Council upholds planning commission, clears Intex warehouse project after appeals

The Long Beach City Council on June 10 denied three appeals of the Planning Commission’s May 1 approval of a proposed 60-foot warehouse and headquarters for Intex Properties at 4000 Via Oro Avenue and certified the project’s environmental impact report (EIR).

City staff recommended denying appeals filed by the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, Advocates for the Environment and CREED LA and urged council to uphold the Planning Commission’s findings, including a general plan conformity finding needed to vacate a portion of Via Alcalde Avenue.

The project would consolidate Intex operations into a concrete tilt-up building of about 560,000 square feet (517,000-square-foot footprint) with 570 auto parking stalls, 174 trailer stalls and a 240-foot truck court adjacent to the 710 Freeway. The proposal includes a request to vacate about 1.85 acres of Via Alcalde Avenue so the roadbed can become part of the site; staff and the Planning Commission concluded the street is not needed for broader circulation and recommended the vacation be approved with conditions.

Appellants challenged the EIR’s treatment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the City’s use of the Long Beach Climate Action Plan (CAP) as a framework for evaluating project-level GHG impacts. Advocates for the Environment argued the CAP is outdated relative to state climate goals and that the project’s per‑service‑population emissions exceed CAP targets; the group urged that the council either find the project’s GHG impacts “significant” under CEQA or require additional mitigation such as electric heavy‑duty truck requirements.

City staff, the Planning Commission and the applicant countered that the EIR followed CEQA procedures, that the project is consistent with the PD‑26 West Long Beach Business Park zoning and general plan designation, and that the CAP has been used as the city’s qualified plan for streamlined CEQA analysis. Staff said the final EIR included responses to public comments and that no appellant submitted substantial evidence that the EIR failed to comply with CEQA.

CREED LA notified council it had reached an agreement in principle with the applicant to resolve some environmental concerns, and its representative told the council the organization would support the project if the agreement were finalized and memorialized.

The applicant, represented by counsel, accepted the Planning Commission’s conditions and mitigation measures and said the company would pursue community benefits, including local hiring and contributions to neighborhood organizations.

After public comment that included supporters representing labor unions and community groups, the council voted to: (1) certify the project EIR; (2) deny the three appeals and uphold the Planning Commission; (3) adopt the general plan conformity finding to vacate Via Alcalde Avenue; and (4) approve the site plan review and related findings and conditions. Council members recorded “motion is carried” for each vote; no roll-call vote totals were announced on the record.

The council made the project approvals subject to conditions that, among other elements, limit the use to warehouse/distribution and office as proposed; require truck routing plans for construction and operations; require on-site stormwater low impact development measures; and require that any property needed for a possible future, reduced-scope 710 Freeway expansion be retroceded to the public at no cost if taken. The project also must meet Title 24 energy rules, be solar‑ready and implement transportation demand management measures.

With council action final, the applicant can proceed with subsequent ministerial steps (e.g., documentation to record the street vacation) and then building permits under the conditions adopted by the council.

Why it matters: The approval clears a large remaining industrial parcel in PD‑26 for consolidated logistics and headquarters use close to the ports, which proponents said keeps truck trips shorter than locating warehouses in inland counties. Opponents highlighted cumulative climate effects of warehousing and truck activity and urged stronger truck‑emissions mitigation.