Westminster City Council
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing - Appeal of the Planning Commission’s July 2, 2025 Approval of Case No. 2024-0160 for a New Industrial Warehouse Building Proposed at 15172 Goldenwest Circle.
End
publichearing
• Staff Report
• Comments or Presentation from Applicant (If Applicable)
• Comments from Appellant (If Applicable)
• Mayor and City Council Questions for Staff
• Public Comments
• Mayor and Council Member Discussion
• Council Action
End
From: Steven Mendoza, Interim Community Development Director
Requested by: Administration
Prepared by: Ken Fichtelman, Principal Planner
____________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation
A. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING CASE NO. 2024-0160 A REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT IN ASSOCIATION WITH A NEW 2-STORY INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE LOCATED AT 15172 GOLDENWEST CIRCLE (APN 142-315-03 & -421-13)”; and
B. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER DENYING AN APPEAL AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM ASSOCIATED WITH CASE NO. 2024-0160 INVOLVING A VARIANCE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A TWO-STORY INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15172 GOLDENWEST CIRCLE (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 142-315-03 AND -421-13).”
end
BACKGROUND
On July 2, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolutions No. 25-012 and 25-013, approving Case No. 2024-0160 for a warehouse facility with a showroom area and an associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project. The applicant, Francisco Contreras of Cataldo Associates, submitted applications requesting development review to construct a new 115,339 square foot warehouse facility with an associated showroom within the Medium Industrial (M2) zone and a variance from the 35-foot maximum height in the M2 zone to allow for a 44-foot height for the proposed warehouse. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project as the proposed development complied with all applicable Zoning and Municipal Code Development Standards, except for height, and all required findings could be made for the requested variance. Staff found that the building featured high-quality architectural design and that the improvements would reflect a substantial reinvestment in existing industrial property. Staff additionally recommended approval of the associated IS/MND which was prepared for the project.
As a part of the proposed project, an outside environmental consultant prepared an IS/MND in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 3). The IS/MND was a comprehensive environmental review of the project which found that, with the required mitigation measures, all potential environmental impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level of impact.
At their regular meeting on July 2, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and heard facts and evidence as presented by the applicant, City staff and other interested parties. After considering the presented information, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve both the project and adopt the associated IS/MND, making the required findings for approval (See Attachments 4 and 5).
Appeal
Pursuant to Westminster Municipal Code (WMC) Section 17.510.015, decisions of the Planning Commission do not take effect until the close of the appeal period. On July 16, 2025, the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) filed an appeal in accordance with WMC Chapter 17.640. The appeal challenges the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, on the grounds that the IS/MND was inadequate and additional environmental review and analysis are needed regarding air quality impacts (Attachment 3).
As a result, a public hearing was scheduled for the Mayor and City Council’s consideration of the Planning Commission’s decision. Staff’s recommendation is to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and adoption of the IS/MND and deny the appeal. Two resolutions are provided (Attachments 1 and 2).
Although the appeal identifies specific grounds for objection, the Mayor and City Council's review of the project is conducted as a de novo hearing. This means that this review is not limited to considering only the issues raised in the appeal, but the Mayor and City Council may also consider modifying or overturning the Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. 2024-0277. The Mayor and City Council could direct staff to return with resolutions with modifications, amendments to the conditions of approval, and/or findings to disapprove the project.
Environmental Review
The appellant, in its appeal and attached exhibit, claims that the IS/MND did not adequately address the environmental impact of particulate matter emissions from the diesel equipment used during construction and operation of the proposed warehouse and that the IS/MND “failed to analyze the emissions of toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), namely diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) coming from construction equipment.”
The prepared MND included an air quality study that identified and evaluated the construction equipment mix and duration of use for the project. That study, found in Table 7 on Page 25 of the MND, used a South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) modeling program that identified the construction equipment mix and the duration of use for the project and identified the maximum daily emissions for pollutants during the construction of the proposed warehouse. The results, found in Table 8 on page 26, include particulate matter emissions and shows the emissions to be significantly below the thresholds established by SCAQMD. Therefore, the IS/MND did identify and evaluate diesel particulate matter coming from construction equipment during the construction phase of the project and demonstrated that those emissions were less than significant.
Additionally, the appellant has failed to address if the mitigation measures included within the MND, which lessen the impact of particulate matter emissions from diesel equipment during the construction phase, were considered in its analysis. Mitigation measure 3 acts to “reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project…” and calls for, among other measures, establishing a preference for contractors using lower-emission tier 3 or better heavy equipment and limiting the idling time of on-site trucks and equipment.
With respect to ongoing operational emissions, the MND covers emissions from operational impacts in Table 10 on page 27. The MND found that the use would generate 61 new daily trips and notes that these emissions are not anticipated to exceed the significance thresholds set by SCAQMD and will have a less than significant impact on air quality. Ongoing operational emissions, therefore, were analyzed as a part of the MND.
The appellant has also made reference to the lack of a prepared operational health risk assessment (HRA) for the project. Per the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health risk Assessments,” which was used by SWAPE as a reference, “The Hot Spots Act requires that each local Air Pollution Control District or Air Quality Management District determine which facilities will prepare an HRA.” The IS/MND was provided to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the local Air Quality Management District, during the prescribed circulation of the MND. The City did not receive comments from SCAQMD. As no comments were received for SCAQMD, the local Air Quality Management District did not determine that the subject project should conduct an HRA.
Project Approval
As stated at the outset, SAFER appealed the entire project approval. However, there were no separate grounds given relating to the project other than that related to the IS/MND. Therefore, the Planning Commission staff report attached as Exhibit 6 adequately addresses the approval of the variance and development review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council’s action would not result in a direct fiscal impact. However, if the Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. 2024-0277 is upheld, development of the project is expected to generate positive fiscal benefits to the City over time through increased property tax revenue and property values, job creation, and business attraction and economic development opportunities.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed as to form.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the reasons for appeal, as presented in the applicant’s Application for Appeal, staff has determined that the prepared mitigated negative declaration for the project covers the issues which the appellant has raised. Therefore, the Planning Commission and staff recommend upholding the decision of the Planning Commission and adopting a Resolution approving the Development Review and Variance for the project and adopting a Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Draft Resolution approving the IS/MND
2. City Council Draft Resolution approving the Project
3. Application for Appeal
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-012
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-013
6. July 2, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments
7. July 2, 2025 Planning Commission Draft Minutes
REVIEWED BY
Erin Backs, Finance Director
City Attorney’s Office
Christine Cordon, City Manager