City Council Agenda Report
January 20, 2026
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jesus M. Gomez, City Manager
BY: Alex Hamilton, Interim Director of Community Development SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 25-54 – UPHOLDING AN APPEAL DENYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT THE
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2024101066) AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PLAN AND APPROVAL OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN NO. 2023-06 AT 14830 CARMENITA ROAD OR RESOLUTION NO. 25-63 – UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE
IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS
Background:
On December 2, 2025, the consideration of Resolution No. 25-54 was continued to the January 20, 2026 City Council meeting due to the presence of only four (4) councilmembers.
The following staff report and attachments are carried over from the City Council Meeting on December 2, 2025.
In December 2023, Ben Martin (“Applicant”), on behalf of Rexford Industrial Realty LP, the property owner, submitted an application for Planned Development Plan (PDP) No. 2023-06, requesting approval to demolish two existing multi-tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 square feet to construct a new 138,972± square foot industrial warehouse building at 14830 Carmenita Road (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property, at 7.03 acres in size, has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial and zoning classification of M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing). It is situated on Carmenita Road, between Excelsior Drive to the south and Pumice Street to the North (also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number “APN” 8069-002-085).
The Subject Site is bounded by Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) zone to the north, south, and west.
Properties to the east are within the City of Santa Fe Springs city limits and are zoned Heavy Manufacturing (M-2). The proposed 138,972± SF industrial warehouse building will consist of
City Council January 20, 2026
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06 / Resolution No. 25-63 – Upholding the PCs
decision
Page No. 2
1 7
1 7
132,227 square feet of warehouse space, 3,715 square feet of ground-floor office space, and 3,030 square feet of mezzanine office space. The new building is single-story with a mezzanine and has a maximum height of 45 feet at the top of the parapet wall. In addition, the project will feature 22 loading dock doors along the southern side of the building and provide 141 off-street parking spaces and landscape improvements to the site (“Proposed Project”).
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), with a related Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared for the proposed project. Based on the City’s Environmental Checklist Form and supporting environmental analysis, the project would have no impact or less than significant impact concerning all environmental issue areas, except in the area of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, for which the project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The 20-day public comment period for the MND began on October 24, 2024, and ended on November 12, 2024. The Planning Commission (PC) public hearing was scheduled for December 11, 2024.
On December 11, 2024, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of CREED LA provided written comments that there is a need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for the Proposed Project. A written response was prepared by EPD Solutions, an authorized representative of the Applicant. The response included analysis which concluded that none of the issues that were raised by CREED LA would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15065. At the request of the applicant, the item was continued to January 8, 2025. Subsequently, the item was continued to February 12, 2025, then tabled to an undetermined future date.
The Applicant notified staff in July 2025 that they were ready to move forward. Out of an abundance of caution and to reaffirm staff’s position on the Proposed Project’s impacts to address any changed conditions, the IS/MND was revised.
Pursuant to the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines of the City, the IS/MND was recirculated for a secondary public review due to refinements to the previously circulated document. The 20-day public comment period began on September 12, 2025 and ended on October 1, 2025. The purpose of the recirculation was to clarify the construction stages for the project which included crushing as part of demolition activities, to address Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment modeling revisions made in response to the public comments received, and to address the request for mitigation received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. A link to the recirculated IS/MND can be found below:
14830 Carmenita Rd - Rexford Industrial Project Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The PC reviewed PDP No. 2023-06, at a duly noticed public hearing, on October 8, 2025. A link to the Planning Commission staff report can be found below:
City Council January 20, 2026
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06 / Resolution No. 25-63 – Upholding the PCs
decision
Page No. 3
1 7
1 7
PDP No. 2023-06 Planning Commission Staff Report
A letter of concern was sent to the PC from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development (CREED LA) on the same day.
During the hearing, two speakers on behalf of Laborers Local 1309 LiUNA (in which a group of members were seated in the audience) spoke in favor of the project, citing support from the union. Specifically, it was stated that the project would create union jobs and the union members would ensure that the project is built to the high standards.
One representative, on behalf of CREED LA, spoke in opposition and requested that the PC continue the hearing so that an EIR can be prepared as the IS/MND is insufficient in analyzing the environmental impacts.
During the public hearing, the Planning Commission asked questions of the Applicant. The minutes of the October 8, 2025 Planning Commission minutes can be found in the following link:
October 8, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
After public testimony, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to:
1. Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan contained therein; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-13, approving PDP No. 2023-06 subject to Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” which contained the MMRP.
Appeal
On October 17, 2025, Alaura McGuire from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development (CREED LA), submitted an appeal of the PC’s action (Attachment No. 3) stating the action taken by the PC did not comply with CEQA or applicable land uses laws. Per §17.02.205.E (Decision, Transmittal, Appeal) of the Norwalk Municipal Code (“NMC”), City Council has the authority to uphold, modify, or reverse the PC’s decision.
The Appellant asserts that the project may have several significant and unmitigated impacts which would require the City to prepare an EIR to comply with CEQA. The appellant also states that approval of the project in reliance on a deficient MND may result in significant, unmitigated air quality, public health, transportation, energy, and public utility impacts.
A written response to the appeal has been prepared by EPD Solutions (Attachment No. 4). In the response, the analysis upholds the conclusion that none of the conditions that arose would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064,15065, or 15002. No significant environmental impact would result from the proposed project after City Council January 20, 2026
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06 / Resolution No. 25-63 – Upholding the PCs
decision
Page No. 4
1 7
1 7
implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. No substantial evidence supporting the fair argument of any new significant environment impacts that would result from the proposed project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented has been brought forward in these comments. Thus, preparation of an EIR is not required.
Pursuant to Section 17.02.205.A of the NMC, a PDP may be granted if the proposed project is consistent with the character of the community, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and does not adversely affect property values. The General Plan has objectives and policies to enhance the economic viability of industrial properties and to maintain a high caliber of industrial development through the improvement of industrial properties in Norwalk.
The proposed project will enhance the surrounding area by revitalizing an underutilized site and introducing use that is compatible with the surrounding area. The project complies with applicable city codes; and based on submitted reports and recommended conditions of approval, it provides adequate parking, vehicular circulation, and pedestrian access. The development will create visual interest along a major street corridor, attract new businesses to support the City’s economic growth, and promote jobs for the community.
The analysis provided by the applicant’s authorized representative, EPD Solutions upholds the conclusion that none of the conditions set forth in the appeal letter require preparation of an EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15065, or 15002. Furthermore, the PC’s action was based on information submitted and raised during the public hearing including the compatibility of the use with the desired vision for the corridor, revitalization of an underutilized site, promotion of industrial development through improvement of an industrial property, and provision of adequate buffers between industrial and residential uses.
November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting
On November 18, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing, City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the IS/MND with the MMRP and adopt Resolution No. 25-13, approving PDP No. 2023-06. During the public hearing, the following questions were asked by City Council members:
How many dock doors are on the existing property? There was concern that the increase in loading docks may lead to more deliveries for the completed development. How was this conclusion made that there would be no impacts to the traffic and the environment? What are CEQA thresholds and baseline conditions? Concerns about approving a project without knowing the future use/end user.
After public testimony, City Council voted 4-1 to uphold the appeal and directed staff to formulate findings for a Resolution to uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. City Council also requested information on existing site conditions and proposed uses for City Council January 20, 2026
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06 / Resolution No. 25-63 – Upholding the PCs
decision
Page No. 5
1 7
1 7
consideration. Therefore, the supplemental information below is provided for City Council consideration.
In relation to the questions that were previously asked about CEQA compliance, baselines and thresholds of significance, the applicant has prepared the following CEQA materials provided in Attachment 5. In addition, the IS/MND contains a technical memorandum to determine whether a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for the project. A link to the memorandum can be found below:
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
Since the City has not formally adopted VMT guidelines nor TIA guidelines, the project was evaluated using the County of Los Angeles (LA County) Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020) for Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment and Level of Service Assessment, respectively.
Based on the analysis provided, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact and is below LA County TIA Guidelines’ thresholds; therefore, no further analysis would be required.
Further, as background for City Council, the existing site consists of two existing multi-tenant industrial tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 square feet. There is a total of 15 dock doors between both existing warehouses. The Subject Property has a zoning classification of Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) and will be subject to Land Uses listed in NMC §17.11.010 (see Attachment No. 6 for existing site photographs). Condition of Approval No. 14 also provides limitations on maximum allowable floor area that may be designated for Warehouse, General Light Industrial, and cold storage based on proposed plans presented and traffic calculations.
The proposed project is designed with 22 dock doors.
In light of the previous City Council discussion, there are three options for City Council to consider:
1. Uphold the appeal and deny PDP No. 2023-06 (no CEQA analysis is required);
2. Reverse the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s October 8, 2025 action to approve the MND and PDP No. 2023-06; or
3. Continue the public hearing and consider taking other action or provide further direction.
Fiscal Impact:
Should City Council vote to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, the fiscal impacts would include positive benefits in jobs for project construction, permanent jobs when the building is occupied and increase in property taxes.
City Council January 20, 2026
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06 / Resolution No. 25-63 – Upholding the PCs
decision
Page No. 5
1 7
1 7
City Council January 20, 2026
Resolution No. 25-54 – Upholding Appeal of PDP No.
2023-06 / Resolution No. 25-63 – Upholding the PCs
decision
Page No. 6
1 7
1 7
Citizens Advised:
Notice of this public hearing was published in The Norwalk Patriot and posted at the City’s three designated posting sites and the City Website on November 20, 2025, as well as mailed to 59 property owners and interested parties within 500 feet of the property on November 20, 2025.
Strategic Plan 2023 Implementation:
Goal 3 – Create and sustain a resilient and economically prosperous City. Objective 2 – Diversity and grow the economy.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommend City Council consider:
a.Resolution No. 25-54, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORWALK SETTING FORTH ITS FINDING OF FACT AND DECISION OF UPHOLDING
AN APPEAL REQUEST FILED BY ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO AND REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT THE
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATECLEARING HOUSE NO. 2024101066) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN AND APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2023-06 AT 14830 CARMENITA ROAD; or
b.Resolution No. 25-63, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORWALK SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION OF UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT THE
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATECLEARING HOUSE NO. 2024101066) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN AND APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2023-06 AT 14830 CARMENITA ROAD; or
c.Continue action on the appeal for a period of time deemed appropriate by the City Council and provide further direction to City staff.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 25-54 – Uphold the Appeal and Deny PDP No. 2023-06
2. Resolution No. 25-63 – Uphold the Planning Commission’s Approval of PDP No. 2023-06
3. 10/17/2025 Appeal filed by CREED LA
4. Response to Appeal prepared by EPD Solutions dated 11/4/2025
5. California Environmental Quality Act Overview
6. Existing Building Footprint and Site Photographs