Committee Hears Appeal Over Wilmington Cold‑storage Expansion; Staff Recommends Denying Appeal

The committee considered an appeal of approvals for a proposed cold‑storage (frozen‑goods) warehouse expansion at or near 1420 Cold Avenue in Wilmington (district 15). Planning staff summarized the project’s procedural history: Planning Commission approval on Aug. 14, 2025 and City Council action on Dec. 10, 2025. The appeal, filed by community and labor‑aligned organizations, contends the City prematurely adopted a negative declaration (ND) without adequate mitigation for air‑quality and noise impacts and requests that the committee rescind the prior action and require an environmental impact report (EIR).

Appellant counsel Ander Graph argued the council and planning committee violated municipal code and the cited environmental-review rules (record cites “Sicoa 1585” and municipal code provisions) by adopting a negative declaration before the agency completed required procedures. Graph urged the committee to “sostenga esa apelación y que rescindan la aprobación anterior del proyecto y que nos den un informe de impacto” and asked staff to prepare an environmental review (EIR) instead of allowing the project to proceed under an ND.

The applicant’s representative (recorded as Chris Parker) strongly disputed the appellant’s claims, saying the project team had met repeatedly with neighborhood council members and submitted environmental studies. The applicant emphasized existing and renewed labor agreements with the Teamsters and union support, and argued faster off‑loading from ships would reduce emissions at the port. “Lo más rápido que podemos descargar esos barcos va a ser mejor para todo el medio ambiente de Los Ángeles y también el puerto,” the applicant said.

Public comment was split. The Wellington Neighborhood Council submitted a letter supporting the project with recommended community‑benefit commitments, including a hiring commitment for Wilmington residents. Numerous union members and trade representatives (including Paul Moreno, Juan Arenas, Isidro Morales, Marcus Jones and others) urged denial of the appeal to preserve union jobs. Opponents — including Amy Smith and other residents — urged the committee to hold the appeal and produce more analysis, saying the ND did not account for cumulative health impacts and increased truck traffic.

Planning staff and the council office framed much of the dispute as labor‑agreement and outreach disputes rather than new environmental evidence. Staff noted more than 100 employees represented by the Teamsters and that the applicant provided project agreements and studies. When the committee asked whether it could condition CEQA‑style findings on project labor agreements, staff and counsel said legal limits prevent conditioning environmental findings on economic project‑labor outcomes and that the committee may not revisit past approvals unless the project changes materially and produces new significant impacts. Based on the record, staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the administrative zoning determination to allow the requested height (the record notes a requested 65‑foot height versus a referenced 61‑foot standard in the discussion) and to adopt the project findings and the previously filed negative declaration.

The transcript ends with the staff recommendation on the record; the committee’s formal vote on the appeal was not recorded in the provided transcript.