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, Including Consideration of Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
End
publichearing
• Staff Report
• Comments or Presentation from Applicant
• Comments from Appellant
• Mayor and City Council Questions for Staff
• Public Comments
• Mayor and Council Member Discussion
• Council Action
End
From: Richard A. Rojas, Jr., Community Development Director
Requested by: Administration
Prepared by: Ken Fichtelman, Principal Planner
____________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation
Consider Resolutions to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. 2024-0160 (Attachments 1 & 2), or alternatively, modify or reverse the decision.
end
BACKGROUND
On July 2, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for a warehouse facility with a showroom area and an associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (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 an existing industrial property. A more thorough discussion of the project itself, the facts and reasoning supporting the decision can be found in the attached documents, and in particular the staff report to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s approval documentation (Attachment 5).
Staff additionally recommended approval of the associated MND which was prepared for the project by an outside environmental consultant in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 1). The 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.
After considering all written and oral evidence, and hearing facts and evidence as presented by the applicant, City staff and other interested parties, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve both the project and the associated MND, by adopting PC Resolutions No. 25-012 and 25-013, approving Case No. 2024-0160. (Attachments 5 and 6.)
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, arguing that additional environmental review and analysis are needed (Attachment 3).
The appeal was originally agendized for the regular City Council meeting on November 12, 2025. The day before that hearing, on Tuesday, November 11, 2025, staff received an additional comment letter from the appellant which included technical studies which had not previously been submitted to the City (Attachment 4). Due to the complexity of the studies, the item was pulled from the agenda at the meeting to give staff and the applicant the needed time to review and respond to the additional information. The public hearing was continued to a date uncertain.
SAFER argued that the Air Quality Impact analysis relating to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions was not adequate and that a health risk analysis of construction emissions should have been conducted. According to SAFER, the MND failed to analyze diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. DPM is a subset of PM2.5.
In early 2026, the applicant entered into an agreement with Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. to review and analyze the appeal. That analysis was provided to the City on April 24, 2026 (Attachment 7).
As a result, a public hearing has been 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 Case No. 2024-0277.
Response to Appeal
The appellant is correct in stating that the legal standard of review is that an EIR will be required if there is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts. However, appellant has not provided such information.
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, which can be 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 of the MND, include particulate matter for PM2.5 emissions and shows the emissions to be significantly below the thresholds established by SCAQMD for construction activity. Additionally, the PM2.5 emissions for operational emissions were studied and found to be significantly below the thresholds established by SCAQMD. Therefore, the MND did identify and evaluate diesel particulate matter coming from both construction equipment and operations and demonstrated that those emissions were less than significant.
The appellant’s argument that a health risk analysis (HRA) was required by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is without merit. SAFER’s HRA argument is based in part on a memo from an environmental consultant (SWAPE) and a report by Baseline Environmental Consulting. It is important to note that SWAPE includes a disclaimer that it “has received limited documentation regarding this project” and the report “may contain information gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.” As further set forth in Ramboll’s response, OEHHA does not mandate that a risk assessment be done. Appellant’s argument relies on the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines from OEHHA. This document specifically provides that OEHHA recognizes that there needs to be flexibility in a risk assessment approach. Additionally, the Guidelines provide that it is up to each local Air Pollution Control District or Air Quality Management District to determine which facilities will prepare an HRA. This project is subject to the jurisdiction of the South Coast AQMD which did not require an HRA.
SAFER’s argument also relies on a report by Baseline Environmental Consulting. As addressed by the Ramboll response, that report compared results to the City of San Francisco’s Planning Department cancer risks threshold and a proposed, but unadopted, threshold discussed by a working group meeting by SCAQMD. The Baseline report estimates a cancer risk of 7.9 in 1 million which is below the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 10 in 1 million. Additionally, Baseline’s estimate of cancer risk does not account for the proposed mitigation measure which requires contractors to use heavy equipment that is Tier 3 or better. Given the above, the information provided by SAFER does not rise to the level of substantial evidence.
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
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.
Based on the above, staff recommends that the Council consider Resolutions to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. 2024-0160, or alternatively, modify or reverse the decision. Resolutions approving the MND and the project are attached for City Council action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution - MND
2. City Council Resolution - Project
3. Application for Appeal
4. Comment letter from Appellant dated November 11, 2025
5. July 2, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, Resolutions and Attachments
6. July 2, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
7. Ramboll Review of SAFER appeal and comment
REVIEWED BY
Erin Backs, Finance Director
City Attorney’s Office
Christine Cordon, City Manager