Norwalk City Council
January 20, 2026

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-2
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
This page intentionally left blank.

Resolution No. 25-63

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-3
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Table 4-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials

AIR QUALITY
PPP AQ -1: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD
guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

During construction Construction
contractors; site
supervisors
The City Building and
Safety Division will
examine Project
contracts for these
requirements and
monitor for
compliance.

Initials:
______
Date: ______
PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113 . The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low -Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.

During construction Construction
contractors; site
supervisors
The City Building and
Safety Division will
examine Project
contracts for these
requirements and
monitor for
compliance.

Initials: ______
Date: ______
PPP AQ -3: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

During construction
and operation
Project developers/
applicant and
construction
contractors
The City Building and
Safety Division will
examine Project
contracts for these
requirements and
monitor for
compliance.

Initials: ______
Date: ______

CULTURAL RESOURCES
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the Project will be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur within 50 feet of the discovery until Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
as well as during
Construction
Contractor; City
Building and Safety
The City will verify
that all construction
within 50 feet of the
remains will cease
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-4
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. grading and
trenching
Department; County
Coroner
until the County
Coroner has made a
determination of the
origin. The County
Coroner must be
notified of the find
immediately and if
the remains are
determined pre-
historic then the
Native American
Heritage Commission
will be notified.

Mitigation Measure CUL -1: Inadvertent Discoveries . Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Norwalk Building & Safety Division shall verify that all Project grading and construction plans and specifications state that in the event that potential archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the City or County List of Qualified Archaeologist has evaluated the find to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code. Any resources identified shall be treated in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 2
1083.2(g). If the
discovered resource(s) appears Native American in origin, a Native American Monitor shall be contacted to evaluate any potential tribal cultural resource(s) and shall have the opportunity to consult an appropriate treatment and curation of these resources.

Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
as well as during
grading and
trenching
City of Norwalk
Building and Safety
Department;
Construction
Contractor;
Qualified
Archeologist; and
Native American
Monitor
The City will verify
that all construction
within 50 feet of the
archeological
resource will cease
until a Qualified
Archeologist has
evaluated the find.

Initials: ______
Date: ______
ENERGY
PPP ENG-1: CalGreen Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 15.30) to ensure efficient use of energy.

CalGreen specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of building permit approval.

Prior to the issuance
of a building permit
Applicant; City of
Norwalk Building
and Safety
Department
The City will verify
that the Project is in
compliance with the
CALGreen Building
Code prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-5
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of Project approval.

Prior to the issuance
of the grading
permit and during
grading
Applicant; City of
Norwalk Building
and Safety
Department
The City will verify
Project compliance is
incorporated into the
grading plan and a
condition to the
approval of the
Project.

Initials: ______
Date: ______
Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Norwalk Planning Division, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County, stating that the paleontologist has been retained to provide services for the project. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the City. The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist be present at the pre -
grading conference to establish procedures for
paleontological resource surveillance. The PRIMP shal l also require paleontological monitoring for ground disturbing activities greater than eight feet in depth within native soil, as determined by the Project paleontologist.

In the event paleontological resources are encountered, ground - disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered.

Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit.

If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
Applicant; City of
Norwalk Planning
Division; Qualified
Paleontologist
The City will not issue
a grading permit until
compliance is met
and there will be an
onsite paleontologist
monitoring
construction during
ground disturbing
activities.

Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-6
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist.

Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall h ave a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PPP HAZ-1: SCAQMD Rule 1403. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project Applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that an asbestos survey has been conducted on the structures proposed for demolition. If asbestos is found, the Project Applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require that the following actions be taken: notification of SCAQMD prior to construction activity, asbestos removal in accordance with prescribed procedures, placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping, and proper disposal.

Prior to the issuance
of demolition
permits
Project Applicant;
City Building and
Safety Division
The City will not issue
a demolition permit
prior to receiving an
asbestos survey.

Initials: ______
Date: ______

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PPP WQ-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board National Pollution Discha rge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ (General Construction Permit). The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other NPDES regulations to limit the potential of erosion and polluted r unoff during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by the City of Norwalk staff or its designee to confirm compliance.

Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
Qualified SWPPP
Developer; Project
Developer;
Construction
Contractor; City of
Norwalk staff
The City staff will
confirm compliance
through periodic
inspections.

Initials: ______
Date: ______
PPP WQ-2: Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall have a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) approved by the City for implementation. The Project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Section 18.04.105 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
Project applicant;
Construction
Contractor; City of
Norwalk Planning
Division
The City will not issue
a grading permit until
SUSMP is approved
by the City.

Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-7
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other pollutants during construction and operations of the Project.

NOISE
PPP N-1: Construction Hours: Section 09.04.150(E) of the Norwalk Municipal Code states that construction-type devices may be utilized between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or sunset whichever is later.

During construction Construction
Contractors
The City Building and
Safety Division would
ensure that the
Project complies.

Initials: ______
Date: ______
Mitigation Measure N -1: Construction Vibration. The Project Applicant shall require that all construction contractors restrict the operation of any large bulldozers that is powered by a greater than 150 horsepower engine or any vibratory rollers from operating within 25 feet of any off- site structure. The Project Applicant shall require the use of a small bulldozer (i.e., D1, D2, or D3 dozers) or other type of equipment that is less than 150 horsepower to perform all demolition and grading activities that are located within 15 feet of any off-site structure.

During construction Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
The City Building and
Safety Division would
ensure that the
Project complies.

Initials: ______
Date: ______

PUBLIC SERVICES
PPP PS-1: Payment of Applicable Development Impact Fees: The Project Applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees, service fees, and other required fees established by the City of Norwalk prior to the issuance of building permits. These fees are intended to offset the Project’s contribution to the demand for public services, including police protection provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Norwalk Station).

Prior to the issuance
of building permits
Applicant The City Planning
Division will assure
compliance.

Initials:
______
Date: ______
PPP PS-2: School Fees: Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit final inspection, the Applicant shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the applicable school districts related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.

Prior to the issuance
of a certificate of
occupancy or prior
to building permit
final inspection
Applicant The City Planning
Division will assure
compliance.

Initials: ______
Date: ______

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure TCR -1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
A. The Project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained Prior to issuance of
permits associated
with ground-
disturbing activities.

Project Applicant;
City of Norwalk
Planning Division;
Construction
Contractor; and
The City Planning
Division will assure
submission of signed
monitoring contract;
field observation logs
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-8
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
prior to the commencement of any “ground -disturbing
activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in
connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing,
auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading,
excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City of Norwalk Planning Division prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to
commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural- related materials, and any other facts, conditions,
materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.

Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project applicant/City of Norwalk upon written
request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon either of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a
designated point of contact for the Project applicant/City of Norwalk Planning Division that all ground -disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are complete; or (2) a determination and written
notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/City of Norwalk Planning Division that no future, planned
construction activity and/or development/construction
Native American
Monitor
documenting tribal
monitoring presence;
and actions taken to
protect resources.

Resolution No. 25-63

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-9
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
phase at the Project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

Mitigation Measure TCR -2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) A. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for
educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

During all ground-
disturbing activities.

City of Norwalk
Planning Division
and Native
American Monitor
The City will verify
that all construction
within 50 feet of TCR
discovery will cease
until a Native
American monitor has
evaluated the find.

Initials:
______
Date: ______
Mitigation Measure TCR -3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC
5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods
are discovered or recognized on the project site, then
Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section
5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

During all ground
disturbing activities.

City of Norwalk
Planning Division;
Qualified
Archeologist; and
Native American
Monitor
The City Planning
Division will verify
field inspection;
coordination with
County Coroner,
Native American
Heritage Commission,
and Most Likely
Descendant, as
applicable.

Initials:
______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Norwalk 4-10
Recirculated Final MND
October 2025
Mitigation Measure/Plan, Program, or Policy (PPP) Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials

UTILITIES
PPP UT -1: Solid Waste. As required by Municipal Code Section

8.48.630, prior to construction of the Project, the Applicant shall submit to the Waste Management Plan Compliance Official documentation that the diversion requirement has been met. The diversion requirement shall be that the Applicant has diverted at least 65 percent of the total construction and demolition debris generated by the Project via reuse or recycling.

Prior to construction Project applicant;
Waste Management
Plan Compliance
Official
The Waste
Management Plan
Compliance Official
will ensure the
diversion requirement
has been met prior to
construction.

Initials: ______
Date: ______
Resolution No. 25-63

7612-012acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE

ISABEL TAHIR
Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
MARC D. JOSEPH

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITO
L MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
TEL: (916) 444- 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589- 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper

October
16, 2025
Via Hand D
elivery, Email and Overnight Mail
Norwalk City Council
Attn: Theresa Devoy, City Clerk
Norwalk City Clerk’s Dept.
12700 Norwalk Blvd. Rm. 10
Norwalk, CA 90650
Email: [email protected]
Via Emai
l Only
Kristy Wong, Associate Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Appeal
of 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (SCH No.
2024101066; PDP No. 2023-06)
Dear Ms.

Devoy, Councilmembers, and Ms. Wong:

Pursua
nt to City of Norwalk Municipal Code Section 17.02.205(E), we submit this appeal on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Development (“CREED LA”) of the City of Norwalk (“City”) Planning Commission’s October 8, 2025, approval actions for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024101066), also known as the Rexford Industrial Project (“Project), including the Commission’s adoption of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (“RMND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”), approval of the Precise Development Plan (“PDP”) No. 2023-06, and any and all other approval actions taken by the Planning Commission related to the Project. The Project is proposed by Rexford Industrial (“Applicant”).
1 1 City of Norwalk, Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (October 8, 2025) (hereinafter “agenda”), available at: https://norwalk.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=5924; City of Norwalk, October 8, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Synopsis, available at:
https://norwalk.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=5929&compileOutput Type=1.

Attachment No. 3
October 16, 2025

7612-012acp

printed on recycled paper

The Project proposes to demolish two existing multi-tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 square feet (SF) and to construct an approximately 138,972 SF industrial warehouse building with a parking lot, ornamental landscaping, and associated infrastructure on the 7.03-acre lot.2 The proposed building would include 132,227 SF of warehouse space, 3,715 SF of ground floor office space, and 3,030 SF of mezzanine space.3 The Project would be located in southeastern Los Angeles County at 14830 Carmenita Road, Norwalk, California 90650 and consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 8069-002-085. 4 CREED LA hereby appeals all actions taken by the Planning Commission with regard to the Project at its October 8, 2025, meeting. The reasons for this appeal are set forth herein and described in greater detail in the attached comments, which document the City’s failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)5 and land use laws.6

Pursuant to City of Norwalk Municipal Code Sections 17.02.205(E), 1.18.020, and 1.18.050 the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, provided such appeal meets the following requirements:

1. A written appeal is filed within ten (10) calendar days after the date that notice of the Planning Commission decision is mailed to the applicant;

2. The request is filed with the City Clerk;

3. The requisite fees are included;

4. The written appeal states the specific grounds for the appeal. 7 This appeal is timely filed, includes the $1,750 fee8, and includes all the information required by Norwalk Municipal Code Sections 17.02.205(E), 1.18.020, and 1.18.050.

5 Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
6 Attachment A: Letter from ABJC to City re Agenda Item No. 2 Precise Development Plan No. 2023-06 and Recirculated Final MND for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024101066) (October 8, 2025).
7 Norwalk Municipal Code §§17.02.205(E), 1.18.020, 1.18.050. 8 City of Norwalk, User and Regulatory Fee Schedule, available at:
https://norwalkca.gov/Documents/Departments%20&%20Services/Finance/Fees%20And%20Taxes/Fe es%20For%20Services,%20Fines,%20And%20Penalties/Adopted%20-%20Norwalk%20- %20Fee%20Schedules%20for%20FY%2025-26.pdf?t=202507021041380.

October 16, 2025

7612-012acp

printed on recycled paper
I. Appellant Information

This appeal is filed by CREED LA, care of Alaura McGuire, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000, South San Francisco, CA 94080. Email: [email protected]. Telephone number: (650) 589-1660, Ext. 19.

CREED LA is a non-profit organization formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The organization’s members include Norwalk residents Alejandro Lopez, Wilfredo Gutirrez, and Phillip Templeton, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, and their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in and around the City of Norwalk and the Los Angeles region. CREED LA’s members stand to be directly affected by the Project’s impacts.

II. Grounds for Appeal

The grounds for this appeal are that the City has not complied with CEQA 9 or applicable land use laws. The Planning Commission abused its discretion and proceeded in a manner inconsistent with law and without substantial evidence to support the approval findings
10 by approving the Project in reliance on a deficient
MND which fails to disclose and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts. The grounds are set forth generally herein and in detail in the attached letter submitted to the Planning Commission on October 8, 2025, responding to the RMND and October 8 Planning Commission hearing Staff Report. 11 In summary, CREED LA and their expert consultants submitted written comments to the City on the original MND providing substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated

9 Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
10 Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(b); Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.
11 Attachment A: Letter from ABJC to City re Agenda Item No. 2 Precise Development Plan No. 2023-06 and Recirculated Final MND for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024101066) (October 8, 2025).

October 16, 2025

7612-012acp

printed on recycled paper
air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utility impacts.12 These issues were not resolved in the RMND approved by the Planning Commission.

For example, CREED LA’s air quality expert demonstrated that the RMND failed to account for 3.68 tons of NOx and 608 tons of CO2 that may be produced by the Project. The RMND did not analyze the Project’s impacts together with nearby warehouses and thus fails to disclose significant cumulative health risk impacts.

The City also did not propose any mitigation to address these impacts.

CREED LA’s transportation expert demonstrated that the City failed to accurately describe the existing uses on the Project site, which overestimates the existing VMT levels. The City also underestimated the Project’s VMT levels by failing to analyze the Project’s potential future use as a parcel hub or fulfillment center. Our transportation expert provided substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project’s VMT impacts are potentially significant and that the City improperly screened the Project from a VMT analysis.

CREED LA’s noise expert demonstrated that Project would have potentially significant operational and construction noise impacts that the RMND failed to disclose or mitigate. The RMND underestimates operation noise impacts by failing to accurately estimate the number of HVAC units that will be needed for the Project. Furthermore, the RMND fails to establish accurate baseline noise levels, rendering its subsequent impact analysis unsupported. The RMND also fails to analyze the Project’s construction noise increase over ambient noise levels as required by CEQA and the City’s own Municipal Code.

The RMND’s energy analysis also failed to meet CEQA’s requirement that an MND analyze energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project. The RMND failed to consider common and effective measures to reduce the Project’s energy consumption, resulting in potentially significant, unmitigated energy impacts.

The City also failed to provide substantial evidence to show that the Project will have adequate fire flow, as required by CEQA and the City’s own general plan.

12 Letter from ABJC to City re Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Rexford Industrial Project (14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project) (SCH No. 2024101066) (November 12, 2024); Letter from ABJC to City re Agenda Item No. 2 Rexford Industrial Project (14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project) (SCH No. 2024101066) (December 11, 2024).

October 16, 2025

7612-012acp

printed on recycled paper
In sum, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have several significant and unmitigated impacts which require the City to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) to comply with CEQA. The Commission’s approval of the RMND and related entitlements must be vacated, and the Project remanded back to staff so that an EIR can be prepared.

Furthermore, the Commission lacked substantial evidence to support the requisite findings to approve the Projects’ Precise Development Plan (“PDP”) under Norwalk Municipal Code Section 17.02.205.D. Section 17.02.205.D requires the Commission to find that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will not adversely affect the present and future development of surrounding areas. The Commission’s approval of the PDP was unsupported by substantial evidence due to the Project’s potentially significant air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utility impacts. The Commission’s approval of the PDP must also be vacated.

III. Conclusion

CREED LA respectfully requests that the City Council set a hearing on this appeal, and that the City Council uphold this appeal, vacate the Planning Commission’s actions related to the Project, and remand the Project to staff to prepare and circulate a legally compliant EIR before reconsidering Project approval.

Sincerely,

Alaura McGuire

Attachments
ARM:acp

ATTACHMENT A

7612-011j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE

ISABEL TAHIR

Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
MARC D. JOSEPH

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W

6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0- 7 0 3 7 ___________

T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 5 0 6 2
a m c g u i r e@ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m

printed on recycled paper

October 8, 2025

Via Email and Overnight Mail
Attention: Community Development
Department
City Council Chambers
Norwalk City Hall
12700 Norwalk Boulevard,
Norwalk, CA 90650
Email: [email protected]

Chair Linda Lopez and Commissioners
City of Norwalk Planning Commission
City Council Chambers
Norwalk City Hall
12700 Norwalk Boulevard,
Norwalk, CA 90650
Email: [email protected]

Via Email Only
Kristy Wong, Associate Planner
Email: [email protected]

Re: Agenda Item No. 2: Precise Development Plan No. 2023-06 and Recirculated Final MND for the 14830 Carmenita Road
Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024101066)

Dear Chair Lopez, Commissioners, Director Hamilton, and Ms. Wong:

On behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development (“CREED LA”), we submit these comments on Agenda Item No. 2, the Precise Development Plan No. 2023-06 and the Recirculated Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (“RIS/MND”), also known as the Rexford Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024104066) (“Project”) proposed by Rexford Industrial (“Applicant”). The Planning Commission (“Commission”) is scheduled to consider approval of the Project’s RIS/MND and Precise Development Plan at a public hearing on October 8, 2025.

The Project proposes to demolish two existing multi-tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 square feet (SF) and to construct an approximately 138,972 SF industrial warehouse building with a parking lot, ornamental landscaping, and associated infrastructure on the 7.03-acre lot.1 The

1 RIS/MND, p. 21.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
proposed building would include 132,227 SF of warehouse space, 3,715 SF of ground floor office space, and 3,030 SF of mezzanine space.2 The Project would be located in southeastern Los Angeles County at 14830 Carmenita Road, Norwalk, California 90650 and consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 8069-002-085.3

On November 12 and December 11, 2024, CREED LA submitted comments on the Project’s original Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”). CREED LA’s comments included expert reports which presented the City with substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utility impacts that were not disclosed or mitigated in the original IS/MND. For example, the City underestimated emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), underestimated and failed to disclose significant public health impacts resulting from exposure to these contaminants, and failed to consider significant cumulative emissions impacts from nearby warehouses. The City also underestimated the Project’s VMT levels that led to the City improperly screening the Project from a VMT analysis. The City also failed to provide any evidence to show that the Project will have adequate fire flow as required by CEQA and the City’s own general plan. These impacts required the City to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act4 (“CEQA”).

Instead of preparing an EIR, as required by CEQA, the City subsequently prepared written responses to CREED LA’s comments and revised some of its environmental analysis in the Final IS/MND,5 then proceeded to prepare the instant RIS/MND. We reviewed the RIS/MND with air quality and hazards expert

2 Id.
3 Id. at p. 4.
4 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). 5 Finial Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (January 2025), available at:
https://www.norwalk.org/Documents/Departments%20&%20Services/Community%20Development/C armenita%20Warehouse%20Final%20MND.pdf?t=202501071938090; Response to Comment Letter O1: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (representing the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development “CREED LA”) (responding to November 12, 2024 comments), available at; https://norwalk.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId=f d3b0aa3-977b-4e2b-a6fe-a5a183c3224e; EPD Solutions, Response to Letter L1: CREED LA, dated December 11, 2024 (responding to December 11, 2024 comments), available at:
https://norwalk.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId=b 2c07dae-ddde-4dc7-ad44-cebf2a4dd739.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
Dr. James Clark, Ph.D.,6 noise expert Jack Meighan,7 and transportation expert, Norm Marshall,8 Our review finds that the RIS/MND still fails to comply with CEQA.

These comments address legal and factual deficiencies in the RIS/MND and the Staff Report, and include expert evidence from air quality and hazards expert Dr. James Clark, Ph.D., noise expert, Jack Meighan, and transportation expert, Norm Marshall. These experts provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant air quality, health risk, noise, and transportation impacts that are not adequately disclosed and are not reduce to less than significant levels by the mitigation measures proposed in the RIS/MND.

In particular, Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated cumulative air quality impacts from DPM emissions. He also demonstrates that the City lacks substantial evidence that the Project will not result in significant operational emissions of NOx and CO2.

Mr. Meighan provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant, unmitigated operational and construction noise impacts. Mr. Meighan further explains that the RIS/MND fails to establish accurate baseline noise levels, underestimates operation noise impacts from HVAC units, and fails to analyze the Project’s construction noise increase over ambient noise levels as required by CEQA.

Mr. Marshall provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant transportation impacts. Mr. Marshall further explains that the City underestimates the trip generation from the existing uses on the Project site and improperly screens the Project from a VMT analysis.

In sum, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant and unmitigated environmental impacts. The City cannot approve the Project until the City complies with CEQA by preparing an EIR which fully discloses and mitigates all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. The

6 Exhibit A, James Clark, Comments on the Staff Report and RIS/MND for the Rexford Industrial Project (hereinafter “Clark Comments”).
7 Exhibit C, Jack Meighan, Review and Comments on the RIS/MND for the Rexford Industrial Project (hereinafter “Meighan Comments”).
8 Exhibit B, Norm Marshall, Comments on the Staff Report and RIS/MND for the Rexford Industrial Project (hereinafter “Marshall Comments”).

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
Commission also lacks substantial evidence to support the findings require to approve the Projects’ Precise Development Plan (“PDP”) under Section 17.02.205.D of the City’s municipal code.9

We respectfully request that the Commission continue the hearing until after the City has prepared and circulated an EIR that fully complies with CEQA and.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is a non-profit organization formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The organization’s members include Norwalk residents Alejandro Lopez, Wilfredo Gutirrez, and Phillip Templeton, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, and their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in and around the City of Norwalk and the Los Angeles region.

Individual members of CREED LA live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Norwalk and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.

Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

9 Norwalk Municipal Code (“NMC”) Section 17.02.205.D.1 requires the Commission to find that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will not adversely affect the present and future development of surrounding areas.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.

II. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE

PROJECT MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED IMPACTS

CEQA is designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project.10 “CEQA’s fundamental goal [is] fostering informed decision-making.”11

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA because it acts as an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.”12 The EIR aids an agency in identifying, analyzing, disclosing, and, to the extent possible, avoiding a project’s significant environmental effects through implementing feasible mitigation measures.13 The EIR also serves “to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the Agency has analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.”14 Thus, an EIR “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.”15

In limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR. However, because “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration…has a terminal effect on the environmental review process” by allowing the agency to dispense with the duty to prepare an EIR, negative declarations are allowed only in cases that satisfy the fair argument standard.16

10 CEQA Guidelines § 15002.
11 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 406; Public Resources Code § 21100.
12 Dunn-Edwards v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220. 13 Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a), (f). 14 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 86. 15 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 16 Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440; Pub. Res. Code October 8, 2025

7612-011j
The “fair argument” standard is an exceptionally “low threshold” favoring environmental review in an EIR rather than a negative declaration.17 Under the fair argument standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.18 The phrase “significant effect on the environment” is defined as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.”19 “Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”20As a matter of law, substantial evidence includes both expert and lay opinion.21

Accordingly, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but:

(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.22
With respect to this Project, the RIS/MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The RIS/MND fails to adequately disclose, investigate, and analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts during construction and operation, and fails to provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level.23 Additionally, as discussed in detail

§§ 21100, 21064.
17 Consolidated Irrigation District v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.
18 Pub. Res. Code §§21080(d), 21082.2(d); 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v.

City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601-1602.
19 Pub. Resources Code, § 21068.
20 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
21 Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (e)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(5). 22 Pub. Resources Code § 21064.5 (emphasis added).
23 Pub. Ressources Code § 21064.5.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
below, there is substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the Project may result in several potentially significant impacts. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR.

III. THE RIS/MND’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

SETTING IS INADEQUATE

The RIS/MND fails to adequately describe the environmental setting against which the Project’s environmental impacts are to be measured. This contravenes the fundamental purpose of the environmental review process, which is to determine whether there is a potentially substantial, adverse change compared to the existing setting.24 CEQA requires that a lead agency include a description of the physical environmental conditions, or “baseline,” in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time environmental review commences.25 As the courts have repeatedly held, the impacts of a project must be measured against the “real conditions on the ground.”26 The description of the environmental setting constitutes the “baseline” physical conditions against which the lead agency assesses the significance of a project’s impacts.27 An environmental setting is required “to give the public and decision makers the most accurate and understandable picture practically possible of the project’s likely near-term and long-term impacts.28

As discussed below, the RIS/MND fails to accurately describe the existing uses on the Project site resulting in an overestimated trip generation and fails to establish accurate baseline noise levels against which to compare the Project’s noise impacts.

A. The RIS/MND Fails to Accurately Describe Existing Uses Related to Trip Generation

The Project site is currently developed with two multi-tenant buildings totaling 89,870 SF, which are currently occupied by RV Storage Depot, an RV self-

24 CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d).
25 CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a); Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.
26 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.; Save Our Peninsula Com. V. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-22; City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Bd. Of Supervisors of Monterey County (986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246.
27 CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a); Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 48 Cal. 4th at 321.
28 CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a).

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
storage company.29 The RIS/MND estimates that the existing uses of these facilities generate 154 daily vehicle trips.30 However, the City uses an incorrect trip generation rate that is not representative of the existing uses on the Project site and it mischaracterizes the existing RV storage uses as 24/7 operations.

The RIS/MND improperly uses ITE warehousing trip generation rate category 150 to estimate the number of daily trips the existing use generates.31 As Mr. Marshall explains, the existing use at the Project site does not store materials, and therefore does not fall under the list of uses defined for the warehousing category, and does not generate truck trips related to transport of materials.32 In fact, Mr. Marshall comments that the current use of the Project as a self-storage facility does not match any of the categories in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.33 Given that there is no appropriate trip generation rate for the existing use, Mr.

Marshall recommends a traffic count be conducted at the Project site to accurately capture Project’s trip generation. This would likely result in a much lower trip generation rate than the one used in the RIS/MND.34 This is because the passive storage operations of the current RV Storage Depot generate little truck traffic and likely no 4+-axle trucks compared to the “warehousing” use analyzed in the RIS/MND.35 Use of a more accurate trip generate rate may also reveal significant impacts that were not disclosed or mitigated.

The Staff Report claims that the existing buildings on the Project site are accurately represented by the ITE 150 trip generation rate because they are permitted for warehousing uses and are utilized for storage.36 The City refers to pictures of the interior of each building located on pages 53 to 56 of Appendix G of the RIS/MND as evidence that each building is utilized for warehouse storage.37

Mr. Marshall explains that the Staff Report fails to adequately address the RIS/MND’s misapplication of the ITE warehousing trip generation rate for several reasons. First, the RIS/MND fails to describe the “existing conditions” in the Project vicinity as required by CEQA. 38 The photos referenced in the Phase 1

29 RIS/MND, p. 4.
30 Id.
31 RIS/MND, p. 111.
32 Marshall Comments, p. 2, 5.
33 Marshall Comments, p. 4.
34 Marshall Comments, p. 4.
35 Marshall Comments, p. 5.
36 Staff Report, Response L1.10, p. 183; Staff Report, Response L1.25, p. 188. 37 Staff Report, Response L1.10, p. 183; Staff Report, Response L1.25, p. 188. 38 14 Cal Code Regs §15125(a).

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
Environmental Site Assessment dated May 25, 2017, show past warehouse uses.39 Although the exact date of the images are unknown, it is likely that they were taken in 2017–the same year as the environmental impact report. Because the uses of the Project site in 2017 may differ greatly from the existing uses–RV storage–this fails to provide an accurate baseline against which to measure the significance of the Project’s environmental impacts.

Second, the RIS/MND fails to provide any information about how much of the Project site is allocated for each use (i.e., RV storage, self-storage, storage of materials).40 This is important because, as Mr. Marshall explains, the RV storage facility was operating in 2017 and thus it is possible that most of the site was used for RV storage/self-storage even then.41 As discussed above, the use of the Project site as a self-storage facility does not match any of the categories in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and underestimates the Project’s true impacts. Therefore, the RIS/MND still lacks substantial evidence to support a fair argument that its use of the ITE 150 warehouse category to calculate the Project’s baseline trip generation, rendering the RIS/MND’s assessment of baseline conditions unsupported.

The RIS/MND also mischaracterizes the existing uses on the Project site as 24/7 operations.42 Because of this, the City claims that the implementation of the proposed Project would not differ from the current uses on the Project site because both uses operate 24 hours a day.43 However, as Mr. Marshall explains, the RV Storage Depot is not open to the public 24/7.44 By characterizing the existing use as a 24/7 operation, this overestimates the existing trip rate.45 The Staff Report attempts to justify the RIS/MND’s mischaracterization by stating that, even though the RV Storage Depot is not open to the public 24/7, “existing onsite operations and site lighting occurs 24 hours a day.”46 However, this fails to adequately address Mr.

Marshall’s comment. As Mr. Marshall explains, because the “onsite operations” are not specified, they could be as limited as a single security guard.47 Having a lighted parking lot and a single employee onsite does not meet the definition of 24/7 operations.48 Furthermore, these existing “24/7 operations” are very different from

39 Marshall Comments, p. 5.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 RIS/MND, p. 37.
43 Id.
44 Marshall Comments, p. 5.
45 Id. at p. 5.
46 Staff Report, Response L1.10, pp. 183-184; Staff Report, Response1.25, p. 188. 47 Marshall Comments, p. 5.
48 Id.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
the 24/7 operations proposed at the Project site, which may be used for parcel hub or fulfillment center uses. For instance, Parcel Hub and Fulfillment Centers often involve delivery trucks bringing products to the warehouse during the day and night. In contrast, the existing site generates little traffic and likely no 4+-axle trucks at all.49 Thus, it is misleading to describe the existing uses on the Project site as operating 24 hours a day similar to the proposed Project.

For these reasons, the RIS/MND overestimates the existing trip generation at the Project site and thus does not have an accurate baseline against which to measure the Project’s significant impacts. The City must prepare an EIR that establishes an accurate baseline trip generation rate and mitigates any significant impacts found.

B. The RIS/MND Fails to Establish Accurate Baseline Noise Levels at the Project Site

The RIS/MND fails to accurately establish the baseline noise levels on the Project site. Mr. Meighan’s comments explain that environmental noise can vary widely throughout the day (perhaps +/- 10 dBA or more for areas with intermittent local traffic).50 Thus, an accurate noise baseline is critical to a meaningful assessment of a project’s impacts.51

Here, the RIS/MND’s noise analysis improperly relies on three short-term measurements – each of less than an hour in duration.52 Mr. Meighan identifies two errors in relying on these measurements.53 First, each measurement in the RIS/MND was likely about 15 minutes in length, which only represents 1% of a 24- hour period.54 Second, the RIS/MND lacks evidence showing that the three short- term measurements relied upon are representative of the rest of the day or even of worst case (quietest conditions).55

49 Id.
50 Meighan Comments, p. 3.
51 Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 CA4th 310, 336; Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 87 CA4th 99, 119. 52 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id. at p. 3.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
To correct these errors, Mr. Meighan explains that, because the RIS/MND states that the proposed Project will be operated 24 hours a day, baseline noise levels must be established for evening and nighttime conditions.56 Without this data, Mr. Meighan states that “it is not possible to evaluate the significance of noise based on increases over ambient levels” as required by CEQA.57 In order to determine a Project’s existing noise levels, Appendix E of the Federal Transit Administrations’ Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”) recommends a minimum of three one-hour Leq noise measures to estimate the 24-hour Ldn/CNEL during three distinct timeframes: peak-hour roadway traffic, midday, and nighttime.58 The City does not conduct a similar noise study despite this industry standard regulatory guidance. Because of the high variability in noise levels throughout the day, the RIS/MND’s current baseline noise measurements may overestimate the existing noise at the Project site, effectively masking potentially significant increases in noise that the Project may cause.59

Therefore, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant noise impacts. An EIR should be prepared that establishes accurate baseline noise levels and reanalyzes the Project’s expected noise levels against this baseline.

IV. THE RIS/MND FAILS TO ANALYZE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE

WAREHOUSE USES
The Project is proposed as a speculative warehouse without specific end uses or tenants.60 CEQA requires an environmental review document to include all relevant parts of a project, including future actions that will foreseeably result from project approval.61 Here, the RIS/MND fails to analyze impacts related to potential parcel hub or sort fulfillment center uses, which are not prohibited and thus reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project.

56 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
57 Meighan Comments, p. 2; King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 887, 893; Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 733 (holding that increase in noise level must be considered, not just absolute noise level). 58 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
59 Meighan Comments, p. 3.
60 RIS/MND, p. 21.
61 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 CA3d 1438; 14 CCR § 15126.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
Under CEQA, all phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including: planning, acquisition, development, and operations.62 An analysis of the environmental effects of future actions must be included if (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant.63 In Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court discussed the issue of what circumstances require consideration of future action related to the proposed project.64 There, the EIR acknowledged that the University of California in San Francisco in relocating the biomedical research facilities of its school of pharmacy would someday occupy more of the Laurel Heights building moved into than that portion identified in the EIR.65 The Supreme Court held that, since the remainder of the Laurel Heights building would at some future time be occupied by UCSF, the future expansion was a reasonably foreseeable future use, even if the precise use of the remainder of the building was then unknown; the future use needed to be discussed in the EIR.66

Similar to Laurel Heights, the RIS/MND fails to analyze reasonably foreseeable end uses of the proposed Project. Instead, the RIS/MND limits its analysis of the Project’s impacts, including in particular, transportation impacts, to only low-intensity warehouse uses.67 Specifically, in order to determine the trips generated by the proposed Project, the RIS/MND utilizes statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual for the proposed Project’s land uses.68 The RIS/MND derived the daily trip generation rate for this Project by applying two different trip generation rates: warehousing and general light industrial.69 Warehousing is one of the lowest trip generation rates among several trip generation rates available for warehouses.70 Mr. Marshall explains that because this Project is proposed as a speculative warehouse, if the Project site is used for parcel hub or sort fulfillment uses actual trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed in the RIS/MND.71

62 14 CCR § 15126.
63 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396. 64 Id.
65 Id.
66 Id. at p. 398.
67 RIS/MND, p. 111.
68 RIS/MND, p. 111.
69 RIS/MND, p. 111; Marshall Comments, p. 5.
70 Marshall Comments, p. 6.
71 Marshall Comments, p. 7.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
In response to CREED LA’s comments filed on December 11, 2024, the City claims that the Project would not include parcel hub or sort fulfillment uses.72 However, the City has not imposed any binding restrictions on these warehouse uses that would prevent them from occurring after Project buildout. One of the Project’s proposed Conditions of Approval (“COA”) states that “the proposed project may be designated for Warehouse use (ITE Land Use Code 150).”73 But, as Mr.

Marshall explains, this designation does not prevent the future use of the Project as a parcel hub or fulfillment center, nor does it restrict the truck and vehicle trips generated from these type of uses.74 ITE Land Use Code 150 is defined as a warehouse “primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas.”75 The parcel hub and fulfillment center warehouse categories, which have higher trip generation rates, also satisfy this generic definition of a “warehouse.”76 Therefore, the Project could reasonably be used as a parcel hub or fulfillment center. This would result in a significantly higher trip generation that needs to be disclosed and analyzed in an EIR.77

Due to the self-described “speculative” nature of the Project’s proposed end uses and the City’s failure to impose binding restrictions limiting the types of warehouse uses that may occur after Project buildout, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project may operate as a high-intensity warehouse. High intensity use would result in a higher trip generation rate than analyzed in the RIS/MND, resulting in potentially significant transportation impacts than discussed in the RIS/MND.

The City has a duty to analyze the impacts of all reasonably foreseeable warehouse uses of the Project site under CEQA. In this case, that includes higher intensity uses, such as parcel hub and fulfillment center uses. By omitting an analysis of these common warehouse uses, the RIS/MND fails to disclose and mitigate the more severe air quality, transportation, energy, and noise impacts that would result from these foreseeable uses, as required by CEQA.78 Further, adoption of a mitigation measure or COA does not excuse the City from its duty to analyze the potentially significant impacts that would result from parcel hub and fulfillment center uses. Rather, CEQA requires separate analysis of the Project’s unmitigated

72 Staff Report Attachment H, Response L1.7, p. 182
73 Resolution No. 25-13, Condition of Approval #13.
74 Marshall Comments, p. 2.
75 Marshall Comments, p. 2.
76 Marshall Comments, p. 2.
77 Marshall Comments, p. 2.
78 Marshall Comments, p. 2.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
and mitigated impacts.79 The City must prepare an EIR that properly analyzes the Project's reasonably foreseeable end uses and mitigates any potentially significant impacts identified.

V. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR

ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT,

UNMITIGATED AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated construction and operation-related air quality impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) and carbon dioxide (“CO2”) which the RIS/MND fails to accurately analyze . Dr. Clark also provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in significant cumulative health risks to nearby residences that the RIS/MND failed to mitigate.

A. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Operational NOx and CO2 Emissions

The RIS/MND fails to accurately calculate the number of forklifts that will be utilized onsite, leading to an underestimation of the Project’s potential operational emissions impacts. Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that NOx and CO2 emitted by forklifts during Project operation may result in significant impacts that must be disclosed and mitigated in an EIR.80

The City’s air quality analysis estimates that one compressed natural gas forklift will be used per 10,000 SF for operational purposes, leading to a total of fourteen forklifts.81 These fourteen forklifts are estimated to generate 1.61 tons of NOx and 323 tons of CO2.82 However, as Dr. Clark explains, this calculation relies on the lowest rate of forklift usage referenced in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) High-Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Results (“Summary”).83 The SCAQMD Summary

79 Lotus v. Dept of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656; . 80 Clark Comments, p. 2.
81 RIS/MND Appendix A, p. 2.
82 Clark Comments, p. 2.
83 Id.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
actually references a range of forklift usage rates, from a low of .2 forklifts per 10,000 sf to 4 forklifts per 10,000 sf.84 By only using the lower end of this range, the RIS/MND fails to analyze potentially significant operational impacts that could result after Project buildout.85

For instance, using the upper end of the range of forklifts reported by SCAQMD, Dr. Clark calculates that the Project could have as many as forty-six forklifts onsite.86 These thirty-two additional forklifts would generate an additional

3.68 tons of NOx and 608 tons of CO2 per year, resulting in potentially significant emissions.87 These emissions were not included in the RIS/MND’s emissions calculations, nor is mitigation proposed to ensure these emissions would remain below significance thresholds.

Because there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant operational impacts from emissions of NOx and CO2, the City must prepare an EIR.

B. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Result In Significant Cumulative Air Quality Impacts

The RIS/MND fails to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant cumulative air quality emissions by failing to consider the Project’s impacts in conjunction with existing warehouses near the Project site. Instead, the RIS/MND asserts that any projects that result in daily emissions that exceed any SCAQMD thresholds would have both an individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant air quality impact, while emissions that fall below those thresholds are considered less-than-significant.88 As a result, the RIS/MND concludes that the Project’s construction and operational emissions would be less-than-significant because they would not exceed the project-level thresholds.89 This approach is inadequate because it fails to analyze the Project’s cumulative effects with the existing and proposed development near the Project site in violation of CEQA, Attorney General warehouse guidance, and updated SCAQMD guidance.

84 Id.
85 Id.
86 Clark Comments, p. 2.
87 Clark Comments, p. 2
88 RIS/MND, pp. 43, 125.
89 RIS/MND, p. 43.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
Additionally, Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant cumulative impacts when Project emissions are considered together with the emissions of nearby warehouses.90

Under CEQA, an environmental review document must evaluate a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.”91 This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental impacts “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”92 Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources.

These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.”93

The RIS/MND’s approach has been rejected by the courts for failing to comply with CEQA’s requirement that a project mitigate impacts that are “cumulatively considerable.”94 A leading case on this issue is Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford.95 In Kings County, the city prepared an EIR for a 26.4-megawatt coal-fired cogeneration plant. Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR found that the project region was out of attainment for PM10 and ozone, the city failed to incorporate mitigation for the project’s cumulative air quality impacts from project emissions because it concluded that the Project would contribute “less than one percent of area emissions for all criteria pollutants.”96 The city reasoned that, because the project’s air emissions were small in ratio to existing air quality problems, that this necessarily rendered the project’s “incremental contribution” minimal under CEQA. The court rejected this approach, finding it “contrary to the intent of CEQA.” The court stated:

90 Clark Comments, pp. 2-3.
91 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a).
92 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
93 Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.
94 Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15130; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 719-21.
95 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (“Kings County”); see also, Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841-42. 96 Kings County, supra, at 719.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
We find the analysis used in the EIR and urged by GWF avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling. Under GWF's "ratio" theory, the greater the over-all problem, the less significance a project has in a cumulative impacts analysis. We conclude the standard for a cumulative impacts analysis is defined by the use of the term "collectively significant" in Guidelines section 15355 and the analysis must assess the collective or combined effect of energy development. The EIR improperly focused upon the individual project's relative effects and omitted facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality.97

The RIS/MND’s analysis is similarly flawed because it improperly focuses on the individual project’s relative effects and omits facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality. The Staff Report attempts to justify this omission by claiming that they are merely relying on SCAQMD’s recommended methodology because there is currently “no methodology to quantify the cumulative areawide or localized health risks within a community- wide area.”98

These assertions are specious, ignore standard air quality analysis methodology used in CEQA documents throughout the State, including in the City of Norwalk, and are not supported by substantial evidence. First, it is well established that an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts must consider the Project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and foreseeable

97 Id. at 721 (emphasis added) ; see also People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No.

CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp- content/uploads/case-documents/2021/20210723_docket-CIVSB2121829_petition-for-writ-of- mandate.pdf (“The MND’s cumulative air quality impact analysis does not account for —or even acknowledge—the multitude of other warehouses near the Project. Rather than consider the environmental setting within which the Project will be situated, the MND simply states tha t the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions because the Project’s individual air quality impacts will be less than significant. The MND even applies this reasoning to its analysis of health impacts from localized emissions, despite making no attempt to determine or disclose the severity of the existing health impacts from localized emissions in the community ”) 98 Staff Report, Response L1.16, p. 185; Staff Report, Response L1.32, p. 190.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
future projects within the Project’s vicinity.99 Therefore, the RIS/MND’s failure to consider the Project’s impacts in addition to impacts from existing warehouses within the Project’s vicinity violates the CEQA Guidelines.

Second, CEQA Guidelines state that “[c]ompliance with [a threshold of significance] does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.”100 Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant cumulative air quality impacts.101 Specifically, Dr. Clark identifies 19 existing warehouse projects within 5 kilometers of the Project site.102 Data from the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC shows that the existing projects generate 1,000 daily truck trips, producing 1.4 pounds (lbs) of DPM per day and 156 lbs of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day.103 Dr. Clark calculates that this would contribute .2 tons of DPM, which would be nearly 1.10 lbs of DPM per day.104 This essentially doubles the amount of DPM being released in the community, which is already in the top 7% of all communities in the State of California impacted by pollution.105 The City’s cumulative impact analysis does not discuss this fact and does not propose mitigation to address the Project’s further exacerbation of an already severe rate of exposure to pollutants in the area. The City’s failure to address these potentially significant cumulative health risks in the RIS/MND violates CEQA and the legal precedent of Kings County Farm Bureau.

The approach used in the RIS/MND also directly conflicts with the recent Attorney General guidance document setting forth best practices for evaluating the environmental impacts of warehouse projects, like this one, under CEQA.106 With respect to cumulative air quality and GHG emissions analysis, the Attorney

99 CEQA Guidelines § 15130; Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (updated September 2022) (, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf. 100 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15064(b)(2).
101 Clark Comments, pp. 2-3.
102 Id. at p. 2.
103 Id.
104 Id. at p. 3.
105 Id. at pp. 3-4.
106 CEQA Guidelines § 15130; Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, p. 7 (Updated September 2022) (“[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold.”), available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf October 8, 2025

7612-011j
General’s guidance states that best practices include “[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold.”107

Third, the RIS/MND attempts to argue that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(d)108, additional cumulative impacts analysis is not required because the City of Norwalk General Plan EIR thoroughly analyzed “areawide cumulative impacts related to industrial development in the City.”109 However, the proposed project analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR included “only the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County.”110 Here, the proposed Project is located within Norwalk, CA, which is an incorporated area of Los Angeles County.111 Therefore, the Norwalk General Plan EIR did not analyze the areawide cumulative impacts of the area that encompasses the proposed Project site and must conduct a separate cumulative impacts analysis for the Project as required by CEQA.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in cumulatively significant air quality impacts. To comply with CEQA, the City must (1) prepare an EIR that analyzes the Project’s impacts in combination with the 19 existing Projects identified and (2) mitigate any significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant, Unmitigated Cumulative Air Quality and Public Health Impacts Under the Draft SCAQMD Thresholds

The RIS/MND’s cumulative impacts analysis relies on a 2003 SCAQMD guidance document titled White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution.112 The City of Fontana was recently sued

107 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (updated September 2022) (, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf. 108 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(d) (“No further cumulative impacts analysis is required when a project is consistent with a general…plan where the lead agency determines that the regional or areawide cumulative impacts of the proposed project have already been adequately addressed.”). 109 RIS/MND, p. 125.
110 City of Norwalk General Plan EIR (2014), p. 1-5.
111 Auditor-Controller: Los Angeles County, Incorporated Areas Cities, available at:
https://auditor.lacounty.gov/incorporated-areas-cities/; County of Los Angeles, Cities within the County of Los Angeles, available at: https://redistricting.lacounty.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/1043530_09-10CitiesAlpha.pdf.
112 RIS/MND, Appendix B, p. 8.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
by the State Attorney General for erroneous reliance on this guidance.113 The Attorney General’s petition explained: “[t]o the extent that the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper asserts that any project with less than significant individual air quality impacts also necessarily has less than significant cumulative air quality impacts, it is inconsistent with CEQA.”114 The Attorney General’s litigation resulted in a settlement which requires compliance with an ordinance adopted on April 12, 2022 that establishes sustainability standards for warehouses in Fontana, including standards intended to address cumulative air quality impacts. For example, the standards include requirements that rooftop solar panels supply 100% of power for non-refrigerated portions of facilities with buildings over 400,000 square feet, trees in automobile parking areas, zero emission motorized operational equipment, other equipment electrification requirements, and solar-ready building roofs.115

SCAQMD is in the process of updating its guidance to reflect modern science and CEQA’s requirements, specifically referencing the City of Fontana case.116 SCAQMD’s November 6, 2024, Working Group’s draft cumulative impacts guidance recommends that agencies lower the cancer risk significance threshold to better reflect cumulative impacts.117 The draft SCAQMD protocols lower the cancer risk threshold from 10 in one million if certain factors reflecting high pollution burden are met.118 These factors include determining (1) the background cancer risk affecting the Project area via the SCAQMD Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES), (2) if there are 951 daily heavy-duty truck trips or more that would traverse the truck route, and (3) if the Project is located in a SB 535 disadvantaged community or an AB 617 community.119 The RIS/MND’s failure to consider pollution burden in its analysis of cumulative health risks thus violates CEQA.

113 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case- documents/2021/20210723_docket-CIVSB2121829_petition-for-writ-of-mandate.pdf. 114 Id.
115 Id., Stipulation For Entry Of Final Judgment On Consent, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/20220414_docket- CIVSB2121605-CIVSB2121829_stipulation.pdf.
116 SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting #6, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects, November 6, 2024, https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6- 20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13, pg. 4; see SCAQMD, Analyzing Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics in CEQA Documents, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy- development-(new).
117 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development-(new); https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6- 20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13.
118 Id.
119 SCAQMD, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No. 2023070241) (December 20, 2024), pp.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project’s health risk impacts would exceed SCAQMD’s draft cumulative impacts significance thresholds. Although new protocols have not yet been formally adopted, SCAQMD comments on similar warehouse projects recommending that the draft protocols be applied.120 This demonstrates that the new thresholds are supported by substantial evidence, unlike the outdated 2003 guidance.

The draft SCAQMD protocols include a flowchart lowering the cancer risk significance threshold (from 10 in one million) if certain factors reflecting high pollution burden are met.121 Dr. Clark applied the SCAQMD flowchart protocols and found that the Project’s impacts would be significant.122

Step 1 of the flowchart is to determine the background cancer risk affecting the Project area via the SCAQMD Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES”).

Per the MATES V Data Visualization Tool, the location of the Project site is in the 85th percentile of highest cancer risks in the South Coast Air Basin (“SCAB”), with a cancer risk of 546 in one million.123 Per the draft thresholds, areas experiencing a background excess cancer risk in the 90th to 50th percentile would result in a drop of the Cancer Risk Threshold from 10 in one million to 5 in one million.124

Step 2 of the WG 6 flow diagram is to determine if there are 951 daily heavy- duty truck trips or more that would traverse the truck route to the freeway with Existing + Project + Future volumes.125 As currently analyzed in the RIS/MND, the Project would not exceed 951 heavy duty truck trips.126 Step 3 is to determine if the Project is located in an SB535 disadvantage community or an AB617 community. If the project is within such an area, then the threshold would be reduced from 5 in one million to 3 in one million.127 Dr. Clark

2-62–2-63, available at: https://www.cityofbrea.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17864/DJT4-Parcel- Delivery-Facility-Final-EIR-.
120 Id.
121 SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting #6, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects, November 6, 2024.
122 Clark Comments, pp. 5-6.
123 Id.
124 Clark Comments, p. 8.; SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting #6, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects, November 6, 2024, pg. 8.
125 Id.
126 RIS/MND, Appendix B, pdf p. 297; Clark Comments, p. 9. 127 Clark Comments, p. 9.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
demonstrates that the Project is located in an SB535 community.128 This lowers the significance threshold from 5 in one million to 3 in one million.

The RIS/MND calculates that the cancer risk from the Project’s DPM emissions during operation would be as high as 6.22 in one million for the residences near the Project site, while the Project’s combined construction and operational cancer risk would be as high as 6.5 in one million.129 These health risk impacts would exceed the 3 in one million significance threshold applicable to the Project and require mitigation.

The City fails to propose any mitigation that would ensure cumulative health risks are reduced to less than significant levels. In order to mitigate these impacts, Dr. Clark recommends that the City require Tier 4 final construction equipment.130 Dr. Clark also provides a list of other mitigation measures that should be implemented to ensure impacts are reduced, including, but not limited to: anti- idling rules, installing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations, and lower speed limits within the vicinity of the Project.131
This constitutes substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant impacts that require disclosure and mitigation in an EIR.

VI. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR

ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT,

UNMITIGATED NOISE IMPACTS

A. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument That The Project May Have Significant, Unmitigated Construction Noise Impacts

The RIS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s construction noise impacts to identify the increase above ambient noise levels in violation of CEQA.132 This also violates the FTA guidelines, which state that “Project construction criteria should

128 Id.
129 RIS/MND, Appendix B, p. 26.
130 Clark Comments, p. 10.
131 Id. at p. 11.
132 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v County of Kern (2020) 45 CA5th 814, 887,893; Keep Our Mountains Quiet v County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 CA4th 714, 733 (holding that increase in noise level must be considered, not just absolute noise level).

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use.”133

Section 9.04.140(B) of the City’s Noise Ordinance states that a measured noise level exceeding the ambient noise level at the property line of any residential land by more than 5 dB is a violation of the noise regulations. Here, the projected construction noise level is only evaluated against the FTA guideline criteria of 80 dBA.134 As discussed above, the measured ambient noise level may not be representative of the rest of the day.135 Because of this, a more accurate baseline noise level may reveal an increase in ambient noise above the City’s 5 dB threshold.

This renders the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in significant noise impacts unsupported136 This also constitutes substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the Project may result in a significant noise impact that must be evaluated in an EIR.

Additionally, the RIS/MND improperly states that the Norwalk Noise Ordinance exempts construction related activities from noise regulations provided the activities take place during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever is later.137 Municipal Code Section 9.04.150(E) does not state that construction activities conducted during certain hours are exempt from noise regulations. Section 9.04.150(E) provides that construction activities are unlawful if conducted “other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or sunset” unless the Applicant receives a permit from the Building Official or Director of Community Development.138 Therefore, the general noise regulations in Municipal Code Section 9.04.140 do apply and must be used to ensure the Project does not result in significant, unmitigated impacts.139

133 Meighan Comments, p. 3.
134 RIS/MND, p. 98; Meighan Comments, p. 3.
135 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
136 RIS/MND, p. 97; Meighan Comments, p. 3.
137 RIS/MND, p. 98.
138 Norwalk Municipal Code § 9.04.150(E).
139 Municipal Code § 9.04.140(B) (“Prima Facie Violation. An average noise level reading measured pursuant to Section 9.04.130 which exceeds the ambient noise level at the property line of any residential land (or if a condominium or apartment house, within any adjoining apartment) by more than five decibels shall be deemed to be prima fade evidence of a violation of the provisions of this article.”).

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
Therefore, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant, unmitigated construction noise impacts. The City must prepare an EIR that properly analyzes the Project’s noise impacts and mitigates any significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

B. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant, Unmitigated Operational Noise Impacts

The RIS/MND relies on unrealistic equipment assumptions, resulting in underestimation of the Project’s operational noise impacts. Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant, unmitigated operational noise impacts that must be analyzed in an EIR.

First, the RIS/MND assumes that the Project will use rooftop HVAC units to only cool the office areas of the proposed warehouse.140 The RIS/MND lacks substantial evidence to support this assumption because the Project is a speculative warehouse, which means that more HVAC units may be required depending on what the actual end uses are.141 For instance, according to the American Society of Heating Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, the minimum ventilation rate for warehouses is .06 CFM per square foot, per person, which must be adjusted for occupancy rates, indoor air quality, and other factors.142 Based on the Project’s square footage of 138,972 and expected employees of 107, Mr. Meighan calculates that the Project would need at least twenty-two 25-ton units (spread out across the roof) to properly ventilate the space.143 Accordingly, Mr. Meighan found that the projected operational noise level expected from twenty-two HVAC units is 41-51 dBA at a distance of 1,020 feet, which is 21 to 31 dB higher than the RIS/MNDS’s 20 dB projection for rooftop noise.144

Second, the RIS/MND says that part of the warehouse may be used for cold storage145, but fails to adequately analyze the cooling equipment needs for this use.

Cold storage has significantly different needs than office spaces.146 Because of this, Mr. Meighan explains that if a portion of the warehouse space is used for cold

140 Meighan Comments, p .3.
141 Id. at p. 3; RIS/MND, p. 21.
142 Meighan Comments, pp. 3-4.
143 Id. at p. 4.
144 Id.
145 RIS/MND, p. 21.
146 Meighan Comments, p. 3.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
storage, air cooled chillers would be required in addition to standard HVAC units.147 The RIS/MND fails to analyze the potential impacts that would result from the use of both air-cooled chillers and standard HVAC units. The typical sound power level for an air-cooled scroll chiller (“chiller units”) can be up to 100 dBA.148 If four of the twenty-two 25-ton HVAC units are replaced with chiller units (approximately 20% of the rooftop units), then the projected noise level from the rooftop units is 49 to 52 dBA at a distance of 1,020 feet.149 This is 29 to 32 dBA higher than the RIS/MND’s 20 dB projection for rooftop noise.150

Third, Mr. Meighan highlights that the RIS/MND did not measure the nighttime ambient noise level for the Project and thus it is unknown.151 Because of this, it is also unknown whether the noise levels due to the rooftop HVAC equipment would be higher than the existing ambient noise levels.152 Mr. Meighan explains that the City must analyze this because high nighttime HVAC equipment noise levels can be disruptive and disturb sleep, which poses a potentially significant impact that the RIS/MND failed to analyze.153

Furthermore, as discussed above, the City’s Noise Ordinance states that a significant operational noise impact would occur with a 5 dB increase in ambient noise.154 Mr. Meighan provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that this threshold may be exceeded, resulting in a significant, unmitigated noise impact.155 The City of Norwalk Municipal Code presumes an ambient noise level no lower than 45 dBA at night and 55 dBA during the day for residential zones.156 The RIS/MND currently projects HVAC equipment noise levels of 20 dBA at the nearest residential receiver, below the nighttime ambient noise level of 45 dBA.157 But, if the projected noise level due to rooftop HVAC equipment uses more realistic equipment assumptions, noise levels due to rooftop HVAC units could be as high as 51 dBA.158 This is more than 5 dB above the presumed ambient noise level, which is a significant impact that the RIS/MND fails to disclose and mitigate.159 Similarly, if

147 Id. at p. 4.
148 Id.
149 Id.
150 Id.
151 Id. at p. 5.
152 Id.
153 Id.
154 Norwalk Municipal Code § 9.04.140(B).
155 Meighan Comments, p. 5.
156 Norwalk Municipal Code § 9.04.120(B); Meighan Comments p. 5. 157 Meighan Comments, p. 5.
158 Id.
159 Id.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
the projected noise level due to both rooftop HVAC and chiller units uses more realistic equipment assumptions, Mr. Meighan calculates that the noise level could be as high as 52 dBA.160 This is more than 6 dB above the presumed ambient noise level, which is also a significant impact that the RIS/MND fails to disclose and mitigate.161

Therefore, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant operational noise impacts. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that properly analyzes and mitigates these potentially significant impacts.

C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project’s Roadway Noise Impacts May be Significant and Unmitigated

The RIS/MND lacks substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project’s traffic noise impacts will be less than significant.162 The Project’s traffic noise impacts are underestimated and potentially significant because they rely on inaccurate trip generation data. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic.163

Here, the RIS/MND’s analysis of the Project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project.164 However, as discussed above, the RIS/MND overestimates the average daily trips (“ADT”) from the existing land uses on the Project site. Without an accurate baseline trip generation rate, it is impossible to accurately establish the volume of traffic that would result from the Project. If a traffic count is conducted at the existing land use, the real trip generation rate would likely be much lower than assumed in the RIS/MND. Because estimating the level of traffic noise relies on traffic volume, the RIS/MND’s offsite traffic noise impact is underestimated and potentially significant.

In addition to masking the net daily trips generated by the Project by overestimating trips from the existing use, the RIS/MND underestimates the gross number of trips generated by the Project by low-intensity categories of warehouse uses. As Mr. Marshall’s chart below demonstrates, the RIS/MND assumes a trip

160 Id.
161 Id.
162 RIS/MND, p. 100.
163 RIS/MND, p. 100.
164 RIS/MND, p. 100.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
generation rate of 1.71 per 1,000 sf for warehousing, which is lower than many other categories of warehouse uses possible for the Project.165 For example, the Project would have a trip generation rate of 4.63 if used as a parcel hub or 6.44 if used as a fulfillment center. Because the RIS/MND underestimates the gross daily trips generated by the Project, traffic noise is underestimated and potentially significant.

Furthermore, Mr. Meighan identified an error in the RIS/MND’s analysis of the Project’s offsite traffic noise impacts.166 The RIS/MND states that “[i]n order for project-generated vehicular traffic to increase the noise level on any of the nearby roads…by 1.5 dBA, the ADT would have to increase by 50 percent.”167 Mr. Meighan explains that this is incorrect and that a 50 percent increase in the ADT would increase the noise level by 1.76 dBA.168 This error further calls into question the validity of the RIS/MND’s noise analysis.

For these reasons, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant roadway noise impacts, requiring preparation of an EIR. The City must (1) analyze the Project’s potential traffic noise impacts using accurate baseline trip generation data and calculations and (2) mitigate any significant impacts found prior to Project approval.

165 RIS/MND, p. 111.
166 Meighan Comments, p. 5.
167 RIS/MND, p. 100.
168 Meighan Comments, p. 5.

1.40 1.71 1.81 2.12

4.63 6.44

1.71 154 Transload
and Short-
Term Storage
Warehouse
150
Warehousing
155
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
157 Cold
Storage
Warehouse
156 Parcel
Hub
Warehouse
155
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
MND
October 8, 2025

7612-011j
D. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT

THAT THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT,

UNMITIGATED TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS

The City improperly concludes that a transportation VMT analysis does not need to be prepared for the Project.169 To support this conclusion, the City relies on Section 3.1.2.3 of the Los Angeles County guidelines, which states that non-retail projects that generate fewer than 110 net daily passenger trips are generally exempt from preparing a VMT analysis.170 The RIS/MND claims that the Project screens out of a VMT analysis because the Project would only generate 99 net new trips per day.171

However, this calculation is based on the assumption that the existing land use on the Project site generates 112 passenger trips per day.172 As discussed more fully above and in Mr. Marshall’s comments, the RIS/MND mischaracterizes the existing uses on the Project site and utilizes an incorrect trip generation rate. As a result, the trip generation from the existing land uses on the Project site are overestimated.173

Additionally, the RIS/MND underestimates the trips that would be generated by the new Project by relying on a low, unsupported trip generation rate.174 If a more accurate trip generation rate was used, the proposed Project would likely be found to generate more than the threshold of 110 net new trips per day, which requires a full VMT analysis.175 For example, if the Parcel Hub trip generation rate of 4.63 daily trips per day is substituted for the warehouse rate applied in the RIS/MND, the Project would generate 678 daily trips instead of the currently estimated 339 daily trips.176 This new trip generation includes 603 passenger vehicle trips, which when subtracted from the current existing use passenger trip estimate of 112, would result in a new net passenger trip generation rate of 491.177 This far exceeds the 110 net daily passenger trips screening threshold and requires a VMT analysis to be conducted.178

169 RIS/MND, p. 110.
170 RIS/MND, p. 110.
171 RIS/MND, p. 110.
172 Marshall Comments, p. 7.
173 Marshall Comments, p. 7.
174 Id.
175 Id.
176 Marshall Comments, pp. 7-8.
177 Id.
178 Id.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
Mr. Marshall further explains that the site plan supports a much higher trip generation than assumed in the RIS/MND.179 For instance, the RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate 339 daily trips including 211 passenger vehicle trips per day.180 This equates to 105.5 daily round trips.181 In contrast, the Project includes 141 passenger car parking spaces.182 This would mean that the parking lot would never be more than 75% full.183 And, because of the nature of typical warehouse operations, which includes things like drop-offs, pick-ups, or business service visits, Mr. Marshall explains that the parking lot would likely have much more excess capacity than 25%.184 Therefore, the Project could generate more than 110 net trips a day.185

For these reasons, the RIS/MND lacks substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project would not result in significant VMT impacts. The City must prepare an EIR that conducts a VMT analysis and mitigates any significant impacts found.

E. THE RIS/MND IMPERMISSIBLY DEFERS ANALYSIS OF THE
PROJECT’S FIRE FLOW CAPACITY

The RIS/MND fails to adequately analyze whether the Project meets applicable fire flow requirements and instead defers this analysis until after Project approval in violation of CEQA. Fire flow refers to the rate of a water supply that is available at surrounding fire hydrants for firefighting purposes.

Under CEQA, a public utilities impact is considered significant if a project would “[r]equire or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.”186

Additionally, Norwalk General Plan Utility Policy 3-3 requires “the provision of adequate fire flow rates in all new development.” Thus, failure to ensure adequate fire flow is inconsistent with the City’s own General Plan.

179 Id. at p. 8.
180 Marshall Comments, p. 8; RIS/MND, Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8. 181 Marshall Comments, p. 8.
182 Marshall Comments, p. 8; RIS/MND, p. 27.
183 Marshall Comments, p. 8.
184 Id.
185 Id.
186 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (“Utilities and Service Systems”).

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
The RIS/MND states that “the Project would install 590 linear feet of a 12- inch water line… for fire water service.”187 The RIS/MND goes on to state that “[t]he analysis of the construction activities related to the proposed water service line is included as a part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this [RIS/MND].”188 This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence that supports a fair argument of no significant impacts because the RIS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s fire flow requirement or the ability of existing infrastructure to supply adequate fire flow.

The City claims that the Los Angeles County Fire Department (“LACoFD”) reviewed and approved the proposed water line along with a fire flow assessment.189 However, the City fails to attach the fire flow assessment to its response, or include any other evidence of LACoFD’s approval. Thus, the City lacks the substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project will have adequate fire flow. In fact, the City’s own Conditions of Approval (“COA”) indicate that this analysis has not been conducted and is instead planned for after Project approval. Specifically, COA 29 states:

prior to issuance of any development plans, the applicant is required to contact Los Angeles County Fire Department…and obtain the fire flow and access requirements for any proposed development. The applicant will also be required to contact the City of Norwalk Water Division to determine the existing fire flow rate in this area. If the existing fire flow capabilities are below the required minimum, the applicant shall provide the necessary means for meeting the fire flow rates required by the Fire Department.190

This violates CEQA’s prohibition against deferred analysis. “By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. 191 CEQA documents should be prepared with enough analysis to provide decisionmakers with the information necessary to make an informed decision that considers the environmental consequences.192 While the evaluation of environmental effects need not be exhaustive, the sufficiency of an CEQA analysis is assessed based on what is reasonably feasible.193 A lead agency may determine

187 RIS/MND, pp. 22, 89, 116.
188 RIS/MND, p. 116.
189 RIS/MND, pp. 89, 105.
190 Norwalk Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-13, p. 10. 191 Sundstrom (1998) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 305.
192 CEQA Guidelines § 15151.
193 Id.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
that an impact is too speculative for evaluation after considering whether a reasonably feasible analysis of the impact can be conducted.194 However, when a standard, accepted methodology is available to assess a significant impact, the agency must evaluate that impact unless a reasoned basis for not doing so is provided.195

Therefore, the City must conduct this analysis before the Project can be considered for approval. This is particularly important because if the 12-inch water line planned for the Project is inadequate to provide the requisite fire flow, it may need to be upsized. These improvements would result in construction-related impacts greater than analyzed in the RIS/MND. Additionally, inadequate fire flow would result in increased fire severity, limiting firefighting capabilities, increased loss of life and property, and increased risk of fire spread—a significant impact under CEQA. Without an evaluation of the Project’s fire flow, this Project’s public utility impact remains unanalyzed and potentially significant.

F. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT

THAT THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT,

UNMITIGATED ENERGY IMPACTS

The RIS/MND concludes that the construction and operational energy impacts of the Project would be less than significant.196 This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because it fails to comply with CEQA’s requirement to analyze energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project.

CEQA requires an environmental document to discuss mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts, including “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.”197 The CEQA Guidelines require discussion of energy conservation measures when relevant, and provide the following examples in Appendix F:

194 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15144, 15145; East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (20230 89 CA5th 1226, 1249-1251; City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 CA4th 889, 914; Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 CA4th 1173, 1182. 195 Berkeley Jet (2001) 91 CA4th 1344, 1370.
196 RIS/MND, pp. 58-59.
197 Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 930.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
• Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. • The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste.
• The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
• Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. • Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.198

Courts have rejected CEQA documents that fail to include adequate analysis investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for a project.199 In California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”), the Court of Appeal reviewed an EIR for a shopping center on undeveloped agricultural land.200 The EIR in CCEC concluded that, due to the proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 guidelines and regulations, the project would be expected to have a less-than-significant impact regarding the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.201 But the lead agency’s EIR did not include discussion regarding the different renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project.202 The Court held “the City's EIRs failed to comply with the requirements of Appendix F to the Guidelines by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.”203 The lead agency argued that compliance with the Building Code sufficed to address energy impact concerns for the project.204 But the Court explained:

Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of a new commercial construction, it does not address many of the considerations required under Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines… These considerations include whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope. Here, a

198 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”). 199 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256; Spring Valley Lake Ass’n v.

City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91.
200 CCEC (2014) 225 CA4th 173.
201 Id. at 184.
202 Id. at 213.
203 Id. at 213.
204 Id. at 210, 211.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
requirement that Gateway II comply with the Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of the project.205

The Supreme Court agreed with the CCEC court’s decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer (“League to Save Lake Tahoe”), holding that even projects that find a less-than-significant energy impact must “discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project.”206 In Save Lake Tahoe, the Court considered an EIR for a land use specific plan and rezoning to permit residential and commercial development and preserve forest land near Truckee and Lake Tahoe.207 The EIR did not consider whether it was feasible to power the project on 100 percent renewable electrical energy or some lesser percentage, nor evaluate strategies for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, increasing reliance on renewable resources, reducing peak loads, and reducing the impacts of relying on remote generation facilities.208 The lead agency reasoned that this analysis was not required because energy impacts would be less than significant.209 Citing CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, subdivision (b) and the decision in CCEC, the Court held that when an EIR analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project.210 The Court found that the EIR violated CEQA for not discussing whether the project could increase its reliance on renewable energy sources to meet its energy demand.211

Here, the RIS/MND concludes that the Project’s construction and operational energy impacts would be less than significant because the building would be designed and constructed in accordance with the State’s Title 24 guidelines and regulations.212 As the case’s above demonstrate, compliance with Title 24 regulations alone does not support a conclusion that energy impacts are less than significant. Additionally, similar to League to Save Lake Tahoe, the City does not discuss any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the Project.

For example, use of Tier 4 engines during construction or installing solar panels.

205 Id. at 211.
206 League to Save Lake Tahoe (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167–68. 207 Id. at 70.
208 Id. at 165-166.
209 Id. at 166.
210 Id. at 167-168.
211 Id. at 168.
212 RIS/MND, pp. 58-59.

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
The Staff Report attempts to justify this omission by claiming that the analysis in the RIS/MND provides an adequate discussion of renewable energy features because the Project would be designed to achieve LEED Gold certification and would be designed with a solar-ready roof.213 But the City’s response is inadequate for several reasons. First, the requirement to achieve LEED Gold Certification is not included as a mitigation measure, a condition of approval, or in the Project’s mitigation monitoring or reporting program. Therefore, these requirements are not binding.

Second, stating that the Project would meet LEED Gold Certification fails to provide any specifics about the different types of renewable energy options that are available for the Project. LEED Gold Certification is obtained through achieving points through the use of renewable energy and energy efficient systems.214 There are no requirements for what renewable energy and energy efficient systems must be implemented. Rather, the only requirement to obtain Gold Certification is that a total of 60-79 points be earned.215 Thus, this does not guarantee that the measures chosen will go beyond what is already required by Title 24 and it fails to satisfy CEQA’s requirement that a Project’s energy impacts analysis include a discussion regarding the different renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the Project.216

Third, including a solar-ready roof, which suggests that solar panels could be installed after the Project is constructed, does not guarantee subsequent installation and the RIS/MND lacks a discussion of whether these or any other renewable energy features could be incorporated into the Project in order to meet the energy demand as required by CEQA.217 For example, the RIS/MND fails to consider installing solar panels during Project construction or discuss why installing solar panels as part of the Project is not being considered.

213 Staff Report Attachment H, Responses L1.19 and L1.20, p. 187; RIS/MND pp. 58-59, 88. 214 U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., Guide to LEED Certification: Commercial (last visited 2/2/25), available at: https://www.usgbc.org/tools/leed-certification/commercial. 215 U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., Guide to LEED Certification: Commercial (last visited 2/2/25), available at: https://www.usgbc.org/tools/leed-certification/commercial. 216 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”); California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173; League to Save Lake Tahoe (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63.
217 League to Save Lake Tahoe (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167–68 (holding that when an EIR analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project that could increase the Project’s reliance on renewable energy sources to meet its energy demand).

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
The City also fails to discuss other potentially available renewable energy technology, such as incorporating a battery energy storage system, using biofuels for construction vehicles and generators, or using electric or hybrid construction equipment. Additionally, the City deleted the original IS/MND’s proposed mitigation measure AQ-1, which would have required Tier 4 construction equipment be used. Tier 4 equipment are more energy efficient then lower tiers of construction equipment.218 The City did not explain why this measure was deleted or provide any evidence to support a conclusion that it is no longer a feasible energy conservation measure. Failure to include a discussion about potential renewable energy options, even when a Project’s energy impacts would be less than significant, violates CEQA.219

Fourth, Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a project may result in significant energy impacts depending on “the degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.”220

The RIS/MND states that the Project would comply with existing energy standards because it would comply with Title 24 standards, but fails to evaluate the feasibility of meeting voluntary standards described in Appendix A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen”). These standards include energy consumption measures applicable to this project. Appendix A4 A5 describes two tiers of voluntary measures – Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 2 standards would result in greater reductions in energy consumption.

CALGreen Section A5.106.5.1.2 calls for 50% spaces to be reserved for clean air vehicles. CALGreen Section A5.106.5.3 calls for an increased number of EV capable spaces, depending on the total number of spaces.221 Tier 2 standards require large projects with 201 or more parking spaces to provide 45% EV capable spaces.222 CALGreen Section A5.203.1.2 sets energy budgets that are less than permitted by the mandatory Title 24 energy standards.223 CALGreen Section A5.303.2.3 calls for reductions in water consumption by requiring plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings that would reduce the use of potable water by 20% in the case of Tier 2 standards.224 These measures and others in Appendix A5 are potentially applicable to Project.

218 Sustainable Nine, Energy Efficiency Tier Rating: What you Need to Know, available at:
https://sustainable9.com/news/energy-efficiency-tier-
rating#:~:text=Tier%20Two%2C%20Three%2C%20and%20Four,CEE%20Energy%20Rating . 219 League to Save Lake Tahoe (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 167-68. 220 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, subd. II (C)(4).
221 CALGreen, Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1
222 Table A5.106.5.3.1, A5.106.5.3.2.
223 CALGreen Sections A5.203.1.2.1, A5.203.1.2.2.
224 CALGreen Sections A5.303.2.3.1, A5.303.2.3.2
October 8, 2025

7612-011j
The RIS/MND’s statement that it would meet LEED Gold standards does not address consistency with the CalGreen voluntary standards. The RIS/MND’s analysis is thus incomplete and not supported by substantial evidence that supports a fair argument because it does not contain any evidence that these measures are inapplicable to the Project or would be infeasible to implement.

In sum, the RIS/MND’s energy analysis fails to adequately analyze measures that would reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, and fails to meaningfully address Appendix F’s considerations of whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building’s envelope.225 This analysis must be provided in an EIR.

G. THE CITY CANNOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS TO
APPROVE THE PROJECT’S ENTITLEMENTS
The Project requires the City to approve the RIS/MND and PDP.226 However, as discussed herein, the RIS/MND fails to adequately analyze or mitigate several significant environmental impacts. As a result, the City cannot make the requisite findings to approve the Project’s PDP.

A PDP may only be approved if it complies with the Norwalk Municipal Code and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or adversely affect property values or the present and future development of surrounding areas.227 If the proposed development is found to substantially depreciate property values or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity—due to excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding vicinity—such findings may endanger the public health, safety, convenience and welfare and may be cause for denial of a PDP.228
As detailed herein, and in the expert consultant reports attached hereto, the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts which cause inconsistencies with the Municipal Code. In particular, the City violates the Municipal Code by failing to analyze whether the Project increases the existing noise levels by more than 5dB.229

225 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256, 264. 226 RIS/MND, p. 23.
227 Norwalk Municipal Code § 17.02.205(D).
228 Id.
229 Norwalk Municipal Code § 9.04.140(B).

October 8, 2025

7612-011j
There is also substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the Project will result in detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the public by interfering with the use or enjoyment of property in the Project’s vicinity.

Specifically, the Project may result in significant, unmitigated related to (1) health risk from DPM emissions, (2) excessive construction noise, and (3) heightened VMT, and (4) inadequate fire flow. The City therefore cannot make the necessary findings to support approval of the Project’s entitlements, absent additional analysis and mitigation of the Project’s significant environmental impacts in an EIR.

H. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant air quality, noise, transportation, public utility, and energy impacts that were not adequately analyzed or mitigated in the RIS/MND. In order to comply with CEQA, the City must prepare and circulate an EIR that provides legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts.

CREED LA respectfully requests that the Commission continue the hearing on the Project, and remand the Project to staff to prepare an EIR. Until an EIR has been prepared and circulated, the City may not lawfully approve the Project.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,

Alaura McGuire

ARM:ljl

EXHIBIT A
1 October 7, 2025

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080

Attn: Ms. Alaura R. McGuire
Subject: Comments On Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( RIS/MND) for the 14830
Carmenita Road Warehouse Project, Norwalk,
California 90650 and the Staff Report for the October 8, 2024 Norwalk Planning Commission Hearing
At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (“ABJC”), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed the Staff Report for the October 8, 2024, Norwalk Planning Commission hearing and the air quality, health risk, and GHG impact analysis for the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“ RIS/MND”) for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (“Project”).

Clark’s review does not constitute validation or endorsement of the conclusions or content presented in the RIS/MND. Any lack of comment on specific item s should not be interpreted as acceptance or approval of those items.

Specific Comments

1. The Air Quality Analysis Provided In The RIS/MND Fails To Accurately Calculate The Number Of Forklifts That Will Be Utilized Onsite.

On page 2 of the Revised Air Quality/Energy/GHG Summary1,

1 EPD. 2025. Revised Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Carmenita Norwalk Project EPD Project Number 23-078. Memorandum to City of Norwalk Development prepared by A.J. Garber and E.

Chambers. Dated 1/2/2025. Pg 2
Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
EMAIL
[email protected]
2 EPD Solutions Inc. (EPD) states that based on the SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Results,2 1 compressed natural gas (CNG) forklift will be used per 10,000 square feet (sf) for operational purposes. EPD calculated that 14 forklifts will be utilized , which will generate 1.61 tons of oxide of nitrogen (NOx) and 323 tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq). However, the referenced document shows that the rate of forklift usage ranges from a low of 0.2 forklifts per 10,000 sf to 4 forklifts per 10,000 sf (Table 9 ). The RIS/MND’s estimate only uses the low end of this range. Using the upper end of the range of forklifts reported by SCAQMD, the Project could have as many as 46 forklifts onsite. These 46 forklifts would generate 5.29 tons of NOx and 1,061 tons of CO2eq. This is an addition al 3.68 tons of NOx and 608 tons of CO2 per year than what was analyzed in the RIS/MND. In order to accurately analyze the Project’s potentially significant operational impacts, the City must prepare an EIR that includes these unaccounted-for emissions of NOx and CO2eq.

2. The City’s Cumulative Impact Analysis Fails To Incorporate A Quantitative Analysis For The Substantial Impacts From Nearby Warehouse Projects.

The RIS/MND does not analyze the cumulative impact of the p roposed Project with existing warehouse projects in the area. According to data from the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC (presented on the Warehouse CITY website) 3, within 5 km of the Project Site there are 19 existing warehouses covering 1,480,000 square feet (this includes the existing buildings on the Project Site). There are also 2 more vacant warehouses (totaling 120,000 sq ft). The existing projects within 5 kilometers (km) of the Project site generate 1,000 daily truck trips, producing

1.4 lbs of DPM per day and 156 lbs of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day

2 SCAQMD. 2014. High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Results. 3 Warehouse City v. 1.21. Accessed October 6, 2025. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ 3 Figure 1: Warehouses Near Project Site

According to the City’s CalEEMod analysis the Project would contribute 0.2 tons of DPM (this would be 400 lbs or nearly 1.10 lbs of DPM per day). This would effectively double the amount of DPM being released in the community and would be a significant impact for the area. The City’s cumulative impacts analysis does not address the doubling of emissions, therefore the City must consider these significant impacts in an EIR for the Project.

3. The Project Site Is Located In The Top 7% Of Zipcodes In California For Exposure To Air Pollutants, The Top 24% For Exposure To PM 2.5, And Is In The Top 15% Of Zipcodes In The South Coast Air Basin For Exposure To Diesel Particulate Matter

The Project Site is located in census tract 6037552400 (zip code 90650). Using the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA’s) California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool Version·4.0 (CalEnviroScreen) it is possible to assess the existing concerns for

4 the census tract in which the Project is located.

Figure 2: Enviroscreen 4.0 Map Of Project Site

Based on the CalEnviroScreen summary of zipcode 90650, it is clear that the area is in the top 7% of all communities in the State of California impacted by pollution.

The Project site is also located in a Senate Bill 535, Disadvantaged Community. According to CalEPA, there are four categories of geographic areas as disadvantaged:

1. Census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (1,984 tracts).

2. Census tracts lacking overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 due to data gaps, but receiving the highest 5 percent of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 cumulative pollution burden scores (19 tracts).

3. Census tracts identified in the 2017 DAC designation as disadvantaged, regardless of their

5 scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (307 tracts).

4. Lands under the control of federally recognized Tribes. For purposes of this designation, a Tribe may establish that a particular area of land is under its control even if not represented as such on CalEPA’s DAC map and therefore should be considered a DAC by requesting a consultation with the CalEPA Deputy Secretary for Environmental Justice, Tribal Affairs and Border Relations at [email protected].

Figure 3: SB-535 Disadvantaged Communities And Project Location

According to the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) study, zip code 90650 (the location of the Project Site) has a cumulative cancer risk of 546 in 1 million placing it in the top 15% of communities in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) impacted by TACs.

6 Figure 4: MATES Cancer Risk Analysis Of Project Location

Increasing the number of sources of ozone precursors and DPM within the community via the construction and operation of the Project will exacerbate pollution levels, resulting in a substantially greater health burden on the community which the RIS/MND fails to disclose.

7 3. The RIS/MND Fails To Analyze The Project’s Health Impacts from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Consistent With The Latest SCAQMD Working Group Guidance On The Aggregation Of Warehouses

The RIS/MND’s air quality analysis fails to consider cumulative impacts in light of existing pollution levels or emissions from other nearby projects. Instead, the RIS/MND relies on SCAQMD’s outdated cumulative threshold which looks only at project -specific emissions rather than emissions from cumulative sources.

For cumulative impacts, SCAQMD has initiated a public process to update existing guidance due to community concerns about high -risk health impacts from air toxics , particularly from aggregation of warehouses . Since 2022, SCAQMD has held six Working Group (WG) meetings to develop additional guidance for analyzing such potential impacts.4 The first two WG meetings focused on Information Gathering and Analysis as well as the Initial Objective and Scope of the WGs. The third WG meeting was specific to the Initial Objective and Scope of the WGs and pushed into the Conceptual/Potential Cumulative Health Risk Assessment protocols. WG meetings #4 and #5 focused only on the Conceptual/Potential Cumulative Health Risk Assessment protocols. WG meeting #6 (WG 6), held in November of 2024, refined the proposed Conceptual/Potential Cumulative Health Risk Assessment protocols based on public comments. The result of WG 6 was a draft process/analysis flow diagram which is intended to be used to inform the drafting of a planned Draft Guidance Document for conducting Cumulative Health Risk Assessments in the South Coast Air Basin.

Step 1 of the WG 6 process for determining the cumulative significance threshold is to identify the background cancer risk affecting the Project area via the SCAQMD Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES).5 As documented above, according to SCAQMD’s MATES V study, zip code 90650 (the location of the Project Site) has a cumulative cancer risk of 546 in 1 million, placing it in the top 15% of communities in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) impacted by TACs.

4 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development-(new). 5 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6-20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13. 8 Figure 5: MATES Cancer Risk Analysis Of Project Location

Per WG 6, areas experiencing background excess cancer risk in the 50th percentile to 90 th percentile would result in a drop of the Cancer Risk Threshold from 10 in one million to 5 in one million.

9 Step 2 of the WG 6 flow diagram is to determine if there are 951 daily heavy duty truck trips or more that would traverse the truck route to the freeway with Existing + Project + Future volumes.

The Project as analyzed in the RIS/MND does not meet this criteria.

Step 3 of the WG 6 flow diagram is to determine whether the sensitive receptors along the truck route are a health sensitive population (either within an SB 535 or SB 617 area). Here, the Project meets this criteria because it is an SB-535 community. This lowers the Cancer Risk Threshold from 5 in one million to 3 in one million.

Figure 6: SB 535 Classification Of Project Area

10 The RIS/MND’s attempt to analyze cumulative impacts without considering these background conditions or comparing cumulative exposures against SCAQMD’s new draft threshold is unsupported, fails to provide basic information related to the Project, and is contrary to both CEQA’s cumulative impact analysis directives and SCAQMD’s draft guidance on cumulative impacts.

To comply with CEQA and the SCAQMD’s Working Group guidance, the Project’s cumulative impacts should be evaluated against an adjusted cumulative cancer risk threshold of 5 in one million rather than the 10 in one million cited in the RIS/MND. According to the revised health risk assessment presented in the RIS/MND, the risk from the operational phase and the combined construction and operational phases will exceed the SCAQMD’s Working Group threshold guidance.

Figure 7: Risk Calculations From RIS/MND

These are potentially significant impacts that require mitigation. The City fails to propose any air quality mitigation in the RIS/MND. In order to mitigate these impacts, the City should require Tier 4 final construction equipment and focus on mitigation measures to reduce DPM emissions during the

11 operational phase of the Project. Until heavy duty trucks are electrified the City should consider a number of other mitigation measures:
• First, anti-idling rules (less than 3 minutes ) would reduce potential emissions of DPM while onsite. Under this measure the Proponent would be required to post both interior- and exterior- facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the local air district, and the building manager.
• Second, the City can require the Proponent to c onstruct zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project. • Thirdly, the City can require the Proponent to install only zero-emission or near-zero emission equipment on site. This would include u sing electric -powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel- fueled generators to supply their power.
• Fourth, the City can restrict all vehicles entering the site to be model year 2018 or newer. • Fifth, the City should consider the use of double-deck trailers. This reduces the number of heavy-duty trucks entering and exiting the site.
• Sixth, the City can require a check of tire pressures to ensure maximum efficiency of the vehicles. As tire pressure goes down, gas mileage decreases and the GHGs emitted per mile of the trip increase.
• Seventh, the City can require that Project optimize the routes utilized by all trucks. This would require coordination of all trips to and from the site to ensure stops are reduced. • Eighth, the City can require that speeds for all vehicles within the vicinity of the Project site to be reduced.

In order to accurately assess the Project’s true health risk impacts, the City must re-evaluate the health risks against this lower health risk threshold in a n environmental impact report (EIR) and propose mitigation for any significant impacts found.

12 Conclusion
The facts presented in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts if allowed to proceed based on the RIS/MND. An EIR is necessary to address these substantial concerns fully and transparently.

Sincerely,

James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.

Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling

Education:

Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987

Professional Experience:

Dr. Clark is a well recognized to xicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the eff ects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research.

Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following:

LITIGATION SUPPORT

Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama

Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd.

Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action.

NC041739
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure asse ssment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: O’Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants.

Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles

Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later develope d a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure asse ssment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O’Brie n, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California

Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was ev aluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G.

Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposu re assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to expo sure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R

Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposu re assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to expo sure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W

Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposu re assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to expo sure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atla ntic Richfield Compan y, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL.

Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposu re assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray-Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344

Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Op inions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant.

Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247

Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposu re assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant.

SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS

Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.

Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.

Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California
Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized cancer types associ ated with exposure to meta ls and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers a ssociated with exposure to me tals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association betw een cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify ch emicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemi cal characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS

Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri
Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adja cent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD.

Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and vola tile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive revi ew of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various ph armaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY

Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Identified and analyzed fifty years of epid emiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupa tional exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty year s. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California
Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultura l soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteris tics, fate and trans port, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of M tBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of M tBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristic s, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxificat ion, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for non- public health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemi cal characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former in dustrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of r eceptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill.

This evaluation was used as the basis for gran ting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS

Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia
Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatm ent facility. Prepar ed a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, a nd carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort.

Client: Confidential, Escondido, California
Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense non- aqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for r eaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the pot ential health risks as sociated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and muni cipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing f acility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The s ite is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently bei ng drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre fo rmer manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined accep table soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the pot ential health risks as sociated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fifty- year old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Enda ngerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre form er steel mill. The h ealth risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentr ations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site.

Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sens itive population center (elementary school).

The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil exce ss of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Supe rfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.

IT Corporation, North Carolina
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility unde r SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels.

Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
California Redevelopment Association (CRA)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)

Publications and Presentations:

Books and Book Chapters
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark . 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark . 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water:

Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.

Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment.

Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecastin g of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI.

Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J. ; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kost ecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.

Journal and Proceeding Articles
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification Fo r The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13
th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Clark, J.J.J . 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Em erging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN.

March 20, 2003.

Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark . 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guid ance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.

Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorat e and the New Reference Dose (RfD).

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resour ce Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water.

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resour ce Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Manage ment Decisions for Water Purveyors.

Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anahei m, CA, June 3-4, 1998.

Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.

Clark, J.J.J. ; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley , B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996.

Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14.

Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Fi nley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118.

Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.

Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.

McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.

Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.

Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.

EXHIBIT B
1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]
October 8, 2025
Alaura R. McGuire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Rexford Industrial Project (14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project) Dear Ms. McGuire,
I have reviewed the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“RIS/MND”) for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project in the City of Norwalk dated October 2025, as well as the Staff Report for the October 8, 2024, Norwalk Planning Commission hearing. I make the following findings:
1) The RIS/MND overestimates passenger vehicle and truck trip generation for the existing RV Storage Depot use by misapplying the ITE Trip Generation category “Warehousing” to a business that does not meet the definition.
2) The RIS/MND also falsely states that the RV Storage Depot operates 24/7. 3) The proposed project is “speculative,” and actual trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed in the RIS/MND. Without knowing more about the tenants and usage, it is conservative to apply a higher trip generation rate in the traffic analyses. 4) The RIS/MND claims that the project would generate fewer than 110 net daily passenger trips per day, but this claim is predicated on overestimating trip generation for the existing use.

Unless the existing trip generation assumed can be substantiated with a traffic count, A full VMT analysis of the project should be done, and if there are significant VMT impacts, they should be mitigated.

I previously reviewed the original MND for this Project dated October 2024, and made the same findings in comments dated December 11, 2024. An EPD Solutions Inc. memorandum dated January 2, 2025 and included as Attachment H in the City of Norwalk Planning Commission October 8, 2025 Staff Report includes responses to my December 2024 comments. However, as documented below, none of these responses adequately address my comments and the City continues to rely on deficient analysis and

2 ignores substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant transportation impacts.

Existing Use Trip Generation
The RIS/MND fails to accurately describe the baseline conditions at the existing Project site against which the Project’s impacts are measured.

The RIS/MND states:

The Project site is currently developed with two multi-tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 SF. The existing buildings are currently occupied by RV Storage Depot, an RV storage company. (p. 4)
The RIS/MND estimates that the existing use generates 154 daily trips by applying the Institute of Transportation (“ITE”) Trip Generation rate for category 150, “Warehousing.” (RIS/MND, Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8)
The Trip Generation definition for category 150, “Warehousing,” is:

A warehouse is primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas. High-cube transload and short-term storage warehouse (Land Use 154), high-cube fulfillment center warehouse (Land Use 155), high-cube parcel hub warehouse (Land Use 156), and high-cube cold storage warehouse (Land Use 157) are related uses.

This definition is fairly broad but does not encompass the existing use which does not store “materials.” The existing use really is a self-storage facility as illustrated in these screenshots from RV Storage Depot’s website for its Norwalk operation.1

1 https://www.rvstoragedepot.com/storage-units/california/norwalk/rv-storage-depot-348022/ 3 4

There is no category in ITE Trip Generation that matches the existing use. The definition for category 151, “Mini-Warehouse” is:

A mini-warehouse is a building in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the storage of goods. They are typically referred to as “self-storage” facilities. Each unit is physically separated from other units, and access is usually provided through an overhead door or other common access point.

These mini-storage spaces have average storage space per customer that is significantly smaller than the RV storage, and the average size of the surveyed sites is much smaller than the existing use. Therefore, trip generation likely is also significantly lower for the RV Storage Depot than for these mini-storage spaces. Given that there is no appropriate Trip Generation rate for the existing use, the correct way of assessing its trip generation would be to count traffic at the site.

The Staff Report responses fail to resolve this issue and instead reassert that the existing RV Storage Depot meets the ITE definition of “Warehousing.” (October 8, 2025 Staff Report, p. 457 of 460) To support this claim, the City refers to RIS/MND Appendix G, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment

5 dated May 25, 2017, and particularly to photos on pages 53-56. These photos show some past warehouse use, presumably from 2017 when the report was prepared. However, the RV storage facility also was operating on the site in 2017, and the report provides no information about how much of the site was used for each use. Given that even in the past, it is possible that most of the site was used for RV storage. It has not been demonstrated that the existing use was or is primarily warehouse.

The RIS/MND further mischaracterizes the existing use in estimating truck trip generation by relying on the 2014 Southern California Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) Warehouse Truck Study, which evaluated truck trips at 33 warehouses. This study focused specifically on high-cube warehouse operations, which generate daily heavy duty diesel truck traffic. In contrast, the RV Storage Depot facilities are passive storage uses. Thus, unless the RVs are characterized as “trucks,” the existing site generates little truck traffic and likely no 4+-axle trucks at all. Because of this, the Truck Study is not applicable to the existing use, and the daily truck trip generation estimates given in RIS/MND, Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8 (7 2-axle trucks, 9 3-axle trucks, and 26 4+-axle trucks) are overestimated.

The RIS/MND also states that the existing use operates 24 hours a day:

The existing use currently operates 24 hours per day, so implementation of the proposed Project, which would also operate 24 hours per day, would not differ from the current usage. (RIS/MND, p. 37)
The current use does not operate 24 hours a day as is shown in this screenshot from the website:2

The Staff Report responses attempt to justify this error by stating that “. . . while the RV Storage Facility is not open to the general public 24 hours a day, existing onsite operations and site lighting occurs 24 hours a day.” (October 8,2025 Staff Report, p. 457 of 460) These “onsite operations” are not specified and could be as limited as a single security guard. A lighted parking lot with possibly only a single employee onsite does not meet that definition of 24/7 operations. The City has not adequately addressed my comments.

By failing to accurately describe the existing conditions at the Project site, the Project’s baseline trip generation rate is overestimated and the RIS/MND’s assessment of the Project’s impacts is unsupported.

2 https://www.rvstoragedepot.com/storage-units/california/norwalk/rv-storage-depot-348022/

6 Proposed Use Trip Generation
The RIS/MND states:

The proposed speculative 138,972 SF industrial warehouse building would be inclusive of 132,227 SF of warehouse space, 3,715 SF of ground floor office space, and 3,030 SF of mezzanine space. The building would be single-story with a mezzanine and would have a maximum height of 45 feet at the parapet. (RIS/MND, p. 21) Approximately 21,735 SF of the building would be speculatively used for cold storage. (RIS/MND, pp. 21, 109)
The RIS/MND trip generation analysis assumes 115,921 sq. ft. of warehouse (category 150) plus 28,902 sq. ft. of light industrial (category 110) for a total of 144,901 sq. ft. (RIS/MND, p. 111). These numbers are based on the Project’s previous site plan, which the City claims is done to provide a conservative analysis. (RIS/MND, Appendix L, p. 1). The Trip Generation rates applied are 4.87 per 1000 sq. ft. for Light Industrial and 1.71 per 1000 sq. ft. for Warehousing resulting in 339 daily trips. (RIS/MND, Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8) This results in a blended rate of 2.34 daily trips per 1000 sq. ft. as applied to the trip generation total of 144,901 sq. ft. or an effective rate of 2.44 daily trips per 1000 sq. ft. relative to the proposed 132,227 sq. ft.

Warehousing is only one of several warehouse categories in Trip Generation and it is one of the lowest rates, as demonstrated by the table below.

Given that the proposed project is “speculative,” meaning no end uses have been specified, actual trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed in the RIS/MND. Without knowing more about the tenants and usage, it is conservative to apply a higher trip generation rate in the traffic analyses.

Therefore, using the numbers from the previous site plan is inappropriate because it fails to accurately assess the Project’s actual impacts.

The Staff Report assumes that the building would not be used for Parcel Hub or Sort Fulfillment Center uses and if the future tenant would generate more trips than assumed in the RIS/MND “then additional

1.40 1.71 1.81 2.12

4.63 6.44

1.71 154 Transload
and Short-
Term Storage
Warehouse
150
Warehousing
155
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
157 Cold
Storage
Warehouse
156 Parcel
Hub
Warehouse
155
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
MND
7 evaluation would be required, including additional traffic analysis to evaluate the use.” (October 8, 2025 meeting packet, p. 451-452 of 460). These arguments fail to resolve the above issues regarding the Project’s underestimated trip generation rate and do not point to any binding restriction that would prohibit Parcel Hub or Sort Fulfillment Center uses, which are higher-intensity uses than those analyzed in the RIS/MND. Absent such restrictions to the allowable uses for the Project, it is foreseeable that the Project may be used for Parcel Hub and Fulfillment Center uses. If so, this would result in significantly higher trip generation that the City has not analyzed. The Norwalk Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-13 (“COA”) states:
“Per the approved plans and traffic calculations, the proposed project may be designated for Warehouse use (ITE Land Use Code 150). A maximum allowable of 20 percent of the Proposed Project’s floor area may be designated for General Light Industrial (ITE Land Use Code). A maximum allowable of 20 percent of the Proposed Project’s floor area may be used for cold storage. The tenant/business owner shall demonstrate compliance with this condition of approval prior to Planning Division approval of a business license application. Any variation in project usage may result in substantial conformance review by the city and additional traffic and other studies, as required by the Community Development Department.”3
The COA does not prevent the Project from being used as a Parcel Hub or Sort Fulfillment Center after buildout. A designation of “ITE Land Use Code 150” in the COA does not constrain the future usage from the higher trip generation categories. The ITE definition for category 150 is only: “A warehouse is primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas.” The more specific warehouse categories with higher trip generation rates also satisfy this generic definition of a “warehouse.” Although, the category 150 trip generation rates themselves do not adequately represent impacts of these other types of warehouses. Therefore, the COA would not prevent significantly greater impacts than disclosed in the RIS/MND from occurring.

Furthermore, no condition for VMT analysis is included in the COA. A requirement for VMT analysis should be made a condition of any project approval. If the Resolution is approved as written, significantly higher trip generation than disclosed could result without any additional review.

VMT Screening
The RIS/MND claims that the project would generate fewer than 110 net daily passenger trips per day. (RIS/MND, p. 110) It calculates that the proposed project would generate 339 trips per day, including 211 passenger trips. (RIS/MND, p. 111) The RIS/MND claims that the existing land use generates 112 passenger trips per day, so that the net increase in passenger trips is only 99 per day. (RIS/MND, p. 111) As discussed above, the RIS/MND underestimates trips that would be generated by the Project by relying on a low, unsupported trip generation rate. The RIS/MND also underestimates the net trip generation by overestimating trip generation from the existing land use. Because of this, the calculation resulting in 99 net new trips per day is unsupported. If an accurate trip generation rate was used and a traffic count was conducted at the existing land use, the proposed project would be found to generate more than the threshold of 110 net new trips per day, which requires a full VMT analysis.

3 Norwalk Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-13, p. 6. 8 For example, if the Parcel Hub trip generation rate of 4.63 daily trips per day is substituted for the warehouse rate applied in the RIS/MND, the Project would generate over twice as many daily trips—678 vs. 339, including 603 passenger vehicle trips. Comparing this to the current existing use daily passenger trip estimate of 112, this would result in a net new passenger trip generation rate of 491. This far exceeds the 110 net daily passenger trips screening threshold. Accordingly, an EIR should be prepared that includes a VMT analysis of the project and proposes mitigation for any significant impacts found.

The Staff Report response reiterates its assumptions about trip generation from the current use (October 8, 2025 Staff Report, p. 457-458 of 460). For the same reasons discussed above, this assumption is incorrect. Additionally, the site plan may support much higher trip generation than assumed in the RIS/MND. For the project, the RIS/MND estimates 339 daily trips including 211 passenger vehicle trips per day. (RIS/MND Appendix L, Table 1, p. 8 of 12). As these are one-way trips, this equals only 105.5 daily round trips. In contrast, the project includes 141 passenger car parking spaces (RIS/MND, p. 21). Therefore, even If there is a single shift, and all of the passenger vehicle trips are long-term (i.e. no drop offs, pick ups, or business services visits), the parking lot would never be more than 75% full. If there is more than one shift, which is typical for warehouses, the parking lot would have much more excess capacity. Therefore, the site plan supports much higher trip generation than assumed and the project may generate more than 110 net trips a day, resulting in a significant VMT impact that the City has not disclosed or mitigated.

Sincerely,

Norman L. Marshall

9 Resume
NORMAN L. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT
[email protected]

EDUCATION:

Master of Science in Engineering Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1982 Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 1977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (37 Years, 23 at Smart Mobility, Inc.) Norm Marshall helped found Smart Mobility, Inc. in 2001. Prior to this, he was at RSG for 14 years where he developed a national practice in travel demand modeling. He specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior and doing planning that coordinates multi-modal transportation with land use and community needs.

Regional Land Use/Transportation Scenario Planning
Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) – the Portland Maine Metropolitan Planning Organization. Updating regional travel demand model with new data (including AirSage), adding a truck model, and multiclass assignment including differentiation between cash toll and transponder payments.

Loudoun County Virginia Dynamic Traffic Assignment – Enhanced subarea travel demand model to include Dynamic Traffic Assignment (Cube). Model being used to better understand impacts of roadway expansion on induced travel.

Vermont Agency of Transportation-Enhanced statewide travel demand model to evaluate travel impacts of closures and delays resulting from severe storm events. Model uses innovate Monte Carlo simulations process to account for combinations of failures.

California Air Resources Board – Led team including the University of California in $250k project that reviewed the ability of the new generation of regional activity-based models and land use models to accurately account for greenhouse gas emissions from alternative scenarios including more compact walkable land use and roadway pricing. This work included hands-on testing of the most complex travel demand models in use in the U.S. today.

Climate Plan (California statewide) – Assisted large coalition of groups in reviewing and participating in the target setting process required by Senate Bill 375 and administered by the California Air Resources Board to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions through land use measures and other regional initiatives.

Chittenden County (2060 Land use and Transportation Vision Burlington Vermont region) – led extensive public visioning project as part of MPO’s long-range transportation plan update.

Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization – Implemented walk, transit and bike models within regional travel demand model. The bike model includes skimming bike networks including on-road and off-road bicycle facilities with a bike level of service established for each segment.

Chicago Metropolis Plan and Chicago Metropolis Freight Plan (6-county region)— developed alternative transportation scenarios, made enhancements in the regional travel demand model, and used the enhanced 10 model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts.

Developed multi-class assignment model and used it to analyze freight alternatives including congestion pricing and other peak shifting strategies.

Municipal Planning
City of Grand Rapids – Michigan Street Corridor – developed peak period subarea model including non- motorized trips based on urban form. Model is being used to develop traffic volumes for several alternatives that are being additional analyzed using the City’s Synchro model

City of Omaha - Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non-motorized trips, transit trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. Scenarios with different roadway, transit, and land use alternatives were modeled.

City of Dublin (Columbus region) – Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non- motorized trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. The model was applied in analyses for a new downtown to be constructed in the Bridge Street corridor on both sides of an historic village center.

City of Portland, Maine – Implemented model improvements that better account for non-motorized trips and interactions between land use and transportation and applied the enhanced model to two subarea studies.

City of Honolulu – Kaka’ako Transit Oriented Development (TOD) – applied regional travel demand model in estimating impacts of proposed TOD including estimating internal trip capture.

City of Burlington (Vermont) Transportation Plan – Led team that developing Transportation Plan focused on supporting increased population and employment without increases in traffic by focusing investments and policies on transit, walking, biking and Transportation Demand Management.

Transit Planning
Regional Transportation Authority (Chicago) and Chicago Metropolis 2020 – evaluated alternative 2020 and 2030 system-wide transit scenarios including deterioration and enhance/expand under alternative land use and energy pricing assumptions in support of initiatives for increased public funding.

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin, TX) Transit Vision – analyzed the regional effects of implementing the transit vision in concert with an aggressive transit-oriented development plan developed by Calthorpe Associates. Transit vision includes commuter rail and BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit for Northern Virginia HOT Lanes (Breakthrough Technologies, Inc and Environmental Defense.) – analyzed alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) strategies for proposed privately-developing High Occupancy Toll lanes on I-95 and I-495 (Capital Beltway) including different service alternatives (point-to-point services, trunk lines intersecting connecting routes at in-line stations, and hybrid).

Roadway Corridor Planning
I-30 Little Rock Arkansas – Developed enhanced version of regional travel demand model that integrates TransCAD with open source Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) software, and used to model I-30 alternatives.

Freeway bottlenecks are modeled much more accurately than in the base TransCAD model. 11 South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) – In work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal South Caroline including a new proposed freeway.

Hudson River Crossing Study (Capital District Transportation Committee and NYSDOT) – Analyzing long term capacity needs for Hudson River bridges which a special focus on the I-90 Patroon Island Bridge where a microsimulation VISSIM model was developed and applied.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (partial list)

DTA Love: Co-leader of workshop on Dynamic Traffic Assignment at the June 2019 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

Forecasting the Impossible: The Status Quo of Estimating Traffic Flows with Static Traffic Assignment and the Future of Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Research in Transportation Business and Management 2018.

Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the August 2018 Transportation Research Board Tools of the Trade Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities.

Vermont Statewide Resilience Modeling. With Joseph Segale, James Sullivan and Roy Schiff. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

Pre-Destination Choice Walk Mode Choice Modeling. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

A Statistical Model of Regional Traffic Congestion in the United States, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

EXHIBIT C

Letter EMY
WI #25-001
October 7, 2025
Alaura R. McGuire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080

SUBJECT: 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Norwalk, California
Review and Comment on Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and October 8, 2024, Norwalk Planning Commission Staff Report

Dear Ms. McGuire,

Per your request, we have reviewed the noise and vibration impact analysis for the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (RIS/MND) for the 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project (Project), as well as the Staff Report for the October 8, 2024, Norwalk Planning Commission hearing. The proposed project involves the demolition of two existing warehouse buildings and the construction, use, and maintenance of a new 138,972 square foot (SF) industrial warehouse. The Project site has a Heavy Industrial land use designation. Surrounding sensitive receivers include Ramona School Preschool, approximately 1500 feet to the west, and residences approximately 1000 feet to the north. This letter focused on the Revised Appendix K, entitled Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Vista Environmental on February 2, 2025.

Wilson Ihrig is an acoustical consulting firm that has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our almost 59 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry -standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CadnaA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.

Adverse Effects of Noise1
The health effects of noise are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety a nd

1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf)

WILSON IHRIG
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Comments on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

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 3 0 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 al so 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. Th is 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 Manual 2 (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 M anual 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-noise- and-
vibration-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 r est 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-and- vibration-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 space 7. 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 dBA 8). 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 hig her 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 assu mptions, 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, f or 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 i mpact 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 lev els 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 project - generated 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 the se 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 n o 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 CO 2 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 R ecirculated 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 th rough 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 R ecirculated 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 welfa re 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 the re 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 th e 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 Gabriele ño 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 Pollution 1, 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-impacts- working-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 ai r conditioning units for the office portion of each warehouses. In addition, t he 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 envi ronmental 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 implem entation 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 R ecirculated 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 t hat the Recirculated IS/MND used an incorrect trip generation when calculating the existing sites trips. The comment states that the ITE warehousing trip gen eration 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 capture d in the ITE Trip Generation Manual categories and therefore, the R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 Assessmen t Manual. The comment concludes in stating that the R ecirculated 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 nor mal 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated IS/MND is not required to evaluate speculative uses of the Project that would not be allowed under the current Public Review Draft R ecirculated 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 CO
2 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 project - level analysis. The comment further states that CEQA requires documents to analyze cu mulative 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 R ecirculated 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 cons iderable” 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 community - wide 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. Inste ad, 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 appro ach 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 R ecirculated 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 ar ea 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 R ecirculated 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 requ ired. 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 SC AQMD 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 R ecirculated 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 st andard would be 78.2 dBA and the P roject’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 P roject’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 assumpt ions are based on nearby warehouses which are owned by the Project applicant which only provide ai r 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 R ecirculated 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 ac counted for in the noise calculations.

Comment 35: This comment states that the R ecirculated 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 anyt ime 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 i n Responses 33 through 35, the R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 th rough 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated IS/MND is not required to evaluate sp eculative 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 additio nal 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 th e Recirculated IS/MND are necessary and no further response is warranted.

Comment 43: This comment states that the R ecirculated 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 solar - ready 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, ineffi cient, 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, t he

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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 third- party 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 CALGre en 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 t he 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 R ecirculated 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 CO 2 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 operation al 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: A s discussed above in Response 27, the R ecirculated 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 impac ts 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, t he 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, t he 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, t he 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 u ses 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, t he 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 R ecirculated 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, t he 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 R ecirculated 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 P roject’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 R ecirculated 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 C ity defines ambient noise level as the highest of either sound-level meter readings or 45 dBA during the night. R ecirculated 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 l
ook 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.

MN
D 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
.
• F
or 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 environ ment. • 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 potentiall y
s
ignificant impacts can be mitigated through preparation of an Initial Study with adopted mitigation measures .

I
S/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 jurisdict ions.

Attachment No. 6

ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY

ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYCIVIL ENGINEERSJRN

City Council Agenda Report
January 20, 2026
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Albert Mendoza, Director of Public Services/City Engineer Mario Mera, Engineering Division Manager
Run Chen, Principal Civil Engineer
Randall Hillman, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 26-11 – INTENTION TO CONSIDER GRANTING A NON-

PUBLIC UTILITY PIPELINE FRANCHISE TO HERAEUS METAL

PROCESSING, INCORPORATED
Background:

The California Public Utilities Code (CPUC) (Article 6231.5) and the Norwalk Municipal Code (NMC) (Title 13, Chapter 13.20 Pipeline Franchises) requires any person, firm, or corporation utilizing public streets for the conveyance of oil, gasoline, petroleum, wet gas, hydrocarbon substances, water, wastewater, mud, steam, or other products to have a valid franchise with the City.

On November 21, 2006, City Council granted a pipeline franchise to Heraeus Metal Processing, Incorporated (HMPI) to construct and operate a 6-inch diameter, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) wastewater line along Alondra Boulevard from Shoemaker Avenue to Studebaker Road. The franchise term was for 15 years expiring on November 21, 2021.

HMPI is a refiner and recycler of precious metals, including gold, silver, and platinum group metals from spent industrial catalysts and other primary and secondary materials. Additionally, HMPI manufactures precious metals containing chemical compounds for the automotive, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries; fabricates precious metal catalysts for nitric acid and fertilizer plants.

The HDPE pipe conveys treated wastewater from the HMPI facility in Santa Fe Springs along Alondra Boulevard through the Cities of Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, then connects to a Los

City Council January 20, 2026
Resolution No. 26-11 – Granting Pipeline
Franchise to Heraeus Metal Processing, Inc.

Page No. 2
1 7
0 3
Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) sewer trunk line at the intersection of Alondra Boulevard and Studebaker Road for final processing.

State law governs and regulates non-public utility water franchise pipelines. The requested renewal pipeline franchise agreement with HMPI would be in accordance with CPUC Article 6231.5 and NMC Title 13, Chapter 13.20. Among other items, State law establishes the franchise payment(s) for water franchises which includes the base granting fee ($7,500) and the base annual fee payments determined through a formula based on pipeline internal diameter, pipe length, and fee per lineal foot. Per NMC Title 13, Article 13, Chapter 13.20.310 Rates, the amount of each base fee specified in subsections C and D shall be adjusted at the time payment is due by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area (1982-84 = 100).

The City reserves the right to adjust the base annual fees established hereunder at any time after the effective date of the ordinance, but the base fees applicable to any one franchise may only be changed five times during the life of the franchise.

HMPI has continuously paid the City $9,000 per year since expiration of the franchise. HMPI requests to continue the franchise with terms and conditions per the existing franchise with the exception of updated fees as negotiated with the City.

Purpose of Resolution
The purpose of Resolution No. 26-11 is to declare the City Council’s intention to consider granting a franchise to HMPI and set a public hearing date for the matter to be considered.

Adoption of the resolution does not create an obligation to grant a franchise.

Fiscal Impact:

There is revenue to be realized with granting of the franchise. The City would receive a base granting fee of $7,500 and annual payments based on a formula associated with the internal diameter and length of the pipelines adjusted per the Consumer Price Index.

The proposed annual payments are as follows:

Annual Franchise Fee
2022 2023 2024 2025
2021 Base Fee $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000
CPI Factor 1.317325 1.393344 1.428546 1.511685*
$11,855.93 $12,540.10 $12,856.92 $13,605.17*
*CPI Factor Estimate for November 2025
Citizens Advised:

N/A
City Council January 20, 2026
Resolution No. 26-11 – Granting Pipeline
Franchise to Heraeus Metal Processing, Inc.

Page No. 3
1 7
0 3
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:

The recommended actions will further the City’s Strategic Plan Goal 3: Create and sustain a resilient and economically prosperous city.

Recommended Action:

Staff recommend City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-11, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONSIDER

GRANTING A NON-PUBLIC UTILITY PIPELINE FRANCHISE TO HERAEUS METAL PROCESSING, INCORPORATED; and schedule a public hearing for February 17, 2026.

Attachments:

Resolution No. 26-11
4 4
5 6
RESOLUTION NO. 26-11

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONSIDER GRANTING A NON-PUBLIC

UTILITY PIPELINE FRANCHISE TO HERAEUS METAL PROCESSING,

INCORPORATED
WHEREAS, On November 21, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06- 1581, which granted Heraeus Metal Processing, Incorporated (Franchisee) a fifteen (15) year pipeline franchise (“Franchise”); and WHEREAS, the Franchise expired on November 2021, and Franchisee has filed a request to extend the pipeline Franchise; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 6232, the City Council desires to adopt a resolution declaring its intent to establish a non-public utility pipeline franchise with a term of fifteen (15) years.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.The City Council hereby expresses its intent to grant Franchisee a pipeline franchise for a fifteen (15) year period.

Section 2.That the character of said Franchise and terms and conditions upon which it is proposed to be granted are described in the form of notice hereinafter set forth.

Section 3.That it is the opinion of the City Council that the public good requires said franchise be granted; and
Section 4.That the City Council will hear objections to the granting of said Franchise at the time and place specified in the form of notice hereinafter set forth, which the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish at least once in a newspaper of general circulation printed published nearest to the City of Norwalk, within 15 days after the passage of this resolution.

Section 5.That said notice shall be substantially in the follow words and figures:

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER GRANTING A FRANCHISE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Heraeus Metal Processing, Inc. (“hereafter referred to as Grantee”), has filed an application with the City of Norwalk requesting that the City Council grant to it a franchise for a period of 15 years from and after the date upon which the franchise shall become effective, to 4 4
5 6
lay or construct from time to time, and to maintain, operate, renew, repair, change the size of, remove or abandon in place pipes and pipelines for the collection, transportation or distribution of oil, gas, gasoline, petroleum, wet gas, hydrocarbon substances, water, waste water, mud, steam and other liquid substances not more hazardous than the aforesaid substances together with all manholes, valves, appurtenances, and service connections necessary or convenient for the operation of said pipes or pipelines including conduits, cathodic protection devices, wires, cables and other appurtenances necessary or convenient for the exercise of the Grantee’s business, in, under, along or across any and all streets within the City of Norwalk, as approved from time to time by resolution of the City Council. If said franchise shall be granted to it, Grantee and its approved assigns will pay the City the following fees:

A. Base Granting Fee. A base granting fee of Seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) shall be paid within thirty (30) days after the Council adopts the ordinance granting the franchise and prior to signing the written acceptance of the franchise.

B. Base Annual Fee. A base annual fee shall be paid within sixty (60) days after the end of each calendar year and during the life of the franchise for each and every year including the year of granting the franchise in the following amounts:

Pipelines with an Internal
Diameter of
0-4inches
6inches
8inches
10inches
12inches
14inches
16inches
18inches
20inches
22inches
24inches
26inches
28inches
30 inches
Amount per
Linear Foot
$0.232

0.352

0.471

0.584

0.703

0.823

0.935

1.055

1.174

1.287

1.406

1.526

1.638

1.758
The base annual rate applicable to pipelines with an internal diameter falling between two (2) incremental size categories shall pay a rate determined by adding the price corresponding to the lower size to a figure computed by multiplying the difference between the higher and lower price times the "multiplier." The "multiplier" will be determined by dividing the difference between the size of the 4 4
5 6
pipe and the lower size category by the difference between the two (2) size categories. In determining the number of feet of pipeline upon which the annual fee will be computed, the greatest number of feet of pipeline covered by the franchise during the calendar year for which payment is due will be utilized. The base annual fee shall be paid no later than seventy-five (75) days following the end of the calendar year and a penalty at the rate of ten percent (10%) per month or fraction thereof beyond the payment date shall be charged, but in no event shall said penalty exceed fifty percent (50%). The City will reserve the right to adjust the base granting the franchise established under the franchise at any time after the effective date of the ordinance granting the franchise, but the base fees applicable to the franchise may only be changed five (5) times during the life of the franchise.

C. Base Construction Charges. The Grantee shall pay at the time of installation, relocation, or replacement of any pipeline or other facility covered by the franchise, a base construction charge of two thousand three hundred and fifty dollars ($2,350) for each 1/2 mile of pipeline or fractional part thereof installed, replaced or relocated on Major Streets and one thousand five hundred and fifty dollars ($1,550) per 1/2 mile or fractional part thereof, on minor streets. The City reserves the right to change the base fees established hereunder at any time after the effective date of the ordinance granting the franchise, but the base fees applicable to the franchise may only be changed five (5) times during the life of the franchise.

D. Adjustments.
(1) The amount of each base fee specified in Subsections A, B and C shall be adjusted at the time payment is due by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area (1982-84 = 100), for the period January 1, 1997 to the date which is sixty (60) days prior to the due date of the fee.
(2) In no event shall any fee be charged which is less than the base fee amount established by Subsections A, B, and C.
(3) The index specified in Subsection D-1, above, is calculated and published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the Bureau discontinues the calculation or publication of the Consumer Price Index, all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area (1982-84 = 100), and no transposition table is available to convert to another index, then the amount of each annual adjustment in base fees shall be computed by using a comparable governmental index.

E. Publication and Administrative Issuance Costs. The Grantee shall pay to the City within thirty (30) days after receiving a statement therefore, all administrative and other costs incurred by the City in processing the application for a franchise, including but not limited to the preparation of any reports, statements or studies pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 4 4
5 6
§21000, et seq.) and any similar Federal statute, or any successor statute, and for any and all advertising and publishing costs, including the cost of publishing the ordinance, if necessary, incurred in connection with the granting of the franchise.

The City Council of the City of Norwalk proposes to consider granting said franchise for a period of 15 years from and after the date upon which the franchise shall become effective, or until it is voluntarily surrendered or abandoned by the Grantee, or until the State or some municipal or public corporation thereunto duly authorized by law shall purchase by voluntary agreement or shall condemn of such franchise and situated within the territorial limits of the State, municipal, or public corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until such franchise is forfeited for non-compliance with its terms by Grantee.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Grantee shall file a bond, with a corporate surety authorized to conduct a surety business in the State of California, and in a form approved by the City Attorney for the City of Norwalk, in the penal sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), conditioned that the Grantee shall well and truly observe, fulfill, and perform each condition of the franchise and that in case of any breach of condition of the bond, the whole amount of the penal sum therein named shall be recoverable from the principal and surety upon said bond.

Said bond shall be filed with the Director of Finance of the City on or before the effective date of the ordinance granting said franchise; and if said bond is not filed, or if it does not receive the approval of the City Attorney, said franchise may be refused or forfeited and any money paid to the City in connection therewith shall be retained by the City. The Grantee will also be required to obtain insurance as will be provided in the franchise ordinance.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN, that any and all persons having any objection to the granting of said franchise may appear before the City Council in the Council Chambers located at the Norwalk City Hall, 12700 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk.

California, at 6:00 p.m. on February 17, 2026 and be heard thereon; and at any time not later than the hour set for hearing objections, any person interested may make a written protest stating objections against the granting of said franchise, which protest must be signed by the protestant and be delivered to the City Clerk of said City. The City Council at the time set for hearing said objections shall proceed to hear and pass upon all protests so made. For further particulars, reference is hereby made to the resolution adopted by said City Council on the 20th day of January 2026, declaring its intention to consider granting said franchise."
Section 6. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix her signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Norwalk and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed assistant, is directed to attest thereto.
4 4
5 6
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 20th day of January 2026.

JENNIFER PEREZ
MAYOR
ATTEST:

THERESA DEVOY, CMC

CITY CLERK