring plan based on environmental noise calculations, wrote a report summarizing the results, and attending a meeting with the client to discuss options.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) On‐Track, CA, San Francisco Bay Area, CA* Day to day project manager, responsible for meetings, presentations, and coordination with the client for an ongoing noise study on the BART system. Developed MATLAB code to process measurements and determine areas where high corrugation was present, contributing to excessively high in-car noise levels. Performed noise measurements inside both the right of way and the vehicle cabin, in addition to rail corrugation measurements.
California I‐605/SR‐60 Interchange Improvement, Los Angeles, CA* Developed a noise model of the area that predicted sound levels for abatement design, in addition to conducting noise measurements and analysis. Led the Team in use of the FHWA Traffic Noise Model Software for the project, involving three major highways and two busy interchanges extending over 17 miles in southern California.
Sound Transit On‐Track, Seattle, WA*
Took measurements, fixed equipment, and developed software in MATLAB to process Corrugation Analysis Trolley measurements as part of an ongoing noise study on the Sound Transit Link system.
Tested vibration data to determine the best measurement and processing techniques to store the data in an online database for in-car measurements.
LA Metro CRRC Railcar Testing, Los Angeles, CA*
Led the effort to plan the measurements, determine measurement locations and finalize the test plan. Formulated a method to capture speed data directly from legacy train vehicles. Executed noise and vibration specification measurements for new rail cars delivered by CRRC.
City of Los Angeles, Pershing Square Station Rehabilitation Noise Monitoring, CA* Built noise models, wrote a construction noise plan, and assisted in on-site construction noise issues as they arose for a renovation of the Pershing Square metro station in downtown Los
WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 3
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Angeles. Trained construction personnel in techniques for noise reduction and how to conduct noise monitoring measurements to meet project specifications.
City of Orange Metrolink Parking Garage Construction Monitoring, CA* Wrote an adaptive management vibration monitoring plan, set up equipment to monitor live vibration levels, and generated weekly reports as part of an effort to build a new parking garage.
Designed, planned, and completed measurements to predict and mitigate pile driving construction impacts at three historic building locations adjacent to the construction site. Coordinated with the client whenever an on-site problem arose.
LA Metro Westside Subway Construction, Los Angeles, CA* Planned, organized, and processed noise measurements for the Purple Line extension construction.
Implemented both long term microphones to measure noise levels and accelerometers to measure vibration levels in existing subway tunnels. Oversaw noise monitoring at sensitive construction sites for the project and worked with the contractor to find ways to reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10dB.
Montreal Réseau Express Métropolitain, Canada*
Conducted vibration propagation measurements used to create models to predict operational vibration levels for an under-construction transit line. Managed equipment, solved problems in the field, and wrote parts of the report summarizing the findings of the acoustic study.
NHCRP Barrier*
Took on-highway measurements and wrote, designed, developed, and tested MATLAB code to identify specific spectrograms to use for analyses for a project evaluating barrier reflected highway traffic noise differences in the presence of a single absorptive or reflective noise barrier.
Siemens Railcar Testing for Sound Transit, Seattle, WA* Measured in-car noise and vibration for new rail cars delivered by Siemens. Developed new internal techniques for measurements based on the written specifications. Contributed to the team that helped identify issues that new cars had in meeting the Sound Transit specifications for noise and vibration. Participated in developing the test plan and specified then acquired new equipment for the measurement.
Toronto/Ontario Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail, Final Design, Canada* Assisted in vibration propagation measurements, analysis, and recommendations for mitigation for a 12-mile light-rail line both on and under Eglinton Avenue. Set up and ran equipment for at-grade measurements with an impact hammer for underground measurements with an impact load cell that was used during pre-construction borehole drilling.
Date: November 4, 2025
Prepared by: Meaghan Truman, [email protected]
To: Kristy Wong, [email protected]
Project: Rexford Industrial Project
Subject: Responses to Coalition for Responsible Equitable Development (CREED) Letter Dated October 16, 2025
This memo contains responses to CEQA related comments raised in the letter that the City of Norwalk received on October 16, 2025 that appeals the City’s Planning Commission approval of the Rexford Industrial Project, which occurred on October 8, 2025. The content of these comments and the concerns that are expressed have been previously submitted by the commenting organization in a comment letter to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and a comment letter to the Planning Commission. These comments have been previously responded to in the Final MND, as detailed below.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), Consideration and Adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, none of the comments provide a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental effects which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Further, none of the information in the letters or responses constitute the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Public Review Draft IS/MND for further public review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption. None of this new material indicates that the Project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Public Review Draft IS/MND. Additionally, none of this information indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5.
Attachment No. 4
Comment: Coalition for Responsible Equitable Development Appeal Letter (96 pages)
Response to Coalition for Responsible Equitable Development Appeal Letter, dated October 16, 2024 Comment 1: This comment states that the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Development (CREED) is appealing to the Norwalk City Planning Commission approval of the Rexford Industrial Project, which occurred on October 8, 2025 per City of Norwalk Municipal Code Sections 17.02.205(e), 1.18.020, and
1.18.050. The comment also provides a brief description of the proposed Project.
Response 1: Appellant provides no legal authority in support of its proposition that City Council should vacate the Planning Commission’s Project approvals. Appellant also provides no legal authority or facts in support of its proposition. This comment is introductory in nature and does not provide specific detailed comments related to the Recirculated IS/MND analysis or provide substantial evidence of a fair argument of any significant environmental issue in which to respond to. Therefore, no further response is required.
Comment 2: This comment provides a statement of interest from CREED LA and background on the organization.
Response 2: The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Recirculated Public Review Draft IS/MND evaluation or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 3: This comment states that the City has not complied with CEQA or applicable land use laws and the Project was approved by the Planning Commission without substantial evidence to support the approval findings as it was based on a deficient MND. The comment further states that previous comments were provided by CREED LA during the initial circulation of the MND and comments regarding significant air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utility impacts were not resolved.
Response 3: This comment is introductory and does not provide evidence of any environmental impact. As substantiated by the Final MND, this response, and the entirety of the administrative record, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15065, or 15002. Substantial evidence in the form of technical analysis shows that no significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required. No further response is warranted.
Comment 4: This comment states that CREED LA’s air quality expert identified 3.68 tons of NOx and 608 tons of CO2 that were not accounted for within the MND and impacts in combination with other nearby warehouses related to cumulative health risk impacts were not analyzed.
Response 4: As stated below in Response 26, the use of one compressed natural gas forklift per 10,000 square feet of warehouse for operational purposes is not only within the range recommended by SCAQMD, but also provides for a conservative analysis as most modern industrial buildings operate using all electric forklifts as standard practice. In addition, Response 27 discusses that the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND concluded that the Project-specific emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the regional or local level after implementation of existing regulations. The City relies on the SCAQMD’s recommended methodology to evaluate the Project’s cumulative impacts. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact and additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not required.
Comment 5: This comment states that the City failed to accurately capture the existing uses on the Project site and overestimated the existing VMT levels. The comment further states that the proposed Project’s VMT levels fail to analyze the potential to develop a parcel hub or fulfillment center, which would lead to a potentially significant VMT impact.
Response 5: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect. As discussed below in Responses 20 through 22, none of the comments regarding the trip generation for the Project provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact as they are based in speculation and clearly erroneous fact, and no revisions to the Project trip generation or VMT Analysis are necessary.
Comment 6: This comment states that the potential operational and construction noise impacts were underestimated by failing to accurately estimate the number of HVAC units or establish an accurate baseline noise level to analyze construction noise impacts.
Response 6: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect. As discussed below in Response 33, the HVAC operating assumptions are based on nearby warehouses which are owned by the Project applicant which only provide air conditioning units for the office portion of each warehouses, which are similar in size to the proposed Project. In addition, the analysis conservatively assumed that all the units would be operating at the same time. Therefore, no revisions to the noise analysis are necessary.
Comment 7: This comment states that MND’s energy analysis failed to analyze potential energy conservation measures that may be appropriate for the Project.
Response 7: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect. As discussed below in Responses 43 through 46, none of the comments regarding energy use for the Project provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact, and no revisions to the Recirculated IS/MND or circulation of an EIR are necessary.
Comment 8: This comment states that the City failed to provide substantial evidence to show the Project would have adequate fire flow to the site, and that substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant and unavoidable impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.
Response 8: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect. A fire flow test was prepared for the Project, which was reviewed and approved by Los Angeles County Fire Department. The fire flow test determined that the Project would have adequate fire flow. As substantiated by the Final MND, this response, and the entirety of the administrative record, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15065, or 15002. No significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required. No further response is warranted.
Comment 9: This comment states that the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to support the findings to approve the Precise Development Plan, which 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 present and future development of the surrounding areas.
Response 9: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect. As discussed throughout this response and the Recirculated IS/MND, implementation of the proposed Project would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. The Project would redevelop an industrial site surrounded by industrial uses, with a building of substantially the same use and capacity as the existing. Therefore, the Project would not adversely affect present or future development of the surrounding areas. As substantiated by the responses below, impacts related to air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utilities are less than significant after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures.
Comment 10: This comment concludes the letter by requesting the City Council to set a hearing on the appeal and vacate the Planning Commissions actions related to the Project to require the preparation of an EIR.
Response 10: This The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect or evidence that the Planning Commission’s decision should be vacated. As substantiated by the Final MND, this response, and the entirety of the administrative record, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15065, or 15002. No significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required. No further response is warranted.
Comment 11: This comment states that the Appellant is writing on behalf of CREED LA and summarizes the Project description.
Response 11: The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Recirculated Public Review Draft IS/MND evaluation or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 12: This comment states that they have previously submitted comment letters on November 12 and December 11, 024 which provided 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 in the original IS/MND. The comment further states that the City prepared a Recirculated IS/MND which the Appellant states still fails to comply with CEQA. The Appellant states that the letter provided includes evidence from experts in air quality, hazards, transportation, and noise which illustrate that there remain impacts that are not adequately disclosed or reduced to less than significant levels.
Response 12: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact. The original Draft IS/MND for the proposed 14830 Carmenita Road Project was circulated from October 24, 2024 to November 12, 2024. The purpose of the Recirculated IS/MND is to clarify the construction stages for the Project, which include crushing as part of demolition activities, and address Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment modeling revisions made in response to public comments received on the original Draft IS/MND and to address previous modeling errors that assumed construction 24 hours a day. Further, the Recirculated IS/MND addresses requests for mitigation received from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation after Assembly Bill 52 consultation was closed for the Project and after the original Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review. As discussed in previous responses to comment letter provided by CREED LA as well as the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15065, or 15002. No significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required. No further response is warranted.
Comment 13: This comment states that the Appellant’s air quality expert found that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated cumulative health risk impacts as well as additional impacts related to operational NOx and CO2 emissions.
Response 13: As stated below in Response 26, the use of one compressed natural gas forklift per 10,000 square feet of operational purposes is not only within the range recommended by SCAQMD, but also provides for a conservative analysis as most modern industrial buildings operate using all electric forklifts as standard practice.
In addition, Response 27 states that the Public Review Draft RIS/MND concluded that the Project-specific emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the regional or local level after implementation of existing regulations. The City relies on the SCAQMD’s recommended methodology to evaluate the Project’s cumulative impacts. Based on guidance published in the SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution1, if an individual project’s emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would 1 South Coast AQMD. (2003). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impactsworking-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf also not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. On the other hand, if an individual project’s emissions exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable impact. The SCAQMD’s guidance was explicitly held to satisfy CEQA in Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto. As discussed on Tables 5.3-8 and 5.3-9, the Project’s cancer risk would be below SCAQMD’s project-level and cumulative threshold of 10 in one million. As discussed on page As such, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact and additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not required.
Comment 14: This comment states that the Appellant’s noise expert found that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated cumulative operational and construction noise impacts due to an inaccurate baseline noise levels and an underestimation of HVAC units.
Response 14: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect. The noise analysis prepared in support of the Recirculated IS/MND properly conveys the existing noise levels within and surrounding the Project site. As discussed below in Response 33, the HVAC operating assumptions are based on nearby warehouses owned by the Project applicant that are similar in size to the proposed Project, which only provide air conditioning units for the office portion of each warehouses. In addition, the analysis conservatively assumed that all the units would be operating at the same time. Therefore, no revisions to the noise analysis are necessary.
Comment 15: This comment states that the City underestimated the trip generation from the existing uses on the Project site and improperly screens from VMT analysis.
Response 15: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect. As discussed below in Responses 20 through 22, none of the comments regarding the trip generation for the Project provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact as they rely on a speculative worst case scenario and argument, and no revisions to the Project trip generation or VMT Analysis are necessary.
Comment 16: This comment states that the proposed Project cannot be approved by the City until an EIR is prepared which discloses and mitigates all potential impacts. The comment further states that the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to support the findings to approve the Precise Development Plan, and the hearing should be continued until an EIR is prepared.
Response 16: This The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect or evidence that the Planning Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. As substantiated by the Final MND, this response, and the entirety of the administrative record, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15065, or 15002. No significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required. No further response is warranted.
Comment 17: This comment provides a statement of interest from CREED LA and background on the organization.
Response 17: The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Recirculated Public Review Draft IS/MND evaluation or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 18: This comment states that an EIR shall be prepared when substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant environmental effect. The comment further states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to satisfy the purposes of CEQA as it does not provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level, and an EIR must be prepared.
Response 18: As discussed in the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15065. No significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required. In addition, the Recirculated IS/MND is not clearly inadequate or unsupported and the “expert opinion” the Appellant alludes to does not rise to the level of fair argument as it relies on speculation, argument, and unsubstantiated opinion. No further response is warranted.
Comment 19: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to accurately describe the environmental baseline in the vicinity of the Project. Further, the failure to describe an accurate baseline resulted in an overestimated trip generation and inaccurate baseline noise levels against the proposed Project’s noise levels.
Response 19: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact. This comment provides a general discussion of environmental setting and its importance in CEQA and does not provide any specific evidence regarding the Recirculated IS/MND. As described below in Responses 20 through 22, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion, and no changes to the trip generation are required.
Comment 20: This comment provides a brief description of the existing Project site and states that the Recirculated IS/MND used an incorrect trip generation when calculating the existing sites trips. The comment states that the ITE warehousing trip generation rate was used to estimate the number of daily trips onsite, the existing use onsite does not store materials and therefore does not fall under the list of uses for the warehousing category. The Appellant further describes that the existing self storage use onsite does not match any ITE trip generation categories, and traffic counts should be taken to get an accurate trip generation for the site. The Appellant speculates that this would result in a decrease in trip generation due to the passive storage operations and would generate little truck traffic. This comment states that while the Staff Report claims the existing buildings onsite are permitted for warehousing uses and storage, the images of the interior provided within the Phase I report were taken in 2017, and the uses onsite may have changed since those images were taken.
Response 20: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. While the Appellant asserts that the warehousing trip rate is not the correct rate for the existing use, the existing buildings are permitted for warehousing uses and are utilized for storage, which is represented by the trip rate. The commentators claim that the warehousing uses may have changed since 2017 is speculative, and no evidence is provided to support the claim. The RV storage use mentioned by the Appellant takes place outside of the warehouse buildings. The existing trip generation only took credit for trips associated with the warehouses onsite and thus provides a more conservative estimate of existing trips as no trips from the RV storage uses were taken into account. In addition, the City of Norwalk Public Works Department also reviewed and approved the trip generation and vehicle splits. Therefore, no changes to the trip generation are warranted.
Comment 21: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND does not provide any information regarding how the existing site’s uses are divided within the property. The comment further states that the RV Storage facility may make up the majority of the site which is not captured in the ITE Trip Generation Manual categories and therefore, the Recirculated IS/MND lacks substantial argument to support the use of the warehousing ITE rate.
Response 21: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. As discussed above in Response 20, the existing buildings are permitted for warehousing use and are utilized for storage of materials, which is represented by the trip rate. The existing trip generation only relied on trips associated with the warehouse buildings onsite. As the RV storage uses were located outside of the buildings within the parking lot, those trips were not included in the existing trip generation, thus providing a more conservative analysis. Therefore, no changes to the trip generation are warranted.
Comment 22: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND incorrectly states that the existing uses onsite operate 24/7 which results in an overestimated trip generation. The comment further states that the existing 24/7 operation of the site would vary greatly from the proposed Project, which could include a Parcel Hub or Fulfillment Center involving delivery trucks entering the site all day and night.
Response 22: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. While the RV Storage Facility is not open to the general public 24 hours a day, existing onsite operations and employee utilization of the site occurs 24 hours a day, as stated within the Recirculated IS/MND. The Appellant provides no evidence to support their claim that the warehousing operations onsite, which was the sole operation included in the trip generation, do not operate 24/7, as is the industry standard. The proposed building would not include Parcel Hub or Sort Fulfillment uses. If a future tenant proposes these uses for the building, then additional evaluation would be required, including additional traffic analysis and CEQA to evaluate the use. The Public Review Draft IS/MND is not required to evaluate speculative uses of the Project that would not be allowed under the current Public Review Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no changes to the trip generation are warranted based on this comment.
Comment 23: This comment states that the noise analysis relies on three short-term measurements to show the ambient noise conditions surrounding the Project site. The comment further states that the Recirculated IS/MND lacks evidence to show that the noise measurements taken were an accurate representation of the noise environment throughout the day. The comment suggests that baseline noise level must be established for evening and nighttime conditions, using three one-hour Leq noise measures per the FTA Noise and Impact Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. The comment concludes in stating that the Recirculated IS/MND’s baseline noise levels may overestimate existing noise levels at the Project site, masking potentially significant impacts related to noise and an EIR should be prepared.
Response 23: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. The noise measurements were provided solely for informational purposes and were not utilized for any determination of significance in the Recirculated IS/MND. Furthermore, the Project site is surrounded by industrial uses, several of which currently operate 24 hours per day, and Interstate 5 is located 950 feet southwest of the Project site, which creates a relatively uniform level of noise 24 hours per day. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is a home located 980 feet northwest of the Project site and the area between the home and Project site is all developed with existing industrial uses.
The noise measurements were taken based on the methodology provided in the Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TeNS), prepared by Caltrans, September 2013. Section 3.3.2 of the TeNS states “A noise measurement representing an hourly Leq does not need to last the entire hour. As long as noise levels do not change significantly, a shorter time period will usually be sufficient to represent the entire hour of interest. The recommended length of measurements depends on how much the noise levels fluctuate-the higher the fluctuations, the longer the measurement must be.” Section 3.3.2 provides a table with suggested measurement times that range between 10 and 30 minutes.
During the noise measurements the variations of noise levels were observed, and it was determined that 15- minute noise measurements were adequate to provide a reasonable representation of the hourly noise environment. Section 2.2.3 Conversions Between Noise Descriptors of the TeNS states “The general rule is the Ldn is within about 2 dBA of Leq(h)pk under normal traffic conditions.” As such, it can be reasonably concluded that the Leq noise levels provided in Table C of the Revised Noise Impact Analysis are within 2 dBA of the 24 hour average (Ldn) noise levels at the nearby land uses.
It should also be noted that Section 9.04.130 of the Municipal Code details how noise measurements should be taken, which state that a minimum of three readings shall be taken at two minute intervals. The sound level shall be the average of these readings. The 15 minute noise measurements that were taken were more than two times longer than the required six minutes of noise measurements required in Section 9.04.130 of the Municipal Code. As detailed above, the noise measurements provided in the Recirculated IS/MND were taken based on published methodology, exceeded the City requirements for taking noise measurements and as such, providing a reasonably accurate representation of the noise environment in the vicinity of the Project site. Overall, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.
Comment 24: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to analyze reasonably foreseeable impacts related to the construction of a parcel hub or fulfillment center, as the Project would be a speculative warehouse without specific end uses. The comment further states that the Recirculated IS/MND analyzed less intense warehousing and light industrial ITE rates which resulted in a much lower trip generation than a parcel hub or fulfillment center use. Since no binding restrictions on those uses have been placed, it is foreseeable that those uses would be implemented within the Project site. The comment concludes in stating that the higher intensity uses must be analyzed under CEQA in order to disclose all potential impacts, and an EIR must be prepared to explore all reasonably foreseeable end uses.
Response 24: The comment does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. The Appellant misunderstands the use of “speculative”, while the future tenant for the proposed buildings is not known, the future uses are and are described within the Recirculated IS/MND. Section 3.0, Project Description of the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND provides a thorough and accurate description of the operation of the Project, thus it is not speculative. As noted in this section, the building would be used for warehousing, light industrial, and potential limited cold storage uses. The Project would not include parcel hub or sort fulfillment uses. If a future tenant proposes these uses for the building, then additional evaluation would be required, including additional traffic analysis to evaluate the use. The Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND is not required to evaluate speculative uses of the Project that would not be allowed under the current Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND. Overall, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.
Response 25: This comment states that Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence of unmitigated construction and operation related NOx and CO2 emissions, as well as cumulative hath risk impacts.
Response 25: This comment is introductory and does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact. As substantiated by the responses below, the comment does not contain any information requiring further changes to the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND or requiring preparation of an EIR.
Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 26: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to calculate the number of forklifts that will be utilized onsite, resulting in an underestimation of the Project’s operational emissions. The comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on the lowest rate of forklift usage by SCAQMD and fails to analyze potential operational impacts. The Appellant states that the use of a higher forklift rate would result in up to 3.68 additional tons of NOx emissions and 602 additional tons of CO2 per year. The comment concludes in stating that since these additional emissions were not included in the Recirculated IS/MND, the City must prepare an EIR.
Response 26: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, and clearly inaccurate fact. The use of one compressed natural gas forklift per 10,000 square feet of operational purposes is not only within the range recommended by SCAQMD, but also provides for a conservative analysis as most modern industrial buildings operate using all electric forklifts as standard practice.
Comment 27: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND’s cumulative air quality analysis fails to consider impacts in conjunction with existing warehouses near the Project site and only relies on a projectlevel analysis. The comment further states that CEQA requires documents to analyze cumulative impacts in connection with past, present, and probable future projects. The comment also provides case law stating that court have rejected findings that do not mitigate cumulatively considerable impacts. This comment concludes in stating that the Recirculated IS/MND relied only on project-level analysis, and standard air quality analysis methodology has been utilized across the state to analyze project impacts in combination with past, present, and future projects.
Response 27: A cumulative impact is an impact created by the combination of the project reviewed in the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND together with other projects causing related impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a)(1).) “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15355(b).) For an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts, CEQA requires that a Public Review Draft IS/MND evaluate whether the environmental effects from past, present, and probable future projects taken together would result in a significant impact (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(h)(2)), and then assess whether the incremental effect of the project at issue is “cumulatively considerable” when combined with the effects of the other projects (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(h)).
The discussion of cumulative impacts need not provide detail as extensive as that required for effects attributable solely to the proposed Project. The discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(h)(3)) A disagreement over the method used to assess cumulative impacts is not a basis for rejecting the analysis as inadequate. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.) A reasonable, good faith effort to disclose the impact is sufficient (See Citizens for Open Gov’t v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 320.) There is no methodology to quantify the cumulative areawide or localized health risks within a communitywide area. The SCAQMD’s non-attainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in non-attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. While SCAQMD is reviewing its approach to analyzing cumulative impacts, it is too speculative at this point to assume what SCAQMD will or will not decide in terms of how cumulative impacts should be analyzed. Therefore, until SCAQMD finalizes their approach to analyzing cumulative impacts, it is appropriate to follow their currently adopted approach. The SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance apply to individual development projects and evaluate the incremental increase in emissions from a proposed source. In developing these thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Thus, if a project exceeds the identified SCAQMD significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
The case law provided by the Appellant does not demonstrate the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND’s analysis to be deficient. The court in Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718, found a draft EIR’s cumulative air quality impacts analysis deficient where the DEIR concluded the cumulative impact would be less than significant because the coal-fired cogeneration plant at issue would emit relatively minor amounts as compared to the already significant air quality problems in the area as a whole. This “ratio theory” expressed in the Kings County Farm Bureau DEIR is not utilized here.
Rather, the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND concluded that the Project-specific emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the regional or local level after implementation of existing regulations. The City relies on the SCAQMD’s recommended methodology to evaluate the Project’s cumulative impacts. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact and additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not required.
Comment 28: This comment states that there are 19 existing warehouse projects within 5 kilometers of the Project site which would double the amount of DPM emissions within the community. The comment further states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s exacerbation of an already severe rate of exposure to pollutants and conflicts with the Attorney General’s guidance for analyzing cumulative impacts in combination with other projects.
Response 28: As discussed above in Response 27, the Recirculated IS/MND and its technical analysis properly followed SCAQMD’s cumulative analysis guidance. Based on SCAQMD’s guidance, the proposed Project would generate operational air quality emissions and cancer risk that are below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact and additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not required. Overall, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.
Comment 29: This comment states that while the Recirculated IS/MND claims the Project site was cumulatively analyzed within the City’s General Plan EIR, only the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County was analyzed, which does not include the Project site. The comment concludes in stating that a separate cumulative impact analysis should be completed within an EIR.
Response 29: As discussed above in Response 27, the Recirculated IS/MND and its technical analysis properly followed SCAQMD’s cumulative analysis guidance. Based on SCAQMD’s guidance, the proposed Project would generate operational air quality emissions that are below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact and additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not required. In addition, the comment includes a footnote (110) citing the City of Norwalk General Plan EIR published in 2014. However, the City of Norwalk General Plan Update was published in 1996, and the CEQA document prepared for the General Plan was an MND. The Appellant is likely referring to the Los Angeles County General Plan EIR, which only analyzed the unincorporated areas of the County. However, the MND prepared for the City of Norwalk General Plan included analysis of buildout of the City. Furthermore, the Recirculated IS/MND does not rely on the analysis set forth within the City of Norwalk General Plan IS/MND. Overall, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.
Comment 30: This comment states that the City of Fontana was recently sued for relying on the 2003 SCAQMD guidance document and was required to establish sustainability standards for warehouses in the City, included standards to address cumulative air quality impacts. The comment continues in stating that SCAQMD is in the process of updating their guidance for cumulative impacts which would lower the cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million depending on certain environmental factors. The comment states that while this protocol is still a draft, SCAQMD has sent letter requesting projects to implement the new guidance. The Appellant applied the new guidance to the proposed Project and found that the Project would result in a potentially significant health risk impact as the threshold would change from 10 in one million to 3 in on million cancer risks, while the proposed Project would result in 6.5 in one million for combined construction and operational cancer risks. The Appellant concludes in recommending the Project mitigate this new impact through the use of Tier 4 construction equipment as well as other measures such as truck charging infrastructure. The Appellant states that this constitutes as substantial evidence of a significant impact, and an EIR should be prepared.
Response 30: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact as it relies on inaccurate evidence. The Recirculated IS/MND analysis considered cumulative air quality and health risk impacts consistent with current SCAQMD guidance. Specifically, SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies states that SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project-specific and cumulative impacts. As such, projects that exceed the applicable regional significance threshold would be considered to result in cumulatively considerable impacts as well. As discussed in the Recirculated IS/MND, impacts related to cumulative health risks were found to be less than significant, thus there is no nexus to implement the mitigation measures suggested by the Appellant.
Comment 31: This comment states that the proposed Project’s construction noise impacts were evaluated using the FTA guidance criteria of 80 dBA, while the City’s Noise Ordinance states that measures exceeding the ambient noise level at the property line of any residential land by more than 5 dB is a violation of noise regulations.
Response 31: As detailed in Table F of the Revised Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K to the Recirculated IS/MND), construction noise levels would be as high as 59 dBA Leq at nearest home to the northwest, as high as 57 dBA Leq at the nearest school to the west, and as high as 75 dBA Leq at the nearest industrial building to the south. The Revised Noise Impact Analysis utilized the FTA construction noise standards, since Section
9.04.150(E) of the Municipal Code was interpreted as stating that construction noise is exempted from the City noise standards between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever is later. However, even if Section 9.04.150(E), does not exempt construction noise, the General Noise Regulations provided in Section 9.04.140(B) of the five dB increase over ambient only applies to residential land. Section
9.04.120(B) defines ambient noise level at residential uses during the daytime at 55 dBA, when the plus 5 dBA is added to it, the noise standard is 60 dBA and as detailed above the Project would create construction noise as high as 59 dBA Leq at the nearest home, which is within the City’s General Noise Regulations provided in Section 9.04.140(B). If the noise measurement taken at the nearest home of 73.2 is utilized instead, the noise standard would be 78.2 dBA and the Project’s construction-related noise would be well below this standard.
It should also be noted that the Land Use Compatibility shown on Page 5F.8 of the General Plan Noise Element shows that for Industrial Land Uses, Noise Levels up to 75 dBA are Clearly Compatible. As such, the Project’s construction noise level of 75 dBA at the adjacent industrial uses is also within the City’s noise standards. Overall, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.
Comment 32: This comment states that the Norwalk Noise Ordinance does not exempt construction related activities, rather it states that construction activities are unlawful outside of the allowed times within the municipal code, and the noise regulations within the Municipal Code still apply to construction of the proposed Project.
Response 32: The Appellant is referred to Response 31 above, which demonstrates how the Project’s construction noise is within the City noise standards, even if Section 9.04.150(E) is interpreted as not exempting construction activities from the City’s noise standards.
Comment 33: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND underestimates the use of HVAC units, and cites that the proposed Project could require 22 HVAC units based on American Society of Heating Refrigeration guidance. The comment states that this would produce 41-51 dBA at a distance of 1,020 feet which is more than 20 dBA higher than what was included in the RIS/MND’s projection.
Response 33: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact as it relies on speculation. Recirculated IS/MND Table 5.13-6 shows the operational noise levels associated with the 72 HVAC units shown on Exhibit 9-A of Draft EIR Appendix Q (page 60). As future tenants are unknown, the noise study includes a conservative analysis of the proposed Project uses. The HVAC operating assumptions are based on nearby warehouses which are owned by the Project applicant which only provide air conditioning units for the office portion of each warehouse. The reference noise levels represent actual data collected in the field for the nearby rooftop HVAC units. Therefore, no revisions to the noise analysis are necessary.
Comment 34: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to analyze the use of air-cooled chiller related to the proposed cold-storage uses. The Appellant found that with the use of four air-cooled chiller units, rooftop noise would increase to 49 to 52 dBA, which is 29 to 32 dBA higher than what is disclosed in the Recirculated IS/MND.
Response 34: This comment does not rise to the level of a fair argument as it relies on clearly erroneous fact. Table G from the Revised Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K to the Recirculated IS/MND) analyzed the onsite operational noise levels from the proposed Project at the nearby sensitive receptors, which included noise created from rooftop equipment that included both air conditioning units and rooftop chillers for refrigeration units. The reference noise measurement utilized in this analysis was taken on the roof an operating Walmart that had refrigerated and freezer food sections with the condenser units for the refrigerators located on the roof. As such, the refrigerated storage was accounted for in the noise calculations.
Comment 35: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND failed to analyze nighttime ambient noise levels and therefore the determination cannot be made if the Project would result in a significant increase in ambient nighttime noise levels.
Response 35: This comment does not rise to the level of a fair argument as it relies on speculation. Nighttime construction and operational impacts were analyzed in the Recirculated IS/MND and within Appendix K of the Recirculated IS/MND. Construction activities would take place at the times allowed by the City Municipal Code and therefore would not result in nighttime noise impacts. Section 9.04.140(B) of the Municipal Code limits noise to residential properties to the ambient noise level plus 5 dBA. Section 9.04.120(B) of the Municipal Code defines ambient noise level as the higher of either sound-level meter readings or 45 dBA during the night and 55 dBA during the day at residential properties, 60 dBA at commercial properties, and 65 dBA at all other zones. Although the noise limits provided in Section 9.04.140(B) of the Municipal Code only apply to residential properties, this analysis has also applied these noise limits to the nearest school and warehouse, in order to provide a conservative analysis. As such, the applicable noise standards for the nearest home to the northwest is 60 dBA during the daytime (i.e. 55 dBA ambient plus 5 dBA) and 50 dBA during the nighttime, 65 dBA anytime of the day at the at the school to west, and 70 dBA anytime of the day at the industrial to the south. Thus, the Recirculated IS/MND utilized the lowest possible nighttime noise thresholds, as the City defines ambient noise level as the highest of either sound-level meter readings or 45 dBA during the night. Recirculated IS/MND Table 5.13-6 shows the combined noise levels would be below the most stringent residential nighttime noise threshold of 50 dBA, as noise levels would reach 34 dBA Leq at the home to the northwest, and 32 dBA Leq at the school to the west during nighttime activity. Only the industrial development to the south would experience nighttime noise levels above 50 dBA Leq at 66 dBA Leq; however, industrial uses are not a sensitive receptor and the threshold is higher at 70 dBA Leq. This is also presents a conservative analysis as it assumes that all operating equipment would be operating at the same time, which is unlikely.
Comment 36: This comment states that using the assumptions for HVAC units and air cooled chillers provided by the Appellant, nighttime noise levels could reach up to 52 dBA and would be above the City’s presumed ambient noise levels. The comment concludes by stating that substantial evidence has been provided for a potentially significant noise impact, and an EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate these potential impacts.
Response 36: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. As discussed above in Responses 33 through 35, the Recirculated IS/MND provides for a conservative analysis of operational noise impacts, none of the comments regarding the operational noise analysis for the Project provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact, and no revision to the Project trip generation are necessary.
Comment 37: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND underestimated the potential traffic noise increases brought by the Project as it relies on a trip generation that overestimated the existing trips onsite.
Response 37: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. As discussed above in Responses 20 through 22, none of the comments regarding the trip generation for the Project provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact, and no revisions to the Project trip generation are necessary.
Comment 38: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND underestimated the potential traffic noise increases brought by the Project as it relies on a trip generation that underestimated the existing trips onsite by analyzing a lower intensity use than what could potentially be developed onsite.
Response 38: As discussed previously in Response 24, Section 3.0, Project Description of the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND provides a thorough and accurate description of the operation of the Project, thus it is not speculative. As noted in this section, the building would be used for warehousing and potential cold storage uses. The Project would not include parcel hub or sort fulfillment uses. If a future tenant proposes these uses for the building, then additional evaluation would be required, including additional traffic analysis to evaluate the use. The Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND is not required to evaluate speculative uses of the Project that would not be allowed under the current Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND.
Overall, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.
Comment 39: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND incorrectly states that a 50 percent increase in roadway traffic would be required to generate a noise increase of 1.5 dBA, the Appellant clarifies that a 50 percent increase would result in a 1.76 dBA noise level increase. This comment concludes in stating that an EIR must be prepared to analyze the potentially significant roadway noise impacts using an accurate baseline trip generation.
Response 39: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. The Appellant provides no source for their calculation, and it does not constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact from the proposed Project. As discussed in the Revised Noise Report (Appendix K) Carmenita Road north of Interstate 5 had 35,300 ADT for year 2021 conditions. The proposed Project would contribute up to 0.52 percent of the ADT on Carmenita Road. Thus, even with using the calculations provided by the Appellant, impacts would remain less than significant. The comment does not contain any information requiring further changes to the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND or requiring preparation of an EIR. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 40: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND mischaracterized the existing project site conditions by stating the existing uses would generate 112 passenger trips per day, which results in 99 net new trips for the preposed Project and a less than significant VMT impact.
Response 40: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. As discussed above in Responses 20 though 22, none of the comments regarding the trip generation for the Project provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact, and no revisions to the Project trip generation are necessary. Thus, the VMT analysis does not require revisions, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Comment 41: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND underestimates the trips generated from the proposed Project as it utilized a less intense use than a parcel hub or fulfillment center which would result in daily trips which exceed the 110-trip threshold and require additional VMT analysis. The Appellant further states that the Project site would provide 141 passenger spaces and based on the provided trip generation, would never get more than 75% full. The comment concludes in stating that fair argument has been raised that the Project would result in a significant VMT impact, and an EIR must be conducted along with a full VMT analysis.
Response 41: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. As discussed previously in Response 24, Section 3.0, Project Description of the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND provides a thorough and accurate description of the operation of the Project, thus the use not speculative. As noted in this section, the building would be used for warehousing and potential cold storage uses. The Project would not include parcel hub or sort fulfillment uses. If a future tenant proposes these uses for the building, then additional evaluation would be required, including additional traffic analysis to evaluate the use. The Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND is not required to evaluate speculative uses of the Project that would not be allowed under the current Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND. Overall, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.
Comment 42: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to determine whether the Project would meet fire flow requirements. The City previously states that the LA County Fire Department has reviewed and approved the proposed water line with a fire flow assessment, however the Conditions of Approval states that the fire flow test has not been conducted and is planned for after approval. The comment states that this is deferred analysis under CEQA and the City must provide this analysis prior to approval to ensure no further utility upgrades are necessary to serve the proposed Project.
Response 42: As discussed in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND, the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) has reviewed and approved the development plans for the 590 linear feet water line. Part of the review process included a fire flow assessment which was approved by the LACoFD. Therefore, no revisions to the Recirculated IS/MND are necessary and no further response is warranted.
Comment 43: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND’s conclusion that construction and operational energy impacts would be less than significant is unsubstantiated. The comment further provides case law examples, stating that compliance with building codes does not address the potential to implement measures using renewable energy systems. The comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to analyze the potential use of renewable energy systems, and only claims that LEED Gold certification would be achieved and a solar-ready roof. However, LEED Gold certification is not included as a mitigation measure or condition of approval and is therefore not binding.
Response 43: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation. The Appellant is correct that compliance with the 2022 Title 24 Energy Code, while required by law, is considered a regulatory baseline and not an adequate standalone mitigation measure under CEQA.
However, the Recirculated IS/MND does not rely on Title 24 compliance as mitigation and does not utilize consistency with Title 24 alone to determine significance. Instead, the Recirculated IS/MND identifies LEED Gold building standards, and installation of solar to offset electricity usage of any proposed office space.
LEED Gold Certification is obtained through achieving points through the use of renewable energy and energy efficient systems and would be implemented as part of the design of the Project, independent of CEQA. The Project would not preclude renewable energy use because the building would include a solarready roof such that additional solar panels may be installed by a future tenant. Thus, the proposed Project would implement measures far beyond Title 24 requirements and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
Comment 44: This comment states that LEED Gold certification does not provide any specific about renewable energy options that would be utilized by the Project. LEED certification does not require the use of renewable energy systems, rather a total of 60-79 points based on the LEED system is required and can be obtained in several ways. The comment concludes in stating that there is no guarantee that the Project would go beyond Title 24.
Response 44: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, and clearly inaccurate fact. As discussed above in Response 43, the Project would not preclude renewable energy use because the building would include a solar-ready roof such that additional solar panels may be installed by a future tenant. In addition, the proposed Project would achieve LEED Gold Certification, which has energy efficiency requirements beyond what is required in the Building Code.
Comment 45: This comment states that the inclusion of a solar-ready roof does not guarantee subsequent installation and the Recirculated IS/MND fails to consider the installation of the solar panels during construction. The comment continues in stating that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to analyze other renewable energy systems such as Tier 4 equipment, biofuels, or electric/hybrid construction equipment.
Response 45: The proposed building is speculative; thus, a future tenant is not known at this time. Therefore, future energy demands of the future tenants cannot be precisely determined at this time. Once a tenant is known as well as their required energy use, solar can be installed at a rate sufficient to provide solar electrification to the office uses in compliance with California Green Building Code Standards. Mitigation Measure AQ-1, requiring Tier 4 construction equipment was not included in the Recirculated IS/MND because analysis was remodeled as the previous Health Risk Assessment assumed a 24 hour construction schedule for 7 days per week, instead of an 8 hour construction schedule, consistent with the Project’s CalEEMod and the assumptions used for the Air Quality, Energy, and GHG analysis. This previous technical error resulted in the cancer risk estimation for construction and combined cancer risks to exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. This technical error was revised, and the analysis included in Appendix A to the Recirculated IS/MND demonstrates that Project construction would result in a less than significant health risk impact when utilizing the accurate 8 hours per day, for 5 days work week assumption. Thus, there is no longer a nexus for additional mitigation. CEQA does not require adoption of every potential mitigation measure and only requires adoption of feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15041). Tier 4 equipment and other the other construction equipment mitigation proposed by the Appellant are effective at reducing air quality emission impacts during the course of construction.
However, as discussed in the Recirculated IS/MND, due to the temporary nature of construction activities compared to the operation of the proposed Project, these measures would provide minimal mitigation related to energy use for the proposed Project.
Comment 46: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to analyze the potential to meet the voluntary standards described in the 2022 California Green building code which includes measures such as increased EV capable parking spaces and reduced potable water use. This comment concludes in stating that the Recirculated IS/MND’s statement regarding LEED Gold certification does not address consistency with these voluntary measures, and an EIR should be prepared to discuss the potential for wasteful consumption of energy and the potential for renewable energy systems.
Response 46: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect. LEED Gold certification includes numerous design and performance standards that substantially overlap with, and in several areas exceed, the voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures contained in Appendix A5 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. While CALGreen provides a set of prescriptive and performance-based measures intended to improve energy efficiency, water efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and sustainable site planning, LEED certification evaluates a wider set of sustainability criteria and requires thirdparty verification of actual performance. LEED Gold certification requires quantifiable performance improvements in energy efficiency, water use reduction, indoor environmental quality, construction waste diversion, and sustainable site design, all of which meet or surpass the intent of the CALGreen voluntary provisions. Thus, implementation of LEED Gold Certification provides substantial evidence that the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption Comment 47: This comment states that the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to support the findings to approve the Precise Development Plan, which 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 present and future development of the surrounding areas.
Response 47: As substantiated by the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15065. No significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. No new impacts as have been found as a result of the comments provided in this letter. Further, the Planning Commission had substantial evidence in support of their findings to approve the Precise Development Plan. As evidenced within the entirety of the administrative record, the Project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Project would redevelop an industrial site surrounded by industrial uses, with a building of substantially the same use and capacity as the existing. Therefore, the Project would not adversely affect present or future development of the surrounding areas.
Comment 48: This comment concludes the letter by stating that based on the reasons discussed above, substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in additional air quality, noise, transportation, utility, and energy impacts has been brought forward, and an EIR must be circulated to address all potential impacts.
Response 48: As substantiated by the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15065. No significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. Further, substantial evidence within the record demonstrates that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, but mitigation measures and regulatory requirements would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. In addition, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the Project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required.
Comment 49: This comment introduces an attached letter from Clark & Associates, which states that they have reviewed the Recirculated IS/MND.
Response 49: This comment is introductory and does not provide a fair argument that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 50: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to calculate the number of forklifts that will be utilized onsite, resulting in an underestimation of the Project’s operational emissions. The comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on the lowest rate of forklift usage by SCAQMD and fails to analyze potential operational impacts. The Appellant states that the use of a higher forklift rate would result in up to 3.68 additional tons of NOx emissions and 608 additional tons of CO2 per year. The comment concludes in stating that since these additional emissions were not included in the Recirculated IS/MND, the City must prepare an EIR.
Response 50: As stated above in Response 26, the use of one compressed natural gas forklift per 10,000 square feet of operational purposes is not only within the range recommended by SCAQMD, but also provides for a conservative analysis as most modern industrial buildings operate using all electric forklifts as standard practice. Thus, impacts would remain less than significant and there is no nexus for additional mitigation measures.
Comment 51: This comment states that there are 19 existing warehouse projects within 5 kilometers of the Project site which would double the amount of DPM emissions within the community. The comment concludes in stating the City must consider the impacts from these warehouses in an EIR.
Response 51: As discussed above in Response 27, the Recirculated IS/MND and its technical analysis properly followed SCAQMD’s cumulative analysis guidance. Based on SCAQMD’s guidance, the proposed Project would generate operational air quality emissions that are below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact and additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not required. Overall, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.
Comment 52: The comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s exacerbation of an already severe rate of exposure to pollutants.
Response 52: CalEnviroScreen is a general policy tool. It is generally inappropriate for CEQA review as it relies on socioeconomic factors such as education and poverty rates which are not relevant under CEQA.
CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential environmental justice effects are social issues that are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Recirculated IS/MND includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of environmental justice. However, the Recirculated IS/MND provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community (localized impacts) pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and thresholds, which is appropriate due to the Project’s location within the South Coast Air Basin.
Comment 53: This comment states the Recirculated IS/MND relies on an outdated cumulative impact threshold for air quality. The comment continues in stating that SCAQMD is in the process of updating their guidance for cumulative impacts which would lower the cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million depending on certain environmental factors. The comment states that while this protocol is still a draft, SCAQMD has sent letter requesting projects to implement the new guidance. The Appellant applied the new guidance to the proposed Project and found that the Project would result in a potentially significant health risk impact as the threshold would change from 10 in one million to 3 in on million cancer risks, while the proposed Project would result in 6.5 in one million for combined construction and operational cancer risks.
Response 53: The Appellant is referred to Response 30.
Comment 54: The Appellant concludes in recommending the Project mitigate this new impact through the use of Tier 4 construction equipment as well as other measures such as truck charging infrastructure. The Appellant states that this constitutes as substantial evidence of a significant impact, and an EIR should be prepared.
Response 54: The Appellant and their expert do not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, and clearly inaccurate fact. As discussed in Section 5.3 Air Quality, of the Recirculated IS/MND, all air quality and health risk impacts related to both operation and construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant upon implementation of existing regulatory requirements. As substantiated by the responses above and below none of the comments provide substantial evidence of the new significant impact, and there is no nexus for additional mitigation. No further response is required
Comment 55: The comment concludes the letter by stating that the Project would result in potentially significant impacts and an EIR should be prepared to address these potential concerns.
Response 55: As substantiated by the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15065. No significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required.
Comment 56: This comment states that Smart Mobility has reviewed the Recirculated IS/MND and has found that the trip generation overestimates passenger vehicle trips for the existing RV Storage Depot onsite, incorrectly characterizes the existing use as a 24/7 operation, relied on less intense ITE rates for the proposed Project trip generation , and claimed VMT would be less than significant based on a faulty existing and proposed trip generation.
Response 56: As discussed above in Response 22, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion, and no further changes to the trip gen are required. In addition, the City of Norwalk Public Works Department also reviewed and approved the trip generation and vehicle splits.
Comment 57: The comment states that the ITE warehousing trip generation rate was used to estimate the number of daily trips onsite, the existing use onsite does not store materials and therefore does not fall under the list of uses for the warehousing category. The Appellant further describes that the existing self-storage use onsite does not match any ITE trip generation categories, and traffic counts should be taken to get an accurate trip generation for the site. The Appellant speculates that this would result in a decrease in trip generation due to the passive storage operations and would generate little truck traffic.
Response 57: As discussed above in Response 20, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion, and no further changes to the trip gen are required. In addition, the City of Norwalk Public Works Department also reviewed and approved the trip generation and vehicle splits.
Comment 58: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND incorrectly states that the existing uses onsite operate 24/7 which results in an overestimated trip generation.
Response 58: As discussed above in Response 20, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion, and no further changes to the trip generation are required. In addition, the City of Norwalk Public Works Department also reviewed and approved the trip generation and vehicle splits.
Comment 59: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND analyzed less intense warehousing and light industrial ITE rates which resulted in a much lower trip generation than a parcel hub or fulfillment center use.
Since no binding restrictions on those uses have been placed, it is foreseeable that those uses would be implemented within the Project site. The comment concludes in stating that a COA would not prevent a parcel hub from becoming a tenant as it would also fit the ITE definition of a warehouse. The comment also requests a COA to require future VMT analysis for more intense projects.
Response 59: As discussed above in Response 20, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion, and no further changes to the trip generation are required. In addition, the City of Norwalk Public Works Department also reviewed and approved the trip generation and vehicle splits. If a future more intense use would attempt to occupy the proposed Project, additional traffic and CEQA analysis would be required.
Comment 60: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND underestimates the trips generated from the proposed Project as it utilized a less intense use than a parcel hub or fulfillment center which would result in daily trips which exceed the 110-trip threshold and require additional VMT analysis. The Appellant further states that the Project site would provide 141 passenger spaces and based on the provided trip generation, would never get more than 75% full. The comment concludes in stating that fair argument has been raised that the Project would result in a significant VMT impact.
Response 60: As discussed above in Response 41, the Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion, and no further changes to the trip generation are required. In addition, the City of Norwalk Public Works Department also reviewed and approved the trip generation and vehicle splits.
Comment 61: This comment states that Wilson IHRIG reviewed the Recirculated IS/MND and provides a brief description of the Project and a summary of the firm.
Response 61: This comment is introductory in nature and does not provide specific detailed comments related to the recirculated MND analysis or provide substantial evidence of any significant environmental issue in which to respond to. Therefore, no further response is required.
Comment 62: This comment provides a summary of potential heath effects from noise including hearing loss, speech interference, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular and physiological effects, and impaired cognitive performance.
Response 62: This comment is informational in nature and does not provide specific detailed comments related to the Recirculated IS/MND analysis or provide substantial evidence of any significant environmental issue in which to respond to. Therefore, no further response is required.
Comment 63: This comment states that the noise analysis relies on three short-term measurements to show the ambient noise conditions surrounding the Project site. The comment further states that the Recirculated IS/MND lacks evidence to show that the noise measurements taken were an accurate representation of the noise environment throughout the day. The comment suggests that baseline noise level must be established for evening and nighttime conditions, using three one-hour Leq noise measures per the FTA Noise and Impact Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. The comment concludes in stating that the Recirculated IS/MND’s baseline noise levels may overestimate existing noise levels at the Project site, masking potentially significant impacts related to noise.
Response 63: As discussed in Response 23 above, the noise measurements provided in the Recirculated IS/MND were taken based on published methodology, exceed the City requirements for taking noise measurements and as such, provide a reasonably accurate representation of the noise environment in the vicinity of the Project site.
Comment 64: This comment states that the proposed Projects construction noise impacts may be greater than what is discussed in the Recirculated IS/MND due to the inadequate baseline noise measurements. The comment further states that the Norwalk Noise Ordinance does not exempt construction related activities, rather it states that construction activities are unlawful outside of the allowed times within the municipal code, and the noise regulations within the Municipal Code still apply to construction of the proposed Project.
Response 64: Please see Response 31 above, which demonstrates how the Project’s construction noise is within the City noise standards, even if Section 9.04.150(E) is interpreted as not exempting construction activities from the City’s noise standards.
Comment 65: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND underestimates the use of HVAC units, and cites that the proposed Project could require 22 HVAC units based on American Society of Heating Refrigeration guidance. The comment states that this would produce 41-51 dBA at a distance of 1,020 feet which is more than 20 dBA higher than what was included in the Recirculated IS/MND’s projection. The comment further states that the RIS/MND fails to analyze the use of air-cooled chiller related to the proposed cold-storage uses. The Appellant found that with the use of four air-cooled chiller units, rooftop noise would increase to 49 to 52 dBA, which is 29 to 32 dBA higher than what is disclosed in the Recirculated IS/MND.
Response 65: The Appellant is referred to Responses 33 and 34 above, which discussed that the reference noise measurement utilized in this analysis was taken on the roof an operating Walmart that had refrigerated and freezer food sections with the condenser units for the refrigerators located on the roof. As such, the HVAC and refrigerated storage was accounted for in the noise calculations presented within the Recirculated IS/MND.
Comment 66: This comment states that noise analysis using a more accurate HVAC and air-chiller unit counts, the projected ambient noise levels may exceed the City’s 45 dBA nighttime threshold. The comment further states that there is no way to determine if nighttime noise levels would increase beyond threshold as there were no nighttime baseline noise levels taken.
Response 66: The Appellant is referred to Response 35 above, which states that the Recirculated IS/MND utilized the lowest possible nighttime noise thresholds, as the City defines ambient noise level as the highest of either sound-level meter readings or 45 dBA during the night. Recirculated IS/MND Table 5.13-6 shows the combined noise levels would be below the most stringent residential nighttime noise threshold of 50 dBA, as noise levels would reach 34 dBA Leq at the home to the northwest, and 32 dBA Leq at the school to the west during nighttime activity. Only the industrial development to the south would experience nighttime noise levels above 50 dBA Leq at 66 dBA Leq; however, industrial uses are not a sensitive receptor and the threshold is higher at 70 dBA Leq. This also presents a conservative analysis as it assumes that all operating equipment would be operating at the same time, which is unlikely.
Comment 67: This comment states that the Recirculated IS/MND incorrectly states that a 50 percent increase in roadway traffic would be required to generate a noise increase of 1.5 dBA, the Appellant clarifies that a 50 percent increase would result in a 1.76 dBA noise level increase.
Response 67: The Appellant does not provide a fair argument of a significant effect and relies on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. The Appellant provides no source for their calculation and does not constitute as substantial evidence of a significant impact from the proposed Project. As discussed in the Revised Noise Report (Appendix K), Carmenita Road north of Interstate 5 had 35,300 ADT for year 2021 conditions. The proposed Project would contribute up to 0.52 percent of the ADT on Carmenita Road. Thus, even with using the calculations provided by the Appellant, impacts would remain less than significant. The comment does not contain any information requiring further changes to the Public Review Draft Recirculated IS/MND or requiring preparation of an EIR. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 68: This comment concludes the letter by stating that the Recirculated IS/MND underestimated the use of HVAC equipment and relies on an inadequate baseline measurement that may result in increases in the ambient noise levels.
Response 68: As substantiated by the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15065. No significant environmental impact would result from the Project after implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required.
Attachment No. 5
Carmenita Norwalk Project - CEQA Overview
Purpose of CEQA
• CEQA is a broad, disclosure and conservation-based piece of legislation that requires an objective look at the potential physical environmental effects of a lead agency’s decision that emphasizes the efficient use of resources and the reduction of any potentially significant environmental effects. • It is meant to be a public disclosure document, and it is not intended to be a public policy advocacy document or to pass judgment or analyze whether a project is good or bad.
MND vs EIR
• CEQA requires the lead agency to examine all projects objectively based on the same criteria against an adopted set of thresholds of significance; here, the City, similar to many other nearby cities, has adopted thresholds of significance from other agencies, such as the County and SCAQMD, as the measure of when a project may result in a significant environmental impact.
• For all projects, an “Initial Study” is prepared to evaluate the Project under various topic areas (see below). A Mitigated Negative (an “IS/MND”) is the proper CEQA document to use when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects but mitigation measures are adopted and agreed to by the applicant and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project, as mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment. • EIR should be prepared when a project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment.
• IS/MND is not “abbreviated” CEQA but is the determination that all of the project’s potentially significant impacts can be mitigated through preparation of an Initial Study with adopted mitigation measures.
IS/MND Topics & Findings
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the Environmental Checklist Form with the following topic areas. Each topic area has multiple checklist questions:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture & Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology & Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology & Water Quality
• Land Use & Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population & Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities & Service Systems
• Mandatory Findings
The IS/MND found that all impact areas would either result in no impacts or less than significant impacts without the imposition of mitigation measures except for Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources), Geology & Soils (Paleontological Resources), Noise (Vibration), Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings (Related to Archaeological & Paleontological Resources). For these topic areas, the IS/MND incorporated mitigation measures that resulted in the project, as mitigated, to result in no potential significant environmental impacts. In other words, after incorporating the mitigation measures, there is no impact that exceeds the City’s applicable threshold of significance.
IS/MND was reviewed by City staff and the City’s CEQA Peer Reviewers (Psomas & De Novo).
The findings set forth in the IS/MND are supported by the following technical studies:
Appendix A. Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Report Appendix B. Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C. Historic Resources Assessment
Appendix D. Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E. Cultural Resource Study
Appendix F. Paleontological Assessment
Appendix G. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix H. Subsurface Investigation Report
Appendix I. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan
Appendix J. Preliminary Hydrology Study
Appendix K. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Appendix L. Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening Analysis Thresholds
Section 15064.7 - A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.
IS/MND uses the following thresholds of significance:
• Regional emissions – SCAQMD – project would be less than all emissions thresholds • Localized emissions – SCAQMD – project would be less than all emissions thresholds • Health Risk/Cancer Risk – SCAQMD – project would be less than 10 in one million cancer risk threshold
• Operational Noise – City Municipal Code – project would not exceed City noise standards at nearby residences
• VMT Screening – County of Los Angeles – project would result in fewer than 110 net new daily passenger trips
SCAQMD Health Risk Threshold
Appellant refers to the Draft SCAQMD Health Risk Threshold, which is still in draft form and has not been formally adopted by SCAQMD. SCAQMD was routed the IS/MND and provided no comment requesting the use of the draft threshold. The current threshold, utilized by the IS/MND states that significant cancer risks would occur if risks exceed 10 in one million. The project would result in a cancer risk of 6.5 in one million at the nearest residence and 3.57 in one million at the nearest worker receptor.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant utilizing SCAQMD’s threshold that is utilized across the City of Norwalk and surrounding jurisdictions.
Attachment No. 6
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY CIVIL ENGINEERS JRN
City Council Agenda Report
December 2, 2025
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Albert Mendoza, P.E., Director of Public Services/City Engineer Mario Mera, Engineering Division Manager
Run Chen, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: PROJECT NO. 7246 – TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROGRAM –
APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
NORWALK BOULEVARD, SAN ANTONIO DRIVE, AND PIONEER
BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROGRAM;
ENGINEER’S REPORT NO. 25-23 – RESOLUTION NO. 25-61 - BUDGET
AMENDMENT
Background:
The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (County) is the lead agency in charge of developing and implementing a countywide Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (TSSP). The primary objective of the TSSP is to implement traffic signal coordination timing along arterials that will improve arterial traffic conditions and traffic flow thereby saving motorists time and improving air quality. On November 30, 2023, the County Board of Supervisors approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to utilize Metro funding for TSSP. Several of Norwalk’s arterials are a part of the County’s TSSP. Arterials with intersections included in Los Angeles County’s TSSP under consideration are Norwalk Boulevard, San Antonio Drive, and Pioneer Boulevard.
The total cost estimate of the County’s TSSP is $4,037,000 of which the cost of City’s share is $1,687,100. Metro will fund $1,006,800 portion, the County is contributing additional funding of $389,600, the City shall contribute additional funding of $281,700.
The intent of the agreement is to document the roles and responsibilities of the City and the County when entering into TSSP projects and confirm liabilities of each agency. Nothing in the agreement will alter the current roles and responsibilities of the City and County in operating and maintaining the traffic signals and signal systems within their respective jurisdictions.
City Council December 2, 2025
Agreement Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Page No. 2 The County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to approve the agreement in November. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and has indicated it is appropriate to proceed.
Fiscal Impact:
The City’s financial obligation of $281,700 is not included in the current budget. The appropriation of Proposition C is needed.
Citizens Advised:
N/A
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
The recommended action will further the City’s Strategic Plan Goal 2: Invest in street infrastructure.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommend City Council:
a. adopt Resolution No. 25-61, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025/26
ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL
SYNCHRONIZATION PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 7246, in the amount of $281,700; and b. approve the Cooperative Agreement with the County of Los Angeles regarding the implementation of the County’s Traffic Signal Synchronization Program in the amount of $281,700; and authorize the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Agreement and any amendments on behalf of the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No 25-61
2. Cooperative Agreement with the County of Los Angeles
3. Norwalk Boulevard TSSP Map
Attachment No. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025/26
ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL
SYNCHRONIZATION PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 7246
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works is the lead agency of the regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program; and WHEREAS, the City’s cost of Norwalk segment of the project is $1,687,100; and WHEREAS, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) and Los Angeles County will contribute $1,006,800 and $389,600, respectively; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the FY 2025/26 budget to allocate $281,700 from proposition C fund to cover its portion of the Project 7246 cost.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager is authorized to make the following appropriation and prepare the necessary budget amendment for the following account:
Account Number Increase Decrease
Revenue: 227-70-7246-2080 $281,700
Fund Balance: 227-0480 $281,700
Section 2. 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
Attachment No. 2
A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF NORWALK, a municipal corporation in the County of Los Angeles, (hereinafter referred to as CITY), and the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as COUNTY):
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, to assist in the traffic flow, CITY, the City of Artesia, the City of Cerritos, the City of Hawaiian Gardens, the City of Lakewood, the City of Long Beach, the City of Santa Fe Springs, the City of Whittier, and COUNTY desire to modify and synchronize the traffic signals along Norwalk Boulevard/San Antonio Drive/Pioneer Boulevard from Beverly Boulevard to Carson Street, a portion of which is within CITY, and which work is hereinafter referred to as PROJECT; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements are jurisdictionally shared between CITY, the City of Artesia, the City of Cerritos, the City of Hawaiian Gardens, the City of Lakewood, the City of Long Beach, the City of Santa Fe Springs, the City of Whittier, and COUNTY, and a separate agreement between the City of Artesia and County is being executed covering the portions of PROJECT within the City of Artesia’s jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, PROJECT is within the shared geographical boundaries of CITY, the City of Artesia, the City of Cerritos, the City of Hawaiian Gardens, the City of Lakewood, the City of Long Beach, the City of Santa Fe Springs, the City of Whittier, and COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, PROJECT is of general interest to CITY, the City of Artesia, the City of Cerritos, the City of Hawaiian Gardens, the City of Lakewood, the City of Long Beach, the City of Santa Fe Springs, the City of Whittier, and COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, for the purpose of providing funding for PROJECT, COUNTY, as lead agency, on November 30, 2023, entered into an amended Memorandum of Understanding No. 9200000000F7305 (MOU) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); and
WHEREAS, COUNTY is willing to utilize and share with CITY the funding provided for in COUNTY/Metro MOU 9200000000F7305 to finance a portion of COST OF PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, COST OF PROJECT includes the COST OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, COST OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, and COST OF CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION; and
WHEREAS, the total COST OF PROJECT is currently estimated to be Four Million Thirty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($4,037,000.00); and
WHEREAS, under the MOU, Metro will provide to COUNTY a grant (GRANT) of up to a maximum of Two Million Four Hundred Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,411,500.00) for PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, allocation of the Metro grant is currently estimated to be, One Million Six Thousand Eight Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($1,006,800.00) towards CITY’S jurisdictional share, Three Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($349,900.00) towards the COUNTY’s jurisdictional share, Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($525,700.00) towards the City of Artesia’s jurisdictional share, Twenty-Six Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($26,000.00) towards the City of Cerritos’ jurisdictional share, Forty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($44,900.00) towards the City of Lakewood’s jurisdictional share, One Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($188,800.00) towards the City of Santa Fe Springs’ jurisdictional share, and Two Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($269,400.00) towards the City of Whittier’s jurisdictional share; and
WHEREAS, CITY is willing to finance its jurisdictional share of COST OF PROJECT currently estimated to be One Million Six Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand One Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($1,687,100.00) by claiming its share of COUNTY/Metro grant funds, currently estimated to be One Million Six Thousand Eight Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($1,006,800.00) and contributing other CITY funds in the amount of Two Hundred Eighty-One Thousand Seven Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($281,700.00) to finance a portion of the COST OF PROJECT; and WHEREAS, COUNTY agrees to contribute Three Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand Six Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($398,600.00) to finance a portion of CITY’s COST OF PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, CITY agrees to contribute funds in the amount of Two Hundred Eighty-One Thousand Seven Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($281,700.00) to finance a portion of the COST OF PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, CITY’S estimated share is the sum of actual quantities of construction contract items utilized within CITY jurisdiction less the grant amount for grant eligible items plus thirty (30) percent of that for PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING cost, twenty (20) percent of that for CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION cost, twenty (20) percent of that for contingencies, and three and a half (3.5) percent of combined costs of PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING and CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION towards the contract CITY liability trust fund altogether estimated to be Two Hundred Eighty-One Thousand Seven Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($281,700.00); and
WHEREAS, BASIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING involves the timing parameters for the general operation of a traffic signal, which typically include, but is not limited to, defining the phases, attributes and timing values for each
permitted phase, pedestrian movement, and assigning detection; and WHEREAS, COORDINATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING involves the timing parameters that allow multiple traffic signals to be synchronized with each other, which typically include defining coordination cycle lengths, offsets and time of day operations for each traffic signal coordination plan; and WHEREAS, COUNTY agrees to be responsible to perform or cause to be performed the PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, solicitation of construction bids and award of CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, and CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION for PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY agrees to be responsible to perform or cause to be performed the equipment and system testing and develop and implement the BASIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING and COORDINATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING for PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, such a proposal is authorized and provided for by the provisions of Sections 6500 and 23004, et seq., of the Government Code and Sections 1685 and 1803 of the California Streets and Highways Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by CITY and COUNTY and of the promises herein contained, it is hereby agreed as follows:
(1) DEFINITIONS:
a. The term JURISDICTION, as referred to in this AGREEMENT, shall be defined as the area within the jurisdictional boundary of each governmental entity party to this AGREEMENT.
b. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, as referred to in this AGREEMENT, shall consist of environmental findings and approvals/permits; design survey; soils report; traffic index and geotechnical investigation; preparation of plans, specifications, and cost estimates; right-of-way engineering; utility engineering; and all other necessary work prior to advertising of PROJECT for construction bids.
c. COST OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, as referred to in this AGREEMENT, shall consist of the actual payments to the construction contractor(s) for PROJECT and the total of all payments to utility companies or contractor(s) for the relocation of facilities necessary for the construction of PROJECT, and the cost of any additional unforeseen work that is necessary for the construction of PROJECT. d. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION as referred to in this
AGREEMENT shall consist of construction contract administration, construction inspection, materials testing, construction survey, traffic
detour, signing and striping, construction engineering, utility relocation and coordination matters, changes and modifications of plans and specifications for PROJECT necessitated by unforeseen or unforeseeable field conditions encountered during construction of PROJECT, construction contingencies, and all other necessary work after advertising of PROJECT for construction bids to cause PROJECT to be constructed in accordance with said plans and specifications approved by CITY and COUNTY.
e. COST OF PROJECT, as referred to in this AGREEMENT, shall consist of the COST OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT and costs of
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION, BASIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING, and
COORDINATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING for traffic signals within PROJECT limits, right-of-way acquisition and clearance matters, and all other work and materials necessary to construct PROJECT in accordance with the approved plans and shall include currently effective percentages added to total salaries, wages, and equipment costs to cover overhead, administration, and depreciation in connection with any or all of the aforementioned items.
f. Completion of PROJECT as referred to in this AGREEMENT shall be defined as the date of field acceptance of construction of PROJECT by COUNTY and an electronic notification to CITY'S City Manager that the improvements within CITY’S JURISDICTION are completed and transferred to CITY for purpose of operation and maintenance. (2) CITY AGREES:
a. To finance CITY’S share of COST OF PROJECT, the actual amount of which is to be determined by a final accounting, pursuant to paragraph (4) c., below.
b. To deposit with COUNTY, following execution of this AGREEMENT and upon demand by COUNTY, CITY funds in the amount of Two Hundred Eighty-One Thousand Seven Hundred and 00/100 Dollars
($281,700.00) hereinafter referred as CITY’S PAYMENT. Said demand will consist of a billing invoice prepared by COUNTY and delivered to CITY.
c. To obtain and grant to COUNTY any necessary temporary right of way within CITY for the construction of PROJECT at no cost to COUNTY. d. To issue to COUNTY a no-fee permit(s) authorizing COUNTY to construct those portions of PROJECT within CITY highway right of way on condition that the COUNTY'S contractor meets the insurance requirements as required and approved by the CITY’S Risk Manager.
e. To cooperate with COUNTY in conducting negotiations with and, where appropriate, issue notices to public utilities and owners of substructure and overhead facilities regarding the relocation, removal, operation, and maintenance of all surface and underground utilities and facilities, structures, and transportation services, which interfere with the proposed construction. Where utilities have been installed in CITY streets or on CITY property, CITY will provide the necessary right of way for the relocation of those utilities and facilities that interfere with the construction of PROJECT. CITY will take all necessary steps to assist COUNTY in utilizing the CITY’S prior rights over utility companies and owners of substructure and overhead facilities and execute any necessary documentation to temporarily grant, transfer, or assign such prior rights to the COUNTY when necessary for the COUNTY to construct and complete the PROJECT. All such prior rights shall revert to the CITY upon completion of the PROJECT.
f. To authorize COUNTY to represent CITY pursuant to this AGREEMENT, in negotiations pertaining to the advertisement of PROJECT for construction bids, award, and administration of the construction contract and in all things necessary and proper to complete PROJECT.
g. Upon completion of PROJECT: (1) to accept full and complete ownership of, and responsibility for, the PROJECT; and (2) to maintain in good condition and at CITY expense, all improvements constructed as part of PROJECT within CITY’S JURISDICTION, including the BASIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING and the COORDINATION TRAFFIC
SIGNAL TIMING to support synchronization of traffic signals on Norwalk Boulevard/San Antonio Drive/Pioneer Boulevard.
(3) COUNTY AGREES:
a. To perform or cause to be performed the preliminary engineering, contract administration, construction inspection and engineering, utility engineering and relocation, traffic detour, BASIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING, TRAFFIC SIGNAL COORDINATION TIMING, and final signing and striping for PROJECT.
b. To act as lead agency, prepare the necessary environmental documents, and make the required environmental findings for PROJECT pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. c. To contribute toward CITY'S share of COST OF PROJECT, currently estimated to be Three Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand Six Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($398,600.00).
d. To submit an invoice to CITY in the amount of Two Hundred Eighty-One Thousand Seven Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($281,700.00) upon adoption of this AGREEMENT by COUNTY.
e. To obtain CITY'S approval of plans for PROJECT prior to advertising for construction bids.
f. To advertise PROJECT for construction bids, to award and to administer the construction contract, and to act on behalf of CITY in all negotiations pertaining thereto.
g. To administer the design and construction of PROJECT in accordance with all regulations and requirements of Metro relating to the expenditure of Proposition C Local Return funds and Proposition C Twenty-five Percent (25%) Discretionary funds and Memorandum of Understanding No. 9200000000F7305 between COUNTY and Metro. COUNTY'S
records for PROJECT shall be open to inspection and subject to audit and reproduction by COUNTY and Metro, or any of their duly authorized representatives, and shall be retained by COUNTY for a period of not less than seven (7) years after final payment to contractor(s) for PROJECT.
h. To ensure that CITY and all officers and employees of CITY are named as additional insured parties under the construction contractor's(s') Contractor's General Liability and automobile insurance policies. i. To furnish to CITY, within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days after final Board acceptance of PROJECT, a final accounting of the actual CITY’S share of COST OF PROJECT including an itemization of actual unit costs and actual contract quantities, as specified in paragraph (3) a., above.
j. To perform or cause to be performed the equipment and system testing and to develop and implement the BASIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING and COORDINATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING for the PROJECT. (4) IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
a. The financial obligations of COUNTY pursuant to this AGREEMENT are conditional upon COUNTY obtaining reimbursement from Metro pursuant to Memorandum of Understanding No. 920000000000F7305 between COUNTY and Metro. If COUNTY and/or Metro fails to provide its financial contribution, then COUNTY shall refund CITY'S payment within ninety (90) calendar days after notice from Metro to COUNTY that Metro funds are not available.
b. The final accounting of the actual total COST OF PROJECT shall allocate said total cost between CITY and COUNTY based on the
previously agreed upon improvements and/or work completed. Thus, the cost of all work or improvements (including all engineering, administration, and all other costs incidental to PROJECT work), previously agreed upon as CITY’S share of the COST OF PROJECT, shall be borne by CITY. The cost of all work or improvements (including all engineering, administration, and all other costs incidental to PROJECT work), previously agreed upon as COUNTY’S share of the COST OF PROJECT, shall be borne by COUNTY.
c. That if at final accounting CITY’S share of COST OF PROJECT exceeds CITY’S PAYMENT, as set forth in paragraph (2) b., above, CITY shall pay to COUNTY the additional amount upon demand. Said demand shall consist of a billing invoice prepared by COUNTY. Conversely, if the CITY'S share is less than CITY'S PAYMENT, COUNTY shall refund the difference to CITY without further action by CITY.
d. That if CITY'S PAYMENT, as set forth in paragraph (2) b., above is not delivered to COUNTY office, which is described on the billing invoice prepared by COUNTY within sixty (60) calendar days after the date of said invoice, notwithstanding the provisions of Government Code Section 907, COUNTY may satisfy such indebtedness, including interest thereon, from any funds of CITY on deposit with COUNTY after giving notice to CITY of COUNTY'S intention to do so.
e. CITY shall review the final accounting invoice prepared by COUNTY and report in writing any discrepancies to COUNTY within sixty (60) calendar days after the date of said invoice. Undisputed charges shall be paid by CITY to COUNTY within sixty (60) calendar days after the date of said invoice. COUNTY shall review all disputed charges and submit a written justification detailing the basis for those charges within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of CITY'S written report. CITY shall then make payment of the previously disputed charges or submit justification for nonpayment within sixty (60) calendar days after the date of COUNTY'S written justification.
f. COUNTY at any time may, at its sole discretion, designate an alternative payment mailing address and an alternative schedule for payment of CITY funds if applicable. CITY shall be notified of such changes by invoice prepared by COUNTY and delivered to CITY.
g. During construction of PROJECT, COUNTY shall furnish an inspector or other representative to perform the functions of an inspector. CITY may also furnish, at no cost to COUNTY, an inspector or other representative to inspect construction of the PROJECT. CITY shall have no obligation to inspect the PROJECT and no liability shall be attributable as a result of CITY'S inspection or failure to inspect. Said inspectors shall cooperate and consult with each other, but the orders of COUNTY inspector to the contractor or any other person in charge of
construction shall prevail and be final, and COUNTY inspector shall be responsible for the proper inspection of PROJECT as needed.
h. This AGREEMENT may be amended or modified only by mutual written consent of COUNTY and CITY. Amendments and modifications of a nonmaterial nature may be made by the mutual written consent of the Parties.
Any correspondence, communication, or contact concerning this AGREEMENT shall be directed to the following:
CITY: Mr. Jesus M. Gomez
City Manager
City of Norwalk
12700 Norwalk Blvd
Norwalk, CA 90660
COUNTY: Mr. Mark Pestrella
Director of Public Works
Los Angeles County Public Works
P.O. Box 1460
Alhambra, CA 91802-1460
i. COUNTY and CITY acknowledge and recognize that the improvements contemplated by this AGREEMENT provide significant regional and local benefits with respect to reducing traffic congestion. COUNTY and CITY further acknowledge and recognize that the cost of defending claims and lawsuit arising from the improvements contemplated by this AGREEMENT is paid for by public monies and both Parties share an interest in reducing the amount of public monies spent on defending claims and lawsuits where possible without prejudicing their respective defenses.
j. In the event that a claim lawsuit is brought against COUNTY and CITY based on the allegation that the design, construction, maintenance, or operation of the improvements constructed under this AGREEMENT proximately caused injuries or damage, COUNTY and CITY agree to cooperate as much as possible with respect to defending the claim or lawsuit without causing prejudice to their respective defenses to the claim or lawsuit. Upon receipt of the claim or lawsuit, the COUNTY and CITY, through their respective agents if appropriate, shall promptly investigate the matter. COUNTY and CITY shall then meet and confer promptly regarding whether a joint defense is appropriate or if one Party should tender its defense and indemnification to the other Party.
k. Neither COUNTY nor any officer or employee of COUNTY shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of any act or omission on the part of CITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to, assumed by, or determined to be the responsibility of CITY under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code, Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify, defend, and hold COUNTY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code, Section 810.8) occurring by reason of any act or omission on the part of CITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to or determined to be the responsibility of CITY under this AGREEMENT. Where liability for injury (as defined by Government Code, Section 810.8) is sought to be imposed under Section 830, et seq., of the Government Code for a dangerous condition of property owned by or under the control of CITY, CITY shall fully defend, indemnify, and hold COUNTY harmless from any and all liability arising from such dangerous condition.
l. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee of CITY shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of any act or omission on the part of COUNTY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to or determined to be the responsibility of COUNTY under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code, Section 895.4, COUNTY shall fully indemnify, defend, and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code, Section 810.8) occurring by reason of any act or omission on the part of COUNTY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to or determined to be the responsibility of COUNTY under this AGREEMENT. Where liability for injury (as defined by Government Code, Section 810.8) is sought to be imposed under Section 830, et seq., of the Government Code for a dangerous condition of property owned by or under the control of COUNTY, COUNTY shall fully defend, indemnify, and hold CITY harmless from any and all liability arising from such dangerous condition.
m. It is understood and agreed that the provisions of Assumption of Liability Agreement No. 32072 between CITY and COUNTY, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 27, 1977, and currently in effect, are inapplicable to this AGREEMENT.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, by the CITY OF NORWALK on , 2025, and by the COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES on , 2025.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By________________________
Director of Public Works
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWYN R. HARRISON
County Counsel
By______________________
Deputy
CITY OF NORWALK
By________________________
Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By __________________________ By________________________ Theresa Devoy, City Clerk, CMC Arnold M. Alvarez- Glasman, City Attorney
SP:\TSM\TRA\TSSP/2013 Call/GW/Norwalk Bl San Antonio Dr Pioneer Bl/10 Advertising/Funding Agreements/Norwalk ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY
CITY OF
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
SD
1 SD
1 SD 1
SD 4
PIONEER
BLVD
SAN
ANTONIO DR
WHITTIER BLVD
BROADWAY AVE
SLAUSON AVE
BEVERLY
BLVD
WASHINGTON BLVD
DEL AMO BLVD
ARTESIA BLVD
E CARSON ST
FLORENCE AVE
SOUTH ST
FIRESTONE BLVD
ROSEMEAD BLVD
ROSECRANS AVE
ALONDRA BLVD
IMPERIAL HWY
TELEGRAPH RD
NORWALK BLVD
PIONEER BLVD
CITY OF
MONTEBELLO
CITY OF
LAKEWOOD
CITY OF
PARAMOUNT
CITY OF
CERRITOS
CITY OF
WHITTIER
CITY OF
SANTA FE
SPRINGS
CITY OF
ARTESIA
CITY OF
LONG BEACH
CITY OF
PICO
RIVERA
CITY OF
COMMERCE
UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY
CITY OF
BELLFLOWER
CITY OF
DOWNEY
CITY OF
NORWALK
·|}91
§¨¦605
§¨¦105
§¨¦5
1 2
3 4
5 7 6
8 9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16 17
18 20
21 23 22
24 25
27 26
29 28
30 31
32 33
34 35 36 37
38 39
41 40
43 42
44 45
46 47
48 49
19 NORWALK BOULEVARD/SAN ANTONIO DRIVE/PIONEER BOULEVARD - BEVERLY BOULEVARD TO CARSON STREET
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT
³
Data contained in this map is produced in whole or part from the Los Angeles County Public Works' digital database. !( Traffic Signal
TSSP Route
Supervisorial District Boundary
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 Beverly Blvd
Orange Grove Av
Whittier Blvd
Loch Lomond Dr
Rechling Ln
Dunlap Crossing Rd
Saragosa St
Washington Blvd
Broadway Ave
Aeoliant St
Slauson Av
Walnut St
Los Nietos Rd
Smith Av
Hawkins St
Telegraph Rd
Heritage Springs Dr
Florence Av
Lakeland Rd
Crewe St
Imperial Hwy
Civic Center Dr
Union / I-5 South
Firestone Blvd
Foster Rd
Orange St
Pioneer Blvd
Lindale St
Mapledate St
Excelsior Dr
Cheshire St
Alondra Blvd
163rd St
166th St
91 Fwy off-ramps
Frampton Ct
Artesia Blvd
178th St
Ashworth St
183rd St
186th St
187th St
South St
195th St
Eberle St
Del Amo Blvd
Centralia St
215th St
Carson St
Traffic Signal Locations
on Norwalk Blvd/
San Antonio Dr/
Pioneer Blvd at
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 3
City Council Agenda Report
December 2, 2025
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Theresa Devoy, City Clerk
SUBJECT: JANUARY 2026 MEETING SCHEDULE
Background:
As the City has done during the last several years, I am proposing to cancel the January 6, 2026 City Council meeting due to the holiday schedule. The Executive Team has reviewed upcoming agenda items and determined that there are currently no time-sensitive items requiring immediate attention. The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 20. However, if anything surfaces prior to that date that requires attention sooner, a special meeting may be scheduled.
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Citizens Advised:
Information will be shared on the City’s social media sites, the marquee, the website, and the City’s designated posting site, if the meeting is canceled.
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
N/A
City Council December 2, 2025
January 2026 Meeting Schedule Page No. 2
Recommended Action:
Staff recommend City Council choose one of the two following options:
a. hold one regularly scheduled meeting on January 20, 2026; or b. continue to hold two meetings, January 13 and 20, 2026.
Attachments:
N/A