No Conflict. The Project will provide short- and long-term bicycle parking for residents and visitors.
Sub-Strategy D2.3: Require commercial and
multi-family residential projects to provide
permanent bicycle parking facilities.
No Conflict. The Project will provide permanent short- and long-term bicycle parking for residents and visitors.
GOAL LUT G: LAND USE STRATEGIES
Measure LUT G1: Increase Density. These strategies seek to increase destination accessibility by encouraging combined uses such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential within areas and developments.
Sub-Strategy G1.1: Encourage higher density
through general plan appropriately in targeted
areas.
No Conflict. The Project takes advantage of higher density options (additional 25 percent density bonus) by providing affordable housing on-site.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 124 February 2024
Sub-Strategy Consistency
Sub-Strategy G1.2: Encourage higher density
through zoning code appropriately in targeted
areas.
No Conflict. The Project is located in the Very High Density Residential zone (R-6) and is designated at Very High Density Residential in the General Plan.
Sub-Strategy G1.3: Increase housing density
near transit.
No Conflict. The Project provides increased housing density near three local bus lines (Torrance Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, GTrans Line 2).
Measure LUT G3: Increase Transit Accessibility. Transit accessibility strategies involve measures that encourage transit services through general plans, zoning codes, and ordinances as well as filling in gaps within the transit network.
Sub-Strategy G3.1: Encourage Transit
Accessibility through General Plan.
No Conflict. The Project is located in the Very High Density Residential area of the General Plan and provides increased housing density near three local bus lines (Torrance Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, GTrans Line 2).
Sub-Strategy G3.1: Encourage Transit
Accessibility through zoning code.
No Conflict. The Project is located in the Very High Density Residential zone (R-6) and provides increased housing density near three local bus lines (Torrance Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, GTrans Line 2).
Measure LUT: G4 - Integrate Affordable And Below-Market-Rate Housing. These strategies facilitate belowmarket rate housing through ordinances and policies that promote a mix of housing types.
Sub-Strategy G4.1: Encourage policies that
promote a mix of housing types.
No Conflict. The Project will provide 17 affordable residences in the development that will increase the mix of housing types in the City.
Energy Efficiency
GOAL EE: E - INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY THROUGH WATER EFFICIENCY (WE) Measure EE E1: Promote Or Require Water Efficiency Through SB X7-7. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. The legislation set an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water consumption by 20 percent from a baseline level by 2020. The goal of the Water Conservation Act can be met by taking a variety of actions, including targeted public outreach and promoting water efficiency measures such as low-irrigation landscaping. Additional water conservation information, resource materials, education, and incentives are available through the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD).
Sub-Strategy E1.2: Require low-irrigation
landscaping.
No Conflict. The Project will comply with Title 24 and CALGreen requirements for low-irrigation landscaping
GOAL EE: F - DECREASE ENERGY DEMAND THROUGH REDUCING URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT Measure EE F1: Promote Tree Planting For Shading and EE. Trees and plants naturally help cool an environment by providing shade and evapotranspiration (the movement of water from the soil and plants to the air), making vegetation a simple and effective way to reduce urban heat islands.
Urban heat islands are urban areas that are significantly warmer than their surrounding rural areas due to human activities. Shaded surfaces may be 20–45°F cooler than the peak temperatures of un-shaded materials. In addition, evapotranspiration, alone or in combination with shading, can help reduce peak summer temperatures by 2–9°F. Furthermore, trees and plants that directly shade buildings can reduce energy use by decreasing demand for air conditioning.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 125 February 2024
Sub-Strategy Consistency
Sub-Strategy F1.1: Encourage tree planting at
plan check.
No Conflict. The Project would include new trees on the Project site. The Project’s tree planting plan will be evaluated at the plan check phase.
Source: City of Gardena. (2017). Gardena Climate Action Plan (Final). Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/12/171205_REDUCED_Gardena_Climate-Action-Plan-Final.pdf.
6.3b Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction. A cumulatively considerable net increase would occur if a project’s construction impacts substantially contribute to air quality violations when considering other projects that may undertake construction activities at the same time. Individual projects that generate emissions that do not exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds would not contribute considerably to any potential cumulative impact. SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of the emissions generated by a set of cumulative development projects nor provides thresholds of significance to assess the impacts associated with these emissions.22
Construction-related emissions were estimated using the SCAQMD’s CalEEMod 2022.1.1.20 model and a projected construction schedule of approximately 27 months. Table 6-2: Construction Schedule Assumptions summarizes the estimated construction schedule that was modeled for air quality impacts.
Table 6-2: Construction Schedule Assumptions
Phase Construction
Interval Notes
Demolition Months 1-2
Removal of approximately 1,600 tons of demolition debris in 10- cubic yard capacity trucks, hauled 40 miles to the Olinda Alpha Landfill.
Site Preparation Month 3 (one
week) Grubbing and removal of trees, plants, landscaping, weeds.
Grading Months 3-5
Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of soil hauled 40 miles to Olinda Alpha Landfill in 10-cubic yard capacity trucks.
Trenching Months 6-11
Trenching for utilities, including gas, water, electricity, and telecommunications.
22 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003 White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution: “As Lead Agency, the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR…Projects that exceed the project-specific significance threshold are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative thresholds are the same.
Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are not considered to be cumulatively significant.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 126 February 2024
Phase Construction
Interval Notes
Building Construction Months 6-27
Footings and Foundation work (e.g., pouring concrete pads, drilling for piers), framing, welding; installing mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. Floor assembly, cabinetry and carpentry, elevator installations, low voltage systems, trash management.
Paving Months 26-27 Flatwork, including paving of driveways and walkways.
Architectural Coatings Months 22-27 Application of interior and exterior coatings and sealants.
Note that construction dates are used for the modeling of air quality emissions in the CalEEMod software. If construction activities commence later than what is assumed in the environmental analysis, the actual emissions would be lower than analyzed because of the increasing penetration of newer equipment with lower certified emission levels.
Source: DKA Planning, 2023.
As discussed previously, the Project would be required to comply with the following regulations, as applicable:
• SCAQMD Rule 403, would reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in ambient air as a result of anthropogenic fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate fugitive dust emissions.
• SCAQMD Rule 1113, which limits the VOC content of architectural coatings. • SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
• In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (with gross vehicle weight over 10,000 pounds) during construction would be limited to five minutes at any location. • In accordance with Section 93115 in Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines would meet specific fuel and fuel additive requirements and emissions standards.
Regional Emissions
Construction activity creates air quality emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated by construction workers traveling to and from the Project site. NOX emissions would primarily result from the use of construction equipment and truck trips.
Fugitive dust emissions would peak during grading activities, where approximately 60,000 cubic yards of soil would be exported from the Project site to accommodate a one-level subterranean structure. All construction projects in the Basin must comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust. Rule 403 control requirements include measures to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Measures include, but are not limited to, applying water and/or soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system or other control measures to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project site, and maintaining effective cover 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 127 February 2024
over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 would reduce regional PM2.5 and PM10 emissions associated with construction activities by approximately 61 percent.
During the building finishing phase, the application of architectural coatings (e.g., paints) would release VOCs (regulated by SCAQMD Rule 1113).
The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these potential sources. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions.
As shown in Table 6-3: Daily Construction Emissions, construction of the Project would produce VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds. As a result, construction of the Project would not contribute substantially to an existing violation of air quality standards for regional pollutants (e.g., ozone). This impact is considered less than significant.
Localized Emissions
In addition to maximum daily regional emissions, maximum localized (on-site) emissions were quantified for each construction activity. The localized construction air quality analysis was conducted using the methodology promulgated by the SCAQMD. Look-up tables provided by the SCAQMD were used to determine localized construction emissions thresholds for the Project. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and are based on the most recent background ambient air quality monitoring data (2019-2021) for the Project area.
Table 6-3: Daily Construction Emissions
Construction Phase Year
Daily Emissions (Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2024 3.8 39.6 35.5 0.1 10.4 5.7
2025 2.7 15.7 35.4 <0.1 5.1 1.6
2026 16.1 20.7 48.9 0.1 6.3 2.0
Maximum Regional Total 16.2 39.6 48.9 0.1 10.4 5.7
Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Maximum Localized Total 14.7 18.2 18.8 <0.1 3.6 2.1
Localized Threshold N/A 164 1,382 N/A 12 7
Exceed Threshold? N/A No No N/A No No
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 128 February 2024
The construction dates are used for the modeling of air quality emissions in the CalEEMod software. If construction activities commence later than what is assumed in the environmental analysis, the actual emissions would be lower than analyzed because of the increasing penetration of newer equipment with lower certified emission levels. Assumes implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). SCAQMD has not established LSTs for VOC or SOx.
Source: DKA Planning, 2023 based on CalEEMod 2022.1.1.20 model runs. LST analyses based on 3.5-acre site with 25-meter distances to receptors in Southwest Coastal LA County source receptor area. Estimates reflect the peak summer or winter season, whichever is higher. Totals may not add up due to rounding. Modeling sheets included in the Technical Appendix.
Maximum on-site daily construction emissions for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 were calculated using CalEEMod and compared to the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for the Southwest Coastal LA County SRA based on construction site acreage that is 3.5 acres in area, reflecting the potential maximum area of soil disturbance in a day from construction equipment. Potential impacts were evaluated at the closest offsite sensitive receptor, which are the residences approximately 20 feet to the east of the Project site on Artesia Boulevard. The closest receptor distance on the SCAQMD mass rate LST look-up tables is 25 meters.
As shown in Table 6-3, above, the Project would produce emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended localized standards of significance for NO2 and CO during the construction phase. Similarly, construction activities would not produce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that exceed localized thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD. These estimates assume the use of Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) that address fugitive dust emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 through SCAQMD Rule 403. This would include watering portions of the site that are disturbed during grading activities and minimizing tracking of dirt onto local streets. Therefore, construction impacts on localized air quality are considered less than significant.
Operations
Operational emissions of criteria pollutants would come from area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include consumer products such as household cleaners, architectural coatings for routine maintenance, and landscaping equipment. Energy sources include electricity and natural gas use for space cooling and heating, pool pumps, and water heating. The CalEEMod program generates estimates of emissions from energy use based on the land use type and size. The Project would also produce long-term air quality impacts to the region primarily from motor vehicles that access the Project site. The Project could add up to 545 net vehicle trips to the local roadway network on a weekday at the start of operations in 2026.
As shown in Table 6-4: Daily Operational Emissions, the Project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional or localized significance thresholds. Localized operational emissions include area and energy source emissions. Therefore, the operational impacts of the Project on regional and localized air quality are considered less than significant.
Table 6-4: Daily Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
Daily Emissions (Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 9.1 0.2 26.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.1 1.3 0.7 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Mobile Sources 4.5 3.6 38.0 0.1 8.3 2.2
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 129 February 2024
Emissions Source
Daily Emissions (Pounds Per Day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Regional Total 13.6 5.1 64.8 0.1 8.4 2.3
Existing Total -4.5 -3.3 -33.3 -0.1 -5.9 -1.6
Net Regional Total 9.1 1.8 31.5 <0.1 2.5 0.7
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Net Localized Total 7.9 1.1 24.7 <0.1 0.1 0.2
Localized Significance Threshold N/A 74 680 N/A 2 1
Exceed Threshold? N/A No No N/A No No
LST analyses based on two-acre site with 25-meter distances to receptors in Southwest Coastal LA County SRA Source: DKA Planning, 2023 based on CalEEMod 2022.1.1.20 model runs (included in the Technical Appendix). Totals reflect the summer or winter season maximum (whichever is higher) and may not add up due to rounding.
6.3c Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. There are several sensitive receptors within 0.25 mile of the Project Site that could be exposed to air pollution from construction and operation of the Project, including, but not limited to, the following representative sampling:
• Residences, 1580-1608 Artesia Square, as close as approximately 20 feet to the east. • Residences, 17341 Denker Avenue, approximately 170 feet to the north. • Residence, 17338 Denker Avenue, approximately 125 feet to the northeast. • Residences, 17700 Denker Avenue, approximately 280 feet to the south.
Construction
Construction of the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations if maximum daily emissions of regulated pollutants generated by sources located on and/or near the Project Site exceeded the applicable LST values presented in Appendix 6.3-1,Table 4, or if construction activities generate significant emissions of TACs that could result in carcinogenic risks or non-carcinogenic hazards exceeding the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds of 10 excess cancers per million or noncarcinogenic Hazard Index greater than 1.0, respectively. As discussed above, the LST values were derived by the SCAQMD for the criteria pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to prevent the occurrence of concentrations exceeding the air quality standards at sensitive receptor locations based on proximity and construction site size.
As shown in Table 6-3: Daily Construction Emissions, during construction of the Project, maximum daily localized unmitigated emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 from sources on the Project Site would remain below each of the respective LST values. Unmitigated maximum daily localized emissions would not exceed any of the localized standards for receptors that are within 25 meters of the Project’s construction activities. Therefore, based on SCAQMD guidance, localized emissions of criteria pollutants 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 130 February 2024
would not have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations that would present a public health concern.
The primary TAC that would be generated by construction activities is diesel PM, which would be released from the exhaust stacks of construction equipment. The construction emissions modeling conservatively assumed that all equipment present on the Project Site would be operating simultaneously throughout most of the day, while in all likelihood this would rarely be the case. Average daily emissions of diesel PM would be less than one pound per day throughout the course of Project construction. Therefore, the magnitude of daily diesel PM emissions would not be sufficient to result in substantial pollutant concentrations at off-site locations nearby.
Furthermore, according to SCAQMD methodology, health risks from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 30-year period will contract cancer based on the use of standard riskassessment methodology. The entire duration of construction activities associated with implementation of the Project is anticipated to be approximately 27 months, and the magnitude of daily diesel PM emissions will vary over this time period. No residual emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk are anticipated after construction. Because there is such a short-term exposure period, construction TAC emissions would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, construction of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial diesel PM concentrations, and this impact would be less than significant.
Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Risk
As concluded in Appendix 6.3-2, the Project’s cancer and non-cancer risks from construction emissions would be less than significant, as both would be below the South Coast AQMD threshold of significance.
Operation
The Project Site would be redeveloped with multi-family residences, a land use that is not typically associated with TAC emissions. Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes (e.g., chrome plating, electrical manufacturing, petroleum refinery).
The Project would not include these types of potential industrial manufacturing process sources. It is expected that quantities of hazardous TACs generated on-site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides) for the types of proposed land uses would be below thresholds warranting further study under California Accidental Release Program.
The primary sources of potential air toxics associated with Project operations include DPM from delivery trucks (e.g., truck traffic on local streets and idling on adjacent streets) and to a lesser extent, facility operations (e.g., natural gas fired boilers). However, these activities, and the land uses associated with the Project, are not considered land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions. It should be noted that the SCAQMD recommends that health risk assessments (HRAs) be conducted for substantial individual sources of DPM (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities that generate more than 100 trucks per day or more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units) and has provided guidance for analyzing mobile source diesel emissions. Based on this guidance, the Project would not include these types of land uses and is not considered to be a substantial source of DPM warranting a refined HRA since daily truck trips to the Project Site would not exceed 100 trucks per day or more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units. In addition, the CARB-mandated ATCMs limit diesel-fueled 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 131 February 2024
commercial vehicles (delivery trucks) to idle for no more than five minutes at any given time, which would further limit diesel particulate emissions.
As the Project would not contain substantial TAC sources and is consistent with the CARB and SCAQMD guidelines, the Project would not result in the exposure of off-site sensitive receptors to carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that exceed the maximum incremental cancer risk of 10 in one million or an acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0, and potential TAC impacts would be less than significant.
The Project would generate long-term emissions on-site from area and energy sources that would generate negligible pollutant concentrations of CO, NO2, PM2.5, or PM10 at nearby sensitive receptors.
While long-term operations of the Project would add traffic to local roads that produces off-site emissions, these would not result in exceedances of CO air quality standards at roadways in the area due to three key factors. First, CO hotspots are extremely rare and only occur in the presence of unusual atmospheric conditions and extremely cold conditions, neither of which applies to this Project area. Second, autorelated emissions of CO continue to decline because of advances in fuel combustion technology in the vehicle fleet. Finally, the Project would not contribute to the levels of congestion that would be needed to produce emissions concentrations needed to trigger a CO hotspot, as it would add 545 net new vehicle trips to the local roadway network on weekdays when the development could be leased and operational in 2026. This additional traffic would be well below the traffic volumes that would be needed to generate CO exceedances of the ambient air quality standard.
Finally, the Project would not result in any substantial emissions of TACs during the construction or operation phases. During the construction phase, the primary air quality impacts would be associated with the combustion of diesel fuels, which produce exhaust-related particulate matter that is considered a toxic air contaminant by CARB based on chronic exposure to these emissions. However, construction activities would not produce chronic, long-term exposure to diesel particulate matter. During long-term project operations, the Project does not include typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs such as industrial manufacturing processes and automotive repair facilities. As a result, the Project would not create substantial concentrations of TACs.
In addition, the SCAQMD recommends that health risk assessments be conducted for substantial sources of diesel particulate emissions (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities) and has provided guidance for analyzing mobile source diesel emissions. The Project would not generate a substantial number of truck trips. Based on the limited activity of TAC sources, the Project would not warrant the need for a health risk assessment associated with on-site activities. Therefore, the Project’s operational impacts on local sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
6.3d Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in activities that would create objectionable odors. The Project is a housing development that would not include any activities typically associated with unpleasant odors and local nuisances (e.g., rendering facilities, dry cleaners). SCAQMD regulations that govern nuisances, such as Rule 402, Nuisances, would regulate any occasional odors associated with residences. As a result, any odor impacts from the Project would be considered less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 132 February 2024
While the Project would not generate short- and long-term emissions during the construction and operation phases, respectively, that would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, the presence of any other development projects could produce cumulative impacts. There were 22 potential related projects identified by the City of Gardena near the Project site (Table 6-5: Related Projects Within City of Gardena). However, only two of these (Projects 11, 14) are within 1,000 feet of the Project site. Beyond 1,000 feet of the Project site, any sensitive receptors between the Project site and any related project would be negligibly impacted, as localized pollutants substantially disperse as a function of distance, meteorology, and terrain. The USEPA finds that in the context of roadway pollutants, “…concentrations generally decrease to background levels within 500-600 feet.”23 CARB also finds that air pollution levels can be significantly higher within 500 feet of freeways or other major sources.24 Table 6-5: Related Projects Within City of Gardena
# Address Distance from
Project Site Use
NonResidential
(SF)
Residential
(DU) Status
1 15106 S Western Ave Over 1,000 ft. Commercial 3,720 - Awaiting
construction
2 1333 West 168th St. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 3
Awaiting
construction
3 1348 West 168th St. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 9
Awaiting
construction
4 13919 Normandie Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 20 Under construction
5 12850 Crenshaw Bl. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 265 Under construction
6 1938 West 146th St. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 6
Awaiting
construction
7 13126 S Western Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 128 Awaiting construction
8 2545 Marine Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 22 Under construction
9 2800 Rosecrans Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 24 Pending entitlements
10 1600 W 135th St. Over 1,000 ft. Warehouse 190,860 -
Awaiting
construction
11 1450 W Artesia Bl. 970 feet east Warehouse 268,000 - Pending
entitlements
12 14206 Van Ness Ave. Over 1,000 ft.
Self-Storage/
Warehouse 177,573
-
Pending
entitlements Office 8,000
13 14600 Western Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences/
Commercial 3,000 196 Pending entitlements
14 1515 West 178th St. 140 feet south Townhomes - 114
Construction
completed in
early 2023
23 U.S. EPA. Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently Asked Questions. August 2014. 24 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Guidance Document: Air Quality Issues Regarding Land Use. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 133 February 2024
# Address Distance from
Project Site
Use
NonResidential
(SF)
Residential
(DU) Status
15 1341 West Gardena Bl. Over 1,000 ft. Residences
Retail/Office 3,385 14 Under construction
16 1621 West 147th St. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 6
Under
construction
17 1335 West 141st St. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 50 Under construction
18 2129 West Rosecrans
Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 113 Under construction 19 13615 South Vermont
Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 84 Under construction
20 2500-2508 Rosecrans
Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 53 Under construction
21 15717 & 15725
Normandie Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 30 Under construction 22 16911 S. Normandie
Ave. Over 1,000 ft. Residences - 408 Pending entitlements Source: City of Gardena.
In addition, there were two related projects identified in the City of Torrance (Table 6-6: Related Projects Within City of Torrance) that are pending entitlements and are near the Project site. However, both locations are more than 1,000 feet away from the Project site and would not contribute to cumulative air quality impacts at sensitive receptors near the Project site.
Table 6-6: Related Projects Within City of Torrance
# Address Distance from
Project Site
Use
NonResidential
(SF)
Residential
(DU) Status
1 18045 Western
Ave.
2,000 feet
south
Residences/
Retail 6,000 32
Pending
entitlements
2 18419 Western
Ave.
3,000 feet
south Residences - 15
Pending
entitlements
Source: City of Torrance.
As noted in Table 6-5, one of the two related projects within 1,000 feet of the Project site has completed construction (Project 14 at 1515 West 178th Street). As a result, one project is assumed to potentially undergo concurrent construction with the Project (Project 11 in the City of Gardena). The impact of cumulative development on short-term construction and long-term operational air quality is discussed below.
AQMP Consistency
Cumulative development is not expected to result in a significant impact in terms of conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of the 2022 AQMP. As discussed previously, growth considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Consequently, as long as growth in the Basin is within the projections for growth identified in the 2022 RTP/SCS, implementation of the AQMP will not be obstructed by such growth. In addition, as discussed previously, the population growth resulting from the 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 134 February 2024
Project would be consistent with the growth projections of the AQMP. Any related project would implement feasible air quality mitigation measures to reduce the criteria air pollutants, if required due to any significant emissions impacts. In addition, each related project would be evaluated for its consistency with the land use policies set forth in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, would be less than significant.
Construction
SCAQMD recommends that any construction-related emissions and operational emissions from individual development projects that exceed the project-specific mass daily emissions thresholds identified above also be considered cumulatively considerable.25 Individual projects that generate emissions not in excess of SCAQMD’s significance thresholds would not contribute considerably to any potential cumulative impact. SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of the emissions generated by a set of cumulative development projects nor provides thresholds of significance to be used to assess the impacts associated with these emissions.26
As summarized in Table 6-4, the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s mass emissions thresholds and would not contribute to any potential cumulative impact. If any related project were projected to exceed LST thresholds (after mitigation), it could perform dispersion modeling to confirm whether health-based air quality standards would be violated. The SCAQMD’s LST thresholds recognize the influence of a receptor’s proximity, setting mass emissions thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 that generally double with every doubling of distance.
The Project would comply with applicable regulations, including the SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements listed above. Based on SCAQMD guidance, individual construction projects that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Air Basin is in non-attainment. As shown above, construction-related daily emissions at the Project site would not exceed any of the SCAQMD’s regional or localized significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, would be less than significant.
Similar to the Project, the greatest potential for TAC emissions at the related project would generally involve diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during grading and excavation activities. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 30-year period will contract cancer, based on the use of standard 25 White Paper on Regulatory Options for Addressing Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution Emissions, SCAQMD Board Meeting, September 5, 2003, Agenda No. 29, Appendix D, p. D-3. 26 SCAQMD Proposed Amended Rule 1420.1; “The thresholds for cumulative impacts are the same as projectspecific thresholds. Based on the foregoing analysis, criteria pollutant project-specific air quality impacts from implementing PAR 1420.1 would not exceed air quality significance thresholds and cumulative impacts are not expected to be significant for air quality. Potential adverse impacts from implementing PAR 1420.1 would not be “cumulative considerable” as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 16054(h)(1) for air quality impacts. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 16054(h)(4), the mere existing of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulative (sic) considerable.”
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.3
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Air Quality 135 February 2024
risk-assessment methodology. Construction activities are temporary and short-term events, thus construction activities at each related project would not result in a long-term substantial source of TAC emissions. Additionally, the SCAQMD CEQA guidance does not require a health risk assessment for shortterm construction emissions. It is therefore not meaningful to evaluate long-term cancer impacts from construction activities, which occur over relatively short durations. As such, given the short-term nature of these activities, cumulative toxic emission impacts during construction would be less than significant.
Operations
As discussed above, the Project’s operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. According to the SCAQMD, if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants. As operational emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD’s regional or localized significance thresholds, the emissions of nonattainment pollutants and precursors generated by Project operations would not be cumulatively considerable.
With respect to TAC emissions, neither the Project nor the related project would represent a substantial source of TAC emissions, which are typically associated with large-scale industrial, manufacturing, and transportation hub facilities. The Project and related project would be consistent with the recommended screening level siting distances for TAC sources, as set forth in CARB’s Land Use Guidelines, and the Project and related project would not result in a cumulative impact requiring further evaluation. However, the related project could generate minimal TAC emissions related to the use of consumer products and landscape maintenance activities, among other things. Pursuant to AB 1807, which directs the CARB to identify substances as TACs and adopt airborne toxic control measures to control such substances, the SCAQMD has adopted numerous rules (primarily in Regulation XIV) that specifically address TAC emissions. These SCAQMD rules have resulted in and will continue to result in substantial Basin-wide TAC emissions reductions. As such, cumulative TAC emissions during long-term operations would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in any substantial sources of TACs that have been identified by the CARB’s Land Use Guidelines, and thus, would not contribute to a cumulative impact.
Odors
As discussed above, there are only two related projects within 1,000 feet of the Project site, one of which has already been constructed. Therefore, Related Project 11 is the only related project that could potentially combine with the Project to result in cumulative impacts with respect to odors. Due to distance and environmental factors (e.g., meteorology), any odors from the remaining related projects would not contribute to cumulative odor impacts near the Project site. Neither the Project (residential use) nor Related Project 11 (warehouse use) would include any activities typically associated with unpleasant odors and local nuisances (e.g., rendering facilities, dry cleaners). Therefore, cumulative impacts with respect to odors would be less than significant.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.4
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Biological Resources 136 February 2024
Biological Resources
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.4
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Biological Resources 137 February 2024
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.4a Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an urbanized area and is currently occupied by a car wash and automobile care center uses. On-site vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping along the Project frontage and within the Project site, which is limited to grass, shrubs, and trees. The 43 existing trees within the Project site and fronting West Artesia Boulevard would be removed as part of the project.
No natural habitats are present on the property. Urban development borders the Project site, as summarized in Table 2-2. No native habitat is present on properties bordering the Project site and landscaping is limited to ornamental vegetation. Based on a review of the existing and surrounding site conditions, no candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant or wildlife species are present on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not have an adverse effect on any candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant or wildlife species. As less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
6.4b Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
6.4c Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an urbanized area and is currently occupied by a car wash and automobile care center. There are no riparian habitats or State of federally protected wetlands are located on the Project site, however, the Dominguez Channel, which is located adjacent to the Project site’s southern boundary, is listed as a riverine on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory. Although the Dominguez Channel is identified as a riverine, which is a type of wetland, it is concrete lined, thus its habitat values in this urban area are low. Further, the Project would not directly or indirectly impact this habitat. The Project site is fully developed; it does not contain riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands. Therefore, a less than significant impact on riparian habitat or wetlands would result from the Project and no mitigation is required.
6.4d Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. Wildlife corridors are physical connections that allow wildlife to move between areas of suitable habitat in both undisturbed and fragmented landscapes. The Project site is developed as a car wash and automobile care center with surface parking. The surrounding properties contain urban uses, and the Project site is not a recognized wildlife corridor. Corridors are linear linkages between two or more habitat patches, which provide for wildlife movement and dispersal. The Project site is fully developed and contains no natural habitats, with only minimal landscaping. The Project site is also bounded by urban development on all sides. No natural habitats are present on these adjacent areas, and only landscaping (i.e., ornamental vegetation) is present. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.4
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Biological Resources 138 February 2024
The Dominguez Channel is located immediately south of the Project site. There are no established wildlife movement corridors that traverse this segment of the Dominguez Channel.27 Because this drainage is concrete-lined, its habitat values in this urban area are low. The Dominguez Channel does not necessarily include habitat capable of supporting all requirements of a species, but it could be used for wildlife movement. However, because Project construction activities would occur entirely within Project site boundaries the Project’s potential impacts concerning interference with an established wildlife movement would be less than significant.
As previously noted, the Project site is fully developed and contains only ornamental vegetation (i.e., grass, shrubs, and trees). However, the on-site ornamental vegetation trees could provide suitable nesting habitat for birds. The Project would clear and grade the Project site including the vegetation with the potential to support nesting migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) are intended to protect migratory birds. Under MBTA provisions, it is unlawful “by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill” any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the USFWS. The term “take” is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities. In addition, the CFGC extends protection to non‐migratory birds identified as resident game birds (CFGC Section 3500) and any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds‐of‐prey) (CFGC Section 3503). To address potential impacts to migratory birds from construction activities during the nesting season, the Project would be subject to compliance with GMC Section 18.42.210E, Migratory Bird Protection, 28 which includes
provisions concerning construction activities both within and outside the nesting season to avoid effects to migratory birds.
Therefore, following compliance with the relevant regulatory framework (i.e., MBTA, CFGC, and GMC Section 18.42.210E), the Project’s potential impacts to nesting migratory birds would be less than significant.
6.4e Would the project conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. GMC Section 13.60.080, Permit, requires a Trimming Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and/or a Tree Planting Permit for cutting, trimming, pruning, planting, removing, injuring or interfering with any tree, shrub, or plant upon any Street or Public Place in the City. The Project would be developed on private property and no tree trimming or tree removal within any of the City’s streets or public places would occur as a result of Project construction. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no impact would occur. 27 Environmental Sciences Associates, LA County Flood Control District Enhanced Watershed Management Programs Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, January 2015. 28 City of Gardena, California, Municipal Code Ordinance No. 1848. Retrieved from https://cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/03/ORD-NO-1848-Establishment-of-Housing-Overlays-and-Devlopment-Standards.pdf. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.4
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Biological Resources 139 February 2024
6.4f Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in conflicts with such plans and no impact would occur concerning a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan and no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse effects on biological resources or to mitigate significant impacts to these resources. The types of measures required for projects affecting protected habitats, species, and regulated resources can include avoidance, project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices, and mitigation measures. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework, the Project would not cause a significant impact on biological resources. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a potential cumulatively considerable impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.5
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Cultural Resources 140 February 2024
Cultural Resources
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
This Section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project in the City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, California (Cultural Resources Assessment), prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, dated August 2023 and included in its entirety as Appendix 6.5-1: Cultural Resources Assessment.
6.5a Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact. The Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment included a review of available cultural reports, as well as historical and topographic maps and aerial imagery to ascertain the level of existing disturbance, potential for archaeological resources, and presence of any recorded or unrecorded built historic resources within the Project site. The City conducted a historical resource survey in 1981, though no resources were recorded within the Project area at that time. Historic topographic maps from 1896 show that the Project area was located on the shoreline of a historic marsh/shallow lake. The Project site was then modified between the 1930s and 1940s when there were apparent attempts to control water flow into a channel. By 1952 the Project site was manicured into a flat, undeveloped area with the constructed Dominguez Channel located just to the south. The Project site was further modified and developed in 1979 with the construction of two commercial and industrial buildings that remain to the present day.
The two existing buildings within the Project site do not meet the 45-year age threshold for evaluation as a historical resource by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 29 Further, no portion of the Project site
is listed in the Los Angeles Historic Resources Inventory, the National Register of Historic Places or listed in the California Registry of Historical Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission, nor appears to be eligible under any of the NRHP Criteria. The City does not have a historic designation 29 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, March 1995. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.5
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Cultural Resources 141 February 2024
program or historic preservation ordinance. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 and no impact would occur.
6.5b Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As concluded in the Cultural Resources Assessment, prior to development, the buried archaeological sensitivity of the Project area would have been moderate-to-high given the Holocene-age soils tied to human occupation that were present across the property, as well as the Project area’s location on the shores of a marsh/shallow lake. However, in its current condition, the Project area has low potential for archaeological material given the history of extensive modification within the Project site. Notwithstanding, Project construction would include limited excavation and grading activities that have the potential to unearth undocumented archaeological resources. Should archaeological deposits be encountered during the Project’s ground disturbance, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource could occur. Therefore, implementation of MM CUL-1 would be required, which outlines steps to be taken if an archaeological resource is exposed during construction. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would reduce any potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
6.5c Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. Past development has previously disturbed the Project site. Also, no dedicated cemeteries are on or near the Project site. Given the extent of onsite ground disturbances from previous development and the area’s urbanized nature, there is low potential for the Project’s grounddisturbing activities to encounter human remains. Notwithstanding, the potential exists for accidental discovery of human remains during ground-disturbing activities. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including State of California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 7050.5-7055 and PRC Section 5097.98 and Section 5097.99. HSC Sections 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for treatment of human remains. Specifically, HSC Section 7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. HSC Section 7050.5 also requires that all activities cease immediately, and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. As required by State law, the procedures set forth in PRC Section 5087.98 would be implemented, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC. The NAHC would designate the “Most Likely Descendent” of the unearthed human remains. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted near the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains shall remain undisturbed until the County Coroner has investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for treatment and disposition of the remains. Further, GMC Section
18.42.210D requires that if the human remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the NAHC be notified within 24 hours. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., GMC Section 18.42.210D, HSC Sections 7050.5-7055 and PRC Section 5097.98 and Section 5097.99), the Project’s potential impacts concerning disturbances to human remains would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.5
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Cultural Resources 142 February 2024
Cumulative Impacts
The Project site does not contain historic resources; therefore, no cumulative impact would occur.
Although the Project is not expected to impact any archaeological resources, mitigation has been identified to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. As with the Project, past, current, and future projects would be required to implement measures to reduce the severity of potential impacts.
Despite the site-specific nature of resources, mitigation required for the identification and protection of unknown or undocumented resources would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. Cumulatively, data recovered from sites in the region allow for the examination and evaluation of the diversity of human activities in the region. The Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Inadvertent Discovery of an Archaeological Resource. Before ground disturbing activities are initiated on the Project site, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Pre-construction Worker Training on the types of unanticipated resources that could be encountered during construction, based on the site’s history. This archaeologist may also be retained to ensure prompt assessment in the event that unanticipated cultural resources are encountered during construction.
If archaeological resources are exposed during construction, work within 50 feet of the find must stop until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find.
Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5[f]; PRC 21082), additional work such as testing, or data recovery may be warranted.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.6
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Energy 143 February 2024
Energy
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
The basis for the following information and analysis is the Energy Assessment for the 1610 W. Artesia Boulevard Project (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., February 2024). The Energy Assessment is included in this Initial Study as Appendix 6.6-1: Energy Assessment and is summarized below.
Background
Building energy efficiency standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission (CEC)) in June 1977 and are updated every three years (CCR Title 24, Part 6). CCR Title 24, Part 6 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On July 1, 2022, the CEC adopted the 2022 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) (2022 Standards), which went into effect on January 1, 2023.
CALGreen is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five topical areas. Gardena has not adopted the voluntary measures.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.6a Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. Table 6-7: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption summarizes the Project’s estimated energy (i.e., electricity, natural gas, and fuel) consumption. The Project’s energy 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.6
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Energy 144 February 2024
consumption summarized in Table 6-7 is conservative given it does not take credit for the energy consumption associated with the existing onsite commercial and industrial uses, which would be removed.
Table 6-7: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Type
Project Annual
Energy
Consumption
Los Angeles County Annual
Energy Consumption
Percent Increase
Countywide1
Operational Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption
Electricity 1,871,223 kWh 68,484,956,280 kWh2, 3 0.0027% Natural Gas 50,273 therms 2,820,285,935 therms2, 4 0.0018% Fuel Consumption
Construction
Diesel 163,663 gallons5, 6 529,170,458 gallons7, 8 0.0309% Gasoline 98,669 gallons5, 6 3,631,291,883 gallons7, 8 0.0027% Operational8
Diesel 14,255 gallons 535,038,344 gallons8, 9 0.0027%
Gasoline 179,205 gallons 3,446,400,365 gallons8, 9 0.0052% Notes:
1. The Project increases in energy consumption is compared to the County’s total energy consumption.
2. County energy consumption in 2022.
3. California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/, accessed December 2023.
4. California Energy Commission, Natural Gas Consumption by County, http://www. ecdms.energy.ca.gov/, accessed December 2023.
5. Based on equipment and load factors from California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2022.1.1).
6. Based on Project’s construction equipment list timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips.
7. Projected County construction fuel consumption in 2024.
8. California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2021.
9. Projected County operational fuel consumption in 2026.
Refer to Appendix 6.7-1 for assumptions.
Construction-Related Energy Consumption
During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, and building construction. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest EPA and California Air Resources Board engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.6
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Energy 145 February 2024
prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.
Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materials composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than nonrecycled materials. The incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest in minimizing the cost of doing business.
As indicated in Table 6-7, the Project’s construction-related off-road diesel fuel consumption is estimated to total approximately 163,663 gallons, which would constitute an increase of approximately 0.0309 percent of the County’s typical annual consumption. The Project’s construction-related on-road gasoline fuel consumption is estimated to total approximately 98,669 gallons, which would constitute an approximate 0.0027 percent increase of the County’s typical annual consumption. Therefore, the Project’s construction-related fuel consumption would result in a nominal increase in fuel use in the County.
Further, the energy use associated with water use during construction would result in 9,703 kW. As such, Project construction activities would have a minimal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities.
There are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, the Project’s construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other development projects similar in nature to the Project. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Operational Energy Consumption
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with Federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States.
During Project operations, automotive fuel would be consumed from vehicle trips to and from the Project site. As indicated in Table 6-7, the Project’s operational on-road diesel fuel consumption is estimated to total approximately 14,255 gallons, which would constitute an approximate 0.0027 percent increase of the County’s typical annual consumption. The Project’s operational on-road gasoline fuel consumption is estimated to total approximately 179,205gallons, which would constitute an approximate 0.0052 percent increase of the County’s typical annual consumption. The Project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Building Energy Demand
As shown in Table 6-7, the Project’s annual electricity consumption is estimated to total 1,871,223 kWh, which would constitute an approximate 0.0027 percent increase over the County’s typical annual electricity consumption. The Project’s annual natural gas consumption is estimated to total approximately 50,273 therms, which would constitute an approximate 0.0018 percent increase of the County’s typical 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.6
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Energy 146 February 2024
annual consumption. The Project would be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Compliance with Title 24 standards would significantly reduce energy consumption. As such, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Further, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investorowned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 36 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources.
Conclusion
As shown in Table 6-7, the increase in electricity, natural gas, and fuel consumption over existing conditions would be minimal. For the reasons described above, the Project would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. Thus, the Project would not cause a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during Project construction, operation, and/or maintenance, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation.
6.6b Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. Title 24 Part 6 contains energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings based on a state mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 Part 6 addresses a number of energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including the energy impact of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, skylights, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs).
Title 24 Part 6 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 per state regulations. In accordance with Title 24 Part 6, the Project would have: (a) sensor-based lighting controls— for fixtures located near windows, the lighting would be adjusted by taking advantage of available natural light; and (b) efficient process equipment— improved technology offers significant savings through more efficient processing equipment.
Title 24 Part 11 contains voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under the California Green Building Standards Code. As discussed above, the Project would result in an increased demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. In accordance with Title 24 Part 11 mandatory compliance, the Applicant would have (a) 65 percent of its construction and demolition waste diverted from landfills; (b) mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; (c) low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards; and (d) a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use. Compliance with all of these mandatory standards would decrease the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum.
The Gardena CAP establishes a series of energy efficiency related measures intended to reduce GHG emissions based on the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The Project would be consistent with applicable Gardena CAP measures, including measures related to energy efficiency, land use and transportation, and urban greening.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.6
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Energy 147 February 2024
The Project would not conflict with any of the federal, state, or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because the Project would comply with Title 24 Parts 6 and 11 and with Gardena CAP measures, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur. Therefore, Project impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.7
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Geology and Soils 148 February 2024
Geology and Soils
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the Project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.7
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Geology and Soils 149 February 2024
The basis for the following information and analysis is the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for Feasibility Purposes, 1610 W. Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, California 90248 (Preliminary Geotechnical Report) (Kling Consulting Group, Inc., October 2022). The Preliminary Geotechnical Report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix 6.7-1: Preliminary Geotechnical Report and summarized below.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.7ai Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risks of loss, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Appendix
6.7-1: Preliminary Geotechnical Report identifies the Project site as having a low potential for surface fault rupture. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risks of loss, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. No impact would occur in this regard.
6.7aii Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risks of loss, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The City is located between several active fault zones including the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Palos Verdes Fault, and Compton Blind Thrust Fault.30 The Project site is in an area of high regional seismicity which could produce seismic shaking at the Project site. The region has experienced shaking from several earthquakes recorded back to 1812. The nearest large historic earthquake is the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, with an epicenter approximately 33.6 miles northwest of the Project site.31 Historic earthquakes with magnitudes of greater than or equal to 6.0 and have been epicentered within approximately 30 miles of the Project site. It is anticipated that the site will periodically experience ground acceleration from distant moderate to large magnitude earthquakes, however, no active faults are known to exist at the site, and the risk of surface fault rupture is considered low. The closest active fault zone is the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast of the Project site.32
30 California Department of Conservation. (2015). CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Retrieved from http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. 31 Southern California Earthquake Data Center. (2023). Significant Earthquakes and Faults. Retrieved from https://scedc.caltech.edu/earthquake/significant.html. Accessed in December 2023. 32 Appendix 6.7-1: Preliminary Geotechnical Report.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.7
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Geology and Soils 150 February 2024
The faults described above could cause moderate to intense ground shaking during the Project’s lifetime.
Additionally, the Project site has experienced earthquake-induced ground shaking in the past and can be expected to experience further shaking in the future. Therefore, Project implementation could expose people and structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. The intensity of ground shaking on the Project site would depend upon the earthquake’s magnitude, distance to the epicenter, and geology of the area between the Project site and epicenter. Regulatory controls to address potential seismic hazards would be imposed on the Project through the permitting process.
Pursuant to GMC Chapter 15.04, General Building Provisions, the City has adopted the 2022 California Building Standards Code (CBSC), subject to certain amendments and changes, including those that address seismic resistance. CBSC design standards correspond to the level of seismic risk in a given location and are intended primarily to protect public safety and secondly to minimize property damage. The Project would be subject to compliance with all applicable regulations in the most recently published CBSC (as amended by GMC Chapter 15.04), which specifies design requirements to mitigate the effects of potential earthquake hazards.
Moreover, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report evaluated various geologic and seismic hazards based on site-specific parameters, including strong seismically-induced settlement, seismicallyinduced lateral displacements, and seismically-induced land sliding. The Geotechnical Investigation Preliminary Recommendations sections makes recommendations concerning seismic design parameters, foundations, slabs, and general earthwork and grading, among other factors. The Geotechnical Investigation concludes Project construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the Investigation’s recommendations are followed and implemented during construction. A Condition of Approval would be imposed on the Project requiring that the Applicant submit the Final Geotechnical Investigation for City review/approval and comply with its recommendations and any revisions deemed necessary by the City’s Building Official. The Gardena Building Services Division will review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the GMC/CBSC, and the Preliminary and Final Geotechnical Investigation 33 recommendations and requirements for Project design and construction, specifically regarding seismic design parameters. Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework (i.e., GMC and CBSC), and both the Preliminary and Final Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendations, the Project’s potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
6.7aiii Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risks of loss, or death involving seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. For liquefaction to occur, three criteria must be met: underlying loose, coarse-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of approximately 25 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby largemagnitude earthquakes. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures.
33 Kling Consulting Group, Inc. (2022). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report; Appendix 6.7-1 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.7
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Geology and Soils 151 February 2024
The State’s Seismic Hazards Maps classifies the Project site as lying within a liquefaction zone.34 The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the upper 20 feet of the alluvial deposits that underlie the Project site are susceptible to liquefaction and seismic induced settlement due to a design-level earthquake incorporating the historical high groundwater level of 10 feet below existing grades. The Geotechnical Investigation further concludes that liquefaction-induced vertical settlement for the Project site would range from approximately 0.2 to 1.8 inches, with approximately 1.6 inches of estimated differential settlement over 350 feet. The Geotechnical Investigation provides recommendations concerning seismic design parameters, foundations, slabs, and general earthwork and grading, among other factors. The Geotechnical Investigation concludes Project construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the Investigation’s recommendations are followed and implemented during construction. A Condition of Approval would be imposed on the Project requiring that the Applicant submit the Final Geotechnical Investigation for City review/approval and comply with its recommendations and any revisions deemed necessary by the City’s Building Official. The Gardena Building Services Division will review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the GMC/CBSC, and the Preliminary and Final Geotechnical Investigation recommendations and requirements for Project design and construction, specifically regarding seismic design parameters.
Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework (i.e., GMC and CBSC), and both the Preliminary and Final Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendations, the Project’s potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving liquefaction would be less than significant.
6.7aiv Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risks of loss, or death involving landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. According to the California Geological Survey’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Inglewood Quadrangle Map, the Project site does not lie in a landslide hazard zone.35 Since the site is relatively flat and not within a landslide hazard zone, no potential for earthquake-induced land sliding would occur. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects involving landslides. No impact would occur in this regard.
6.7b Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is relatively flat, and its geology is composed of fill materials and native alluvial soils. Grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. During construction, the Project would be subject to compliance with the GMC Section 8.70.110.B.1, Development Construction, erosion and siltation control measures and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ, and all subsequent amendments) (Construction General Permit); see also Response 6.9a.
GMC Section 8.70.110.B.1 specifies that no Grading Permit shall be issued to construction projects that disturb 1.0 or more acres of soil without obtaining a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit 34 California Department of Conservation. Seismic Hazard Zones, Map Data Viewer. Retrieved from https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp, accessed December 2023. 35 Ibid.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.7
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Geology and Soils 152 February 2024
(GCASWP) from the State Water Resources Control Board. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., the GMC and Construction General Permit), the Project’s potential impacts concerning soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
6.7c Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
6.7d Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 6.7aiii and 6.7aiv regarding the potential for liquefaction and landslides, respectively. In consideration of the close proximity to the concrete-lined Dominguez Channel and liquefaction settlement, the potential for lateral spreading to occur exists at the Project site.
The Geotechnical Investigation includes recommendations concerning seismic design parameters, foundations, slabs, and general earthwork and grading, among other factors. The Geotechnical Investigation concludes Project construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the Investigation’s recommendations are followed and implemented during construction. A Condition of Approval would be imposed on the Project requiring that the Applicant submit the Final Geotechnical Investigation for City review/approval and comply with its recommendations and any revisions deemed necessary by the City’s Building Official. The Gardena Building Services Division will review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the GMC/CBSC, and the Preliminary and Final Geotechnical Investigation recommendations and requirements for Project design and construction, specifically regarding seismic design parameters. Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework (i.e., GMC and CBSC), and both the Preliminary and Final Geotechnical Investigation’s recommendations, the Project’s potential impacts concerning a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and the exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving liquefaction would be less than significant.
6.7e Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. Sewers would be available for disposal of Project-generated wastewater; see Responses 6.19b and 6.19c. The Project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard.
6.7f Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The potential for fossil occurrence depends on the rock type exposed at the surface in a given area and potential effects to paleontological resources would primarily be associated with ground disturbing activities. Paleontological resources are found in geologic deposits of sedimentary rock (i.e., sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, claystone, or shale). As previously noted, the Project site’s surface area consists of Pleistocene age alluvial deposits, which are of an age to preserve fossil resources and have high paleontological potential. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.7
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Geology and Soils 153 February 2024
As depicted on Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map, the Project site is fully developed with commercial and industrial land uses. The Project proposes to remove the existing land uses and, in their place, construct a new 300 DU residential development. Previous construction-related excavation on the Project site has disturbed sediments beyond depths at which buried prehistoric cultural resources are likely.
Notwithstanding, the potential exists for accidental discovery of paleontological resources during grounddisturbing activities. Should fossil resources be present in the Project site’s subsurface, ground-disturbing activities associated with excavations could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource.
To address potential impacts to paleontological resources that may be discovered during grounddisturbing activities, the Project would be subject to compliance with GMC Section 18.42.210, which requires a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop and implement training for construction personnel, and which details the appropriate steps should paleontological resources be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Additionally, the Project would require Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1, which pertains to retaining a Project Paleontologist and preparation of a monitoring plan.
Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., GMC Section 18.42.210), and with MM GEO-1 incorporated, the Project’s potential impacts concerning directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature would be less than significant.
Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Cumulative Impacts
The City would require Project construction to comply with all applicable codes and in accordance with the mitigation set forth in this Initial Study, designed to reduce the exposure of people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death related to geological conditions or seismic events. The potential cumulative impact related to earth and geology is typically site-specific. The analysis herein determined that the Project would not result in any significant impacts related to landform modification, grading, or the destruction of a geologically significant landform or feature with the implementation of mitigation.
Moreover, existing State and local regulations are in place to protect people and property from substantial adverse geological and soil effects, including fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-induced ground failure (including liquefaction), and landslides.
Existing laws and regulations also protect people and property from adverse effects related to soil erosion, expansive soils, loss of topsoil, development on an unstable geologic unit or soil type that could result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. These existing laws and regulations would render potentially adverse geological and soil effects less than significant. These existing laws and regulations also ensure that past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region do not result in substantial adverse geological and soil effects. As a result, the existing legal and regulatory framework would ensure that the incremental geological and soil effects of the Project would result in greater adverse cumulative effects when considered together with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in Gardena and the greater Los Angeles County region. Therefore, the Project, in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact by exposing people or structures to risks related to geologic hazards, soils, or seismic conditions.
Mitigation Measures
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.7
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Geology and Soils 154 February 2024
MM GEO-1 Paleontological Resources Monitor. Monitoring shall be conducted by a Paleontological Resources Monitor, defined as one who meets the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology standards for a Paleontological Resources Monitor. The Paleontological Resources Monitor shall be under the supervision of the Project Paleontologist. A Project Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP). As defined in the PRMMP, Paleontological monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments that occur in previously undisturbed sediment, which has been estimated as any portion of the Project site where excavation exceeds 10 feet in depth. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on consultation with or periodic inspection by the Project Paleontologist and shall depend on the rate of excavation and grading activities and the materials being excavated.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 155 February 2024
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X
The basis for the following information and analysis is the Greenhouse Gas Technical Report – 1610 W Artesia Boulevard Project – Gardena, California (“GHG Technical Report”) (Caja Environmental Services, January 2024); see Appendix 6.8-1: GHG Technical Report.
It is noted, Kimley-Horn conducted a third-party review on behalf of the City of the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Technical Report; see Appendix 6.8-1. The third-party review concluded the analysis meets the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.8a Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
6.8b Would the project conflict with applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Consistency with Applicable Plans and Policies
The discussion below describes the extent the Project complies with or exceeds the performance-based standards included in the regulations outlined in the Climate Change Scoping Plan and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, each of which identifies GHG-reducing measures that directly and indirectly apply to the Project.
This analysis also evaluates the Project’s consistency with the City’s CAP and General Plan. As shown herein, the Project would be consistent with the applicable GHG reduction plans and policies.
State
CARB Scoping Plan Consistency
Pursuant to AB 32 requirements, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008, which provides a range of GHG reduction actions. There were three previous Scoping Plans, which focused on specific GHG reduction targets for industrial, energy, and transportation sectors — first to meet 1990 levels by 2020, then to meet the more aggressive target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2022 Scoping Plan, addressing recent legislation and direction from Governor Newsom, extends and 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 156 February 2024
expands upon earlier plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These measures build upon those identified in the Scoping Plan’s first update in 2013.
Table 6-8: CARB Scoping Plan Analysis, below, lists Project attributes that CARB intends to be used as a guide to help local jurisdictions qualitatively identify those residential and mixed-use projects that are clearly consistent with the State’s climate goals, since these attributes address the largest sources of operational emissions for residential projects. As summarized in Table 6-8, the Project would incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes CARB identifies. However, according to CARB, lead agencies may determine that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of these key project attributes are also consistent with the State’s climate goals.36 The key project attributes the Project does not incorporate, were determined to result in a less than significant impact since the Project meets all required standards (e.g., CALGreen Code and 2022 Energy Code). As such, the Project would not conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan. Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Table 6-8: CARB Scoping Plan Analysis
Priority Area Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Transportation
Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure that, at
minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary
standard in the California Green Building
Standards Code at the time of project
approval.
Conflict. Although the proposed
Project does not meet the most
ambitious California Green Building
Standards Code voluntary standard,
the proposed Project would comply
with the CALGreen Code for electric
vehicle (EV) charging design.
Compliance would provide 10 percent
of parking stalls to be EV capable, 25
percent of parking stalls to be EV ready
with Level 2 EV charging receptacles,
and 5 percent of parking stalls to be
equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. The
final design may vary from this in
compliance with the CALGreen Code.
Therefore, this conflict is considered a
less than significant impact given the
Project complies with the CALGreen
Code for EV design.
VMT Reduction Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops
previously undeveloped or underutilized land
that is presently served by existing utilities and
essential public services (e.g., transit, streets,
water, sewer).
No Conflict. The Project is located on
an urban infill site along a major
regional arterial that is served by three
public transit bus lines (Torrance
Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, and
GTrans Line 2), as well as water and
sewer service. The Project’s proximity
to work and shopping destinations
along Artesia Boulevard, Western
Avenue, and other major arterials
provide opportunities for residents to
walk, bike, take transit, or drive shorter
36 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D: Local Actions, pages 23-24. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 157 February 2024
Priority Area Key Project Attribute Project Consistency distances to work and shopping
destinations.
Does not result in the loss or conversion of
natural and working lands.
No Conflict. The Project is located on
an urban infill site that is currently
unused. There are no natural or
working lands on the Project site.
Consists of transit-supportive densities
(minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per
acre), or Is in proximity to existing transit stops
(within a half mile), or satisfies more detailed
and stringent criteria specified in the region’s
SCS.
No Conflict. The Project would be fully
consistent with this attribute, as it
would provide a density of
approximately 88 DU/AC and would be
located on an urban infill site along a
major regional arterial that is served by
three public transit bus lines (Torrance
Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, and
GTrans Line 2),
Reduces parking requirements by:
Eliminating parking requirements or including
maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the
ratio of parking spaces to residential units or
square feet); or
Providing residential parking supply at a ratio
of less than one parking space per dwelling
unit; or for multi-family residential
development, requiring parking costs to be
unbundled from costs to rent or own a
residential unit.
No Conflict. Parking will be unbundled,
which reduces parking requirements.
At least 20 percent of units included are
affordable to lower-income residents.
Conflict. While the Project would not
include 20 percent of units as
affordable housing, the Project would
include seven percent (17 DU) of units
as affordable. This conflict is
considered a less than significant
impact given the Project complies with
the City’s development standards and
supports the State’s goal of providing
affordable housing.
Results in no net loss of existing affordable
units
No Conflict. The Project would not
remove any affordable housing units;
rather, it would increase the housing
stock of market-rate and affordable
housing units.
Building
Decarbonization
Uses all-electric appliances without any natural
gas connections and does not use propane or
Conflict. Although the Project would
not use all-electric appliances, the
Project would meet the 2022 Energy
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 158 February 2024
Priority Area Key Project Attribute Project Consistency other fossil fuels for space heating, water
heating, or indoor cooking.
Code and CALGreen Code and would
not impede statewide decarbonization
goals. As discussed above, the Project
is not required to include all key
project attributes identified in this
table to be considered consistent with
the State’s climate goals. Therefore,
this conflict would result in a less than
significant impact.
Source: Appendix 6.8-1.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 159 February 2024
Regional
As discussed in Section 3.1: Criterion 1, the Project would be consistent with applicable goals, policies, and strategies in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, as outlined in Table 3-1: Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals and Table 3-2: Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Guiding Principle and Strategies.
Local
Gardena Climate Action Plan
As noted earlier, the 2017 CAP includes five categories of strategies and 22 goals, as well as a number of sub-strategies that are applicable to development projects. It should be noted that most of the CAP’s measures are voluntary, with financial incentives available to promote increased implementation of those measures. As shown in Table 6-9: Project Consistency with the Gardena CAP, the Project is generally consistent with the land use, transportation, and energy efficiency sub-strategies in the CAP that are relevant for development projects.
Table 6-9: Project Consistency with the Gardena CAP
Source Sub-Strategy Consistency
Land Use and
Transportation
D2.1 Require bicycle parking
through Zoning Code or other
implementation documents.
No Conflict. The Project would provide on-site bicycle
parking consistent with the GMC.
D2.2 Require new developments
to provide pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit amenities.
D2.3 Require commercial and
multi-family residential projects
to provide permanent bicycle
parking facilities.
G1.1. Encourage higher density
through general plan
appropriately in targeted areas.
No Conflict. The Project takes advantage of higher density options (additional 25 percent density bonus) by providing affordable housing on-site.
G1.2. Encourage higher density
through zoning code
appropriately in targeted areas.
No Conflict. The Project is located in the Very High Density Residential zone (R-6) and is designated at Very High
Density Residential in the General Plan.
G1.3 Increase housing density
near transit.
No Conflict. The Project provides increased housing
density near three local bus lines (Torrance Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, GTrans Line 2).
G3.1. Encourage Transit
Accessibility through General
Plan.
No Conflict. The Project is located in the Very High Density Residential area of the General Plan and provides
increased housing density near three local bus lines
(Torrance Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, GTrans Line 2).
G3.1. Encourage Transit
Accessibility through zoning
code.
No Conflict. The Project is located in the Very High Density Residential zone (R-6) and provides increased housing
density near three local bus lines (Torrance Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, GTrans Line 2).
G4.1. Encourage policies that
promote a mix of housing types.
No Conflict. The Project will provide 17 affordable
residences in the development that will increase the mix of housing types in the City.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 160 February 2024
Source Sub-Strategy Consistency
Energy
Efficiency
E1.2. Require low-irrigation
landscaping.
No Conflict. The Project will comply with Title 24 and
CALGreen requirements for low-irrigation landscaping
F1.1. Encourage tree planting at
plan check.
No Conflict. The Project’s tree planting plan will be
evaluated at the plan check phase.
Source: City of Gardena, Climate Action Plan (Final); 2017.
Gardena General Plan
The City has two General Plan Elements that discuss climate change policy (i.e., Community Safety Element and Environmental Justice Element). While the Community Safety Element and its Public Safety Plan do not include policies germane to development projects, the Environmental Justice Element calls for promoting infill development, reduced reliance on single‐occupancy vehicle trips, and improved multi‐ modal transportation networks, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Project would be located in a high-density housing zone and would be served by three local bus lines (Torrance Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, GTrans Line 2). As such, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan’s relevant policies for development projects.
Conclusion
In summary, the plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the Project complies with the applicable plans, policies, regulations and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the Climate Change Scoping Plan and Update, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City’s CAP. Consistency with the above plans, policies, regulations, and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies would reduce the Project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. Thus, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHG emissions. Furthermore, because the Project is consistent and does not conflict with these plans, policies, and regulations, the Project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions as described above would not result in a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, Project-specific impacts regarding climate change would be less than significant.
Project Emissions
In 2008, SCAQMD released draft guidance regarding interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds. Within its October 2008 document, the SCAQMD proposed the use of a percent emission reduction target to determine significance for commercial/residential projects that emit greater than 3,000 MTCO2e per year.
Under this proposal, such commercial and residential projects would have been assumed to have a less than significant impact on climate change. However, this proposed screening threshold was not adopted by the SCAQMD. In support of the consistency analysis above that describes the Project’s potential to conflict with applicable portions of the Climate Change Scoping Plan, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City’s CAP, quantitative calculations are provided below, for informational purposes only.
The Project would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions because of different types of emissions sources, including the following:
• Construction: emissions associated with demolition of the existing uses and parking areas, shoring, excavation, grading, and construction-related equipment and vehicular activity; • Area source: emissions associated with landscape equipment; 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 161 February 2024
• Energy source (building operations): emissions associated with electricity and natural gas use for space heating and cooling, water heating, energy consumption, and lighting; • Stationary source: emissions associated with stationary equipment (e.g., emergency generators); • Mobile source: emissions associated with vehicles accessing the Project site; • Solid Waste: emissions associated with the decomposition of the waste, which generates methane based on the total amount of degradable organic carbon; • Water/Wastewater: emissions associated with energy used to pump, convey, deliver, and treat water; and
• Refrigerants: These are substances used in equipment for air conditioning and refrigeration. Most refrigerants are HFCs or blends of them, which can have high GWP values.
The Project would generate an incremental contribution to and a cumulative increase in GHG emissions.
However, when taking into account the existing automotive uses on the Project site which would be removed as part of the Project, the Project would actually result in a reduction in GHG emissions at the Project site. A specific discussion regarding potential GHG emissions associated with the construction and operational phases of the Project is provided below.
Construction
Project construction is anticipated to be completed in 2026 with occupancy the same year. A summary of construction details (e.g., schedule, equipment mix, and vehicular trips) and CalEEMod modeling output files are provided in the Appendix 6.8-1. The GHG emissions associated with construction of the Project were calculated for each year of construction activity.
Construction of the Project is estimated to generate a total of 2,530 MTCO2e (Table 6-10: Combined Construction-Related Emissions (MTCO2e)). As recommended by the SCAQMD, the total GHG construction emissions were amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the Project (i.e., total construction GHG emissions were divided by 30 to determine an annual construction emissions estimate that can be added to the Project’s operational emissions) to determine the Project’s annual GHG emissions inventory.37 This results in annual Project construction emissions of 84 MTCO2e. A complete listing of the construction equipment by on-site and off-site activities, duration, and emissions estimation model input assumptions used in this analysis is included within the emissions calculation worksheets that are provided in Appendix 6.8-1.
Table 6-10: Combined Construction-Related Emissions (MTCO2e) Year MTCO2e
a
2024 894
2025 1,037
2026 599
Total 2,530
Amortized Over 30 Years 84
aCO2e was calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.20. Detailed results are provided in Appendix 6.8-1.
Source: DKA Planning, 2023.
37 SCAQMD Governing Board Agenda Item 31, December 5, 2008. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 162 February 2024
Operation
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model, which includes landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products, and other everyday sources. As shown in Table 6-11: Annual GHG Emissions Summary (Buildout)a, the Project would result in nine MTCO2e per year from area sources.
Table 6-11: Annual GHG Emissions Summary (Buildout)a
Year MTCO2
a
Areab 9
Energyc(electricity and natural gas) 563
Mobile 1,458
Solid Wasted 75
Water/Wastewatere 28
Refrigerants <1
Construction 84
Total Emissions 2,218
Existing Emissions -2,671
Net Emissions -453
a CO2e was calculated using CalEEMod and the results are provided in the Appendix 6.8-1. b Area source emissions are from landscape equipment and other operational equipment only; hearths omitted. c Energy source emissions are based on CalEEMod default electricity and natural gas usage rates. d Solid waste emissions are calculated based on CalEEMod default solid waste generation rates. e Water/Wastewater emissions are calculated based on CalEEMod default water consumption rates.
Source: DKA Planning, 2023.
Electricity and Natural Gas Generation Emissions
GHG emissions are emitted because of activities in buildings and proposed swimming pools and spa when electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHG emissions directly into the atmosphere. When electricity is used in a building, the electricity generation typically takes place off-site at the power plant; electricity use in a building generally causes emissions in an indirect manner.
Electricity and natural gas emissions were calculated for the Project using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model, which multiplies an estimate of the energy usage by applicable emissions factors chosen by the utility company. GHG emissions from electricity use are directly dependent on the electricity utility provider. In this case, GHG emissions intensity factors for SCE were selected in CalEEMod. The carbon intensity (pounds per megawatt an hour (lbs./MWh)) for electricity generation was calculated for the Project buildout year based on SCE projections. A straight-line interpolation was performed to estimate the SCE carbon intensity factor for the Project buildout year. SCE’s carbon intensity projections also consider SB 350 RPS requirements for renewable energy.
This approach is conservative, given the 2018 chaptering of SB 100 (De Leon), which requires electricity providers to provide renewable energy for at least 60 percent of their delivered power by 2030 and 100 percent use of renewable energy and zero-carbon resources by 2045. SB 100 also increases existing 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 163 February 2024
renewable energy targets, called Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), to 44 percent by 2024 and 52 percent by 2027.
The 2022 Title 24 standards contain more substantial energy efficiency requirements for new construction, emphasizing the importance of building design and construction flexibility to establish performance standards that substantially reduce energy consumption for water hating, lighting, and insulation for attics and walls.
Energy use in buildings is divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the construction of the building, such as in plug-in appliances. CalEEMod calculates energy use from systems covered by Title 24 (e.g., HVAC system, water heating system, and lighting system); energy use from lighting; and energy use from office equipment, appliances, plug-ins, and other sources not covered by Title 24 or lighting.
CalEEMod electricity and natural gas usage rates are based on the CEC-sponsored California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) and the California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies.38 The data are specific for climate zones; therefore, Zone 11 was selected for the Project site based on the zip code tool.
As shown in Table 6-11, Project GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage would result in a total of 563 MTCO2e per year.
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile-source emissions were calculated using the SCAQMD-recommended CalEEMod emissions inventory model. CalEEMod calculates the emissions associated with on-road mobile sources associated with residents, visitors, and delivery vehicles visiting the Project site based on the number of daily trips generated and VMT. Mobile source operational GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and are based on the Project’s VMT analysis.
The Project represents an infill development within an urbanized area that would concentrate residential uses within an HQTA. The Project site is in a dense mixed-use corridor with proximity to three bus lines, including Torrance Transit Line 13, Metro Line 344, and GTrans Line 2. The Project would also incorporate characteristics that would reduce trips and VMT as compared to standard ITE trip generation rates. The Project characteristics listed below are consistent with the CAPCOA guidance document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which provides emission reduction values for transportation related design techniques.39 These techniques would reduce vehicle trips and VMT associated with the Project relative to the standard ITE trip generation rates, which would result in a comparable reduction in VMT and associated GHG emissions. Techniques applicable to the Project include the following (a brief description of the Project’s relevance to the measure is also provided):
• CAPCOA Measure LUT-1 – Increase Density: Increased density, measured in terms of persons, jobs, or dwelling units per unit area, reduces emissions associated with transportation as it reduces the distance people travel for work or services and provides a foundation for the implementation of other strategies, such as enhanced transit services. 38 California Energy Commission, Commercial End-Use Survey, March 2006, and California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey, October 2010.
39 CAPCOA, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, 2010. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 164 February 2024
• CAPCOA Measure LUT-3 – Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (MixedUse): The Project would introduce new residential uses on the Project site into an area with nearby amenities such as shopping and restaurants, creating more of a mixed-use environment along the Artesia Corridor.. The increases on the Project site would reduce vehicle trips and VMT by encouraging residents and visitors to walk and use non-automotive forms of transportation (i.e., public transit, biking), which would result in corresponding reductions in transportationrelated emissions given the proximity of amenities. • CAPCOA Measure LUT-4 – Increase Destination Accessibility: The Project site is in a dense corridor, which is easily accessible by public transportation. Access to multiple destinations, and commercial and retail uses in proximity to the Project site would reduce vehicle trips and VMT compared to the statewide average and encourage walking and non-automotive forms of transportation and would result in corresponding reductions in transportation-related emissions because of the Project.
• CAPCOA Measure LUT-5 – Increase Transit Accessibility: The Project would be located near three local bus routes and the Harbor Gateway Transit Center, which provides access to several local and express bus lines, including GTrans Line 2; Torrance Transit Route 1, 4X, 6, and 13; as well as Metro J Line bus rapid transit service, and Metro Lines 205, 246, 344. The Project would also provide bicycle parking spaces to encourage utilization of alternative modes of transportation. • CAPCOA Measure LUT-9 – Improve Design of Development: The Project would enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment through an attractive open space component and improved sidewalk and streetscape, which would enhance walkability in the Project vicinity. The Project would also locate a development with a high level of street access, which improves street accessibility and connectivity.
CalEEMod calculates VMT based on the type of land use, trip purpose, and trip type percentages for each land use subtype in the project (primary, diverted, and pass-by). As shown in Table 6-10, the Project GHG emissions from mobile sources would result in a total of 1,458 MTCO2e per year. This estimate reflects reductions attributable to the Project’s characteristics (e.g., infill project near transit that supports multimodal transportation options), as described above.
Solid Waste Generation Emissions
Emissions related to solid waste were calculated using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model, which multiplies an estimate of the waste generated by applicable emissions factors provided in Section 2.4 of the USEPA’s AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. CalEEMod solid waste generation rates for each applicable land use were selected for this analysis. As shown in Table 6-10, the Project is expected to result in a total of 75 MTCO2e per year from solid waste that accounts for a 50-percent recycling/diversion rate.40
40 AB 341 (2012) increased the Statewide waste diversion goal from 50 to 75 percent from baseline rates established by CalRecycle by 2020 and beyond. Further, SB 1383 (2016) requires jurisdictions to reduce 75 percent of organic waste disposal in landfills by 2030. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 165 February 2024
Water Usage and Wastewater Generation Emissions
GHG emissions are related to the energy used to convey, treat, and distribute water, and treat wastewater. Thus, these emissions are generally indirect emissions from the production of electricity to power these systems. Three processes are necessary to supply potable water; these include (1) supply and conveyance of the water from the source; (2) treatment of the water to potable standards; and (3) distribution of the water to individual users. After use, energy is used as the wastewater is treated and reused as reclaimed water.
Emissions related to water usage and wastewater generation were calculated for the Project using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model, which multiplies an estimate of the water usage by the applicable energy intensity factor to determine the embodied energy necessary to supply potable water. 41 GHG emissions are then calculated based on the amount of electricity consumed multiplied by the GHG emissions intensity factors for the utility provider. In this case, embodied energy for Southern California supplied water and GHG emissions intensity factors for SCE were selected in CalEEMod. Water usage rates were calculated consistent with the requirements under the 2022 California Plumbing Code (which is based on the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code), 2022 CALGreen, and reflect an approximately 20-percent reduction as compared to the base demand. As shown in Table 6-10, Project GHG emissions from water/wastewater usage would result in a total of 28 MTCO2e per year.
Refrigerants
Emissions related to cooling structures and refrigeration needs were calculated using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model. As shown in Table 6-10, the Project is expected to result in less than one MTCO2e per year from use of refrigerants that used HFCs and have high GWP values.
Combined Emissions
As shown in Table 6-10, when taking into consideration implementation of project design features, including the requirements set forth in the City’s Green Building Code and the full implementation of current state mandates, the GHG emissions for the Project would equal 2,218 MTCO2e annually (as amortized over 30 years). When considering emissions from the existing auto repair facility (2,671 MTCO2e annually, as shown in Table 6-11), the Project would result in a net decrease of 453 MTCO2e annually, primarily because of the elimination of refrigerants associated with the existing auto repair facilities.
As discussed in Appendix 6.8-1 and above, there are no GHG emissions thresholds that are applicable to the Project. In 2008, SCAQMD released draft guidance regarding interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds. Within its October 2008 document, the SCAQMD proposed the use of a percent emission reduction target to determine significance for commercial/residential projects that emit greater than 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Under this proposal, such commercial and residential projects would have been assumed to have a less than significant impact on climate change. However, this proposed screening threshold was not adopted by the SCAQMD. When considering emissions from the existing auto repair facility (2,671 MTCO2e annually), the Project would result in a net decrease of 453 MTCO2e annually, which is less than 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Thus, even if the SCAQMD interim GHG threshold of significance was adopted, the Project would have a less than significant impact based on such threshold. 41 The intensity factor reflects the average pounds of CO2e per megawatt generated by a utility company. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 166 February 2024
Estimated Reduction of Project Related GHG Emissions Resulting from Consistency with Plans This analysis compares the Project’s GHG emissions to the emissions that would be generated by the Project in the absence of any GHG emissions reduction measures (i.e., the Project Without Reduction Features Scenario). This approach is consistent with the concepts used in CARB’s 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan. This methodology is used to analyze consistency with applicable GHG emissions reduction plans and policies and demonstrate the efficacy of the measures contained therein, but it is not a threshold of significance.
As shown in Table 6-12: Estimated Reduction of Project-Related GHG Emissions Resulting from Consistency with Plans, the emissions for the Project and its associated CARB 2026 Project Without Reduction Features scenario are estimated to be 2,218 MTCO2e per year and 3,245 MTCO2e per year, respectively, which shows the Project would reduce emissions by 32 percent from CARB’s 2026 Project Without Reduction Features scenario. It should be noted that this comparative analysis does not include the removal of emissions from the existing auto repair facility (Table 6-12).
Table 6-12: Estimated Reduction of Project-Related GHG Emissions Resulting from Consistency with Plans
Scenario and Source
Project Without
Reduction Features
Scenario*
As Proposed
Scenario
Reduction from
Project Without
Reduction Features
Scenario
Change from
Project Without
Reduction
Features Scenario
Area Sources 9 9 - 0%
Energy Sources 971 563 -408 -42%
Mobile Sources 2,077 1,458 --619 -30%
Waste Sources 75 75 - 0%
Water Sources 28 28 - 0%
Refrigerants <1 <1 - 0%
Construction 84 84 - 0%
Total Emissions 3,245 2,218 -1,027 -31.6%
Daily construction emissions amortized over 30-year period pursuant to SCAQMD guidance. Annual construction emissions derived by taking total emissions over duration of activities and dividing by construction period. * Project Without Reduction Features scenario does not assume 30% reduction in in mobile source emissions from Pavley emission standards (19.8%), low carbon fuel standards (7.2%), vehicle efficiency measures 2.8%); does not assume 42% reduction in energy production emissions from the State’s renewables portfolio standard (33%), natural gas extraction efficiency measures (1.6%), and natural gas transmission and distribution efficiency measures (7.4%).
Source: DKA Planning, 2023.
Post-2030 Analysis
Studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will put the State on a pathway to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 if additional appropriate reduction measures are adopted. Even though these studies did not provide an exact regulatory and technological roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of policies could allow the statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050. This suggests that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies could allow the State to meet the 2050 target.
Subsequent to the findings of these studies, SB 32 was passed on September 8, 2016, which would require CARB to ensure that Statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030.
Specifically, SB 32 requires the State board to ensure Statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 167 February 2024
below the 1990 level by 2030. The new plan, outlined in SB 32, involves increasing renewable energy use, imposing tighter limits on the carbon content of gasoline and diesel fuel, putting more electric cars on the road, improving energy efficiency, and curbing emissions from key industries. These targets would build upon those originally established under AB 32 which required reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Project’s design features advance these goals by reducing VMT, increasing the use of electric vehicles, improving energy efficiency, and reducing water usage.
The emissions modeling in the 2022 Update to the Scoping Plan has projected 2030 statewide emissions, which take into account known commitments (reduction measures) such as SB 375, SB 350, and other measures. The emissions inventory identified an emissions gap, meaning that emissions reductions due to known commitments do not decline fast enough to achieve the 2030 target. In order to fill this gap, the 2022 Update to the Scoping Plan assumed a scenario in which cap-and-trade would deliver the reductions necessary to achieve the 2030 emissions target. Although the Project is consistent with the 2022 Update to the Scoping Plan, additional measures to achieve the 2030 targets and beyond are outside of the City or the Project’s control. Executive Order S-3-05 establishes a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This goal, however, has not been codified. Studies have shown that, in order to meet the 2050 target, aggressive technologies in the transportation and energy sectors, including electrification and the decarbonization of fuel, will be required. In its 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan, CARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail.”
CARB has generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target: “energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large-scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” Although the Project’s emissions level in 2050 cannot be reliably quantified, statewide efforts are underway to facilitate the State’s achievement of that goal and it is reasonable to expect the Project’s emissions to decline as the regulatory initiatives identified by CARB in the Climate Change Scoping Plan are implemented, and other technological innovations occur. Such regulatory measures, which will further reduce GHG emissions, include the RPS under SB 100, which requires 100 percent renewable energy by 2045. As discussed above, the Project would be designed and operated to meet or exceed the applicable requirements of the CALGreen Code and would be subject to the 2022 Title 24 standards, which will assist the State in meeting the Zero Net Energy (ZNE) goal and the Executive Order’s horizon-year (2050) goal.
The Project is the type of land use development that is encouraged by the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to reduce VMT and expand multi-modal transportation options in order for the region to achieve the GHG reductions from the land use and transportation sectors required by SB 375, which, in turn, advances the State’s long-term climate policies. As shown above, the reduction in VMT would further support the goal of reducing GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2035 in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. By furthering implementation of SB 375, the Project supports regional land use and transportation GHG reductions consistent with State climate targets for 2030 and beyond. For the reasons described above, the Project’s post-2030 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets and Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15.
The Governor’s Executive Order B-55-18 (September 2018) establishes a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. Based 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.8
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 168 February 2024
on this executive order, CARB will work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress towards this goal, as well as ensuring that future scoping plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. Also discussed above, CARB has released a study evaluating three scenarios that achieve carbon neutrality in California by 2045. The scenarios analyzed to achieve carbon neutrality include a High Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) scenario, Zero Carbon Energy scenario, and a Balanced scenario.
Conclusion
Given the Project’s consistency with State, SCAG, and City GHG emissions reduction goals and objectives, the Project is consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. In the absence of adopted standards and established significance thresholds, and given this consistency, it is concluded that the Project’s incremental contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on climate change would not be cumulatively considerable. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.9
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 169 February 2024
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.9
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 170 February 2024
The basis for the following information and analysis is the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Environmental Management Strategies, Inc. (EMS), October 2023), the Phase II ESA (EMS, February 2024), and the Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment (VIRE) (Advanced Environmental Group, Inc, February 2024). These reports, which are included in this Initial Study as Appendix 6.9-1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix 6.9-2: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, and Appendix 6.9-3: Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment, are summarized below.
It is noted, Kimley-Horn conducted third-party reviews on behalf of the City of the Project’s Phase I ESA, Phase II ESA, and VIRE. The third-party reviews concluded the analyses meet the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.9a Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would involve the routine transport, storage, use and/or disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials, such as fuels, solvents, degreasers and paints. Examples of such activities include fueling and servicing construction equipment, and applying paints and other coatings.
The Project proposes a residential development, which is not anticipated to involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous materials that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. The maintenance materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and the City’s programs to control and safely dispose of hazardous materials and wastes. Specifically, the City’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program requires the owner or operator of any business that handles or stores hazardous materials equal to or above the reportable quantities to submit a Hazardous Materials Inventory and Contingency Plan. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that all hazardous wastes would be properly handled, recycled, treated, stored, and disposed.
Therefore, following compliance with standard City practices and federal and State regulations, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning its potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
6.9b Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
Project construction would include demolition of all structures and complete over-excavation, which could be contaminated, and re-compaction of soils. The Project’s Phase I ESA concluded that the Project site contained recognized environmental conditions (REC) related to the handling of hazardous materials, lack of environmental investigation or evidence of closure for any USTs or clarifiers, and lack of investigation into the spray booth that had previous violations reported. The Phase I ESA also noted a controlled REC (CREC) related to the adjacent Honeywell, Inc. facility that is undergoing in-situ treatment/containment of a groundwater plume using an enhanced reductive dichlorination barrier system. Further, although not considered a REC, the Phase I ESA noted asbestos containing material (ACM) 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.9
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 171 February 2024
and lead-based paints (LBP) may be present in building materials on the Project site. Therefore, Project demolition and construction activities could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Condition of Approval (COA) HAZ-1 and COA HAZ-2 require ACM and LBP surveys of the existing onsite buildings prior to demolition. COA HAZ-1 includes measures for the safe dismantling and removal of building components and debris and prevents the accidental release of asbestos, and COA HAZ-2 includes measures to safely demolish structures potentially containing LBP, thereby protecting workers and the public from exposure to hazardous materials and wastes during demolition. Therefore, following compliance with COA HAZ-1 and COA HAZ-2, the potential presence of ACM and LBP would not result in a significant hazard to the public through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.
Further, MM HAZ-1 requires the Project’s Phase I ESA, Phase II ESA, and VIRE to be reported to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Health and Hazardous Material Division (HHMD) for review and recommendations prior to grading permit issuance, MM HAZ-2 requires the preparation of a soil management plan (SMP) to address potentially contaminated soil that may be encountered during building demolition, grading, or construction activities. MM HAZ-3 requires that the hydraulic auto lifts be removed prior to demolition to ensure no additional leakage of hydraulic fluid occurred on the surface or below the slab. MM HAZ-3 also requires that any soil impacted by hydraulic fluid be removed and handled properly according to the SMP. MM HAZ-4 requires that the clarifiers/underground storage tanks be pumped out, cleaned, and removed prior to demolition and that any contaminated soil be removed and handled according to the SMP. These provisions would minimize the potential for hazardous materials to be released into the environment during Project construction. Thus, with COA HAZ-1, COA HAZ-2, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM HAZ-3, and MM HAZ-4 incorporated, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Operations
The Phase II ESA investigation identified benzene, ethylbenzene, PCE, meta-, para- and ortho-xylene and TPHg concentrations that exceeded the soil vapor screening level for potential indoor air vapor intrusion risk at residential sites based on current DTSC vapor intrusion guidance. As part of their third-party review of the Phase II ESA, Kimley-Horn recommended that a VIRE be conducted to determine the potential for a vapor intrusion threat to future Project residents. The VIRE, which was subsequently completed, recommends additionalsoil vapor sampling (MM HAZ-5) to assess the effectiveness of the source removal (i.e., removal of soil down to approximately 15 feet across the site) that includes soil vapor probes to evaluate the remaining soil vapor concentrations that would be encountered below the parking garage.
The findings of the soil vapor sampling effort would be required to be documented in a Subsurface Investigation Report that would compare soil vapor sample results prior to and after source removal to demonstrate that the Project site meets residential standards as determined by DTSC’s Final Draft Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Guidance dated February 2022 (or the latest draft available at time of sampling). The Subsurface Investigation Report would be submitted to the City of Gardena Building Services Division and LACFD for approval prior to building permit issuance. If the Subsurface Investigation Report concludes that the Project site still contains VOCs at a concentration exceeding DTSC’s Final Draft Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Guidance thresholds for residential uses, implementation of an engineering control (e.g., impermeable membrane or passive venting) would be required subject to LACFD HHMD approval (MM HAZ-5). With MM HAZ-5 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.9
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 172 February 2024
incorporated, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving soil and groundwater contamination.
With mitigation incorporated, impacts would be less than significant.
Project operations would involve the use of typical hazardous materials/chemicals associated with residential uses such as household cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Any routine transport, use, and disposal of these material during Project operations must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Further, hazardous materials/chemicals such as household cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers in low quantities do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, Project operations would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework, and no mitigation is required.
6.9c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The school nearest the Project site, is the Pacific Lutheran Junior/Senior High School, is at 1473 West 182nd Street, City of Gardena, which is approximately 0.48 mile south of the Project site. Therefore, the Project site is more than 0.25 mile from this existing school. Notwithstanding, the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure Project construction activities would not create a significant hazard to nearby schools.
Additionally, the Project does not propose any uses which could generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities that could impact surrounding schools. The types of hazardous materials that would be routinely handled during Project operations would be limited to household cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operations would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure Project operations would not create a significant hazard to nearby schools.
6.9d Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List, maintained by the DTSC. The Cortese list contains hazardous waste and substance sites including public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, sites with known underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release, solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, historic Cortese sites, and sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program. The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.9
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 173 February 2024
Government Code Section 65962.5.42 Therefore, the Project would result in no impact in this regard.
6.9e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The airport located nearest the Project site is Compton/Woodley Airport (“Airport”), approximately 3.2 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. No impact would occur in this regard.
6.9f Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an urbanized area where adequate circulation and access are provided to facilitate emergency response. The Gardena Public Safety Plan43 outlines emergency response actions in the event of a large-scale disaster, such as a hazardous materials emergency. Further, while Project construction would likely require traffic lane, parking lane, and/or sidewalk closures, it would not require the complete closure of any public or private street. The Project would be conditioned to prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan, approved by the City, to minimize the potential conflicts between construction activities, street traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians during construction, as well as ensure adequate emergency access. Temporary construction activities would not impede use of the streets for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. Further, Project construction would be subject to compliance with the following Public Safety Plan Policies:
• PS 1.7: Development Review. Ensure that law enforcement, crime prevention, and fire safety concerns are considered in the review of planning and development proposals in the City. • PS 2.2: Building and Fire Codes. Require that all buildings and facilities within Gardena comply with local, state, and federal regulatory standards such as the California Building and Fire Codes as well as other applicable fire safety standards.
• PS 2.7: New Development. Require adequate fire protection services, fire protection plans, and emergency vehicle access for new development. Locate, design, and construct new development to minimize the risk of structural loss from fires. • PS 3.1: California Building Code. Require compliance with seismic safety standards in the California Building Code, as adopted and amended.
Therefore, following compliance with City policies, as specified above, the Project’s potential impacts concerning impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an emergency response plan or related policies would be less than significant.
42 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor.
Retrieved from:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,FUDS& status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29, accessed December 2023.
43 City of Gardena. (2022). Public Safety Plan. Retrieved from https://cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/Gardena_Public-Safety-Element_FINAL-FOR-ADOPTION.pdf. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.9
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 174 February 2024
6.9g Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The Project site is in a fully urbanized area and it is not adjacent to any wildland. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to a risk involving wildland fires. No impact would occur in this regard.
Cumulative Impact
The Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials; therefore, no cumulative impact would occur.
Conditions of Approval
COA HAZ-1 Asbestos Survey. Prior to demolition activities, an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) certified inspector shall conduct an Asbestos Survey to determine the presence or absence of asbestos containing-materials (ACMs) pursuant to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations.
COA HAZ-2 Lead-Based Paint Survey. If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional. A portable, field X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer shall be used to identify the locations of potential lead paint, and test accessible painted surfaces. The qualified Environmental Professional shall identify the likelihood that lead is present in concentrations greater than 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2) in/on readily accessible painted surfaces of the buildings.
If lead-based paint is found, a qualified Lead Specialist shall complete abatement prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. Potential methods to reduce lead dust and waste during removal include wet scraping, wet planning, use of electric heat guns, chemical stripping, and use of local High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) exhaust systems. Lead-based paint removal and disposal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, §1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by workers exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead-based paint removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City Engineer.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Los Angeles County Fire Department Approval. Prior to grading permit issuance, the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Stein Project 1610 West Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, CA 90248, Phase II ESA for 1610 West Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, California, and Technical Memorandum/Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation (VIRE) shall be reported to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Health and Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD), Site Mitigation Unit (SMU) for review and recommendations. Any recommendations from the LACFD HHMD SMU shall be incorporated into the Project’s design.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.9
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 175 February 2024
MM HAZ-2 Soil Management Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the Project site. The SMP shall include the LACFD’s recommendations (see MM HAZ-1 above).
The SMP shall establish procedures for identification and management of impacted and clean soil, segregation and management of impacted soil in accordance with regulatory requirements, transportation of impacted soil to an off-site disposal facility licensed to accept such soil, and identification and management of construction debris during excavation, grading, and construction activities to be completed at the Project site. The SMP shall be submitted to the City of Gardena Building Services Division for review and approval.
The SMP shall include the following:
• Procedures for identification, handling, reporting, and removal of the hydraulic auto lifts and clarifiers/underground storage tanks, piping, dispensers or other underground storage tank components that may be encountered. • Health and safety measures for when performing demolition, grading, or other construction activities, which may include but are not limited to, personal protective equipment and periodic work breathing zone monitoring for volatile organic compounds using a handheld organic vapor analyzer in the event impacted soils are encountered during excavation activities. • A health risk assessment for any workers that may come in contact with contaminated soil.
• A soil vapor sample work plan that outlines potential soil vapor probe installation locations and depths, and includes a requirement for a qualified environmental consultant to compare soil vapor sampling results collected both from the October 2022 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and after the excavation and removal of soil down approximately 15 feet across the Project site. o The results of the soil vapor sampling shall be presented to the City of Gardena Building Services Division and Los Angeles County Fire Department in a Subsurface Investigation Report prepared by a qualified environmental consultant to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Health and Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) for review and approval.
MM HAZ-3 Hydraulic Lift Removal. Prior to demolition permit issuance, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Gardena Building Services Division that a licensed contractor has been retained to remove the hydraulic auto lifts to verify that additional leakage of hydraulic fluid has not occurred on the surface or below the slab. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Gardena Building Services Division a qualified environmental professional has been retained to conduct follow-up sampling to confirm no contamination exists. If soil contamination exists, the impacted soils shall be removed and handled properly according to the Soil Management Plan (see MM HAZ-2).
MM HAZ-4 Underground Storage Tank Removal. Prior to demolition permit issuance, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Gardena Building Services Division that a licensed contractor authorized to remove the clarifiers/underground storage tanks has been retained. The clarifiers/underground storage tanks shall be pumped out and cleaned prior 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.9
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hazards and Hazardous Materials 176 February 2024
to removal. The Applicant and licensed contractor must obtain all permits required by the Los Angeles County Public Works, Environmental Programs Division (DPW EPD). The Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Gardena Building Services Division that a qualified environmental professional has been retained to conduct follow-up sampling to confirm if any leaking occurred that caused soil contamination. If soil contamination exists, then impacted soils shall be removed and handled properly according to the Soil Management Plan (see MM HAZ-2).
MM HAZ-5 Soil Vapor Sampling. Prior to building permit issuance, soil vapor sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the approved Soil Management Plan (see MM HAZ-2) to assess the effectiveness of the source removal (i.e., removal of soil down to approximately 15 feet across the site). The soil vapor sampling shall include soil vapor probes to evaluate the remaining soil vapor concentrations below the parking garage. The soil vapor sampling findings shall be documented in a Subsurface Investigation Report that compares soil vapor sampling results collected both from the October 2022 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and after the excavation and removal of soil down approximately 15 feet across the Project site. The Subsurface Investigation Report shall be submitted to the City of Gardena Building Services Division and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Health and Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) for review and approval.
If the soil vapor sampling concludes that after the source removal the Project site contains VOCs at a concentration exceeding DTSC’s Final Draft Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Guidance thresholds for residential uses, implementation of an engineering control (e.g., impermeable membrane or passive venting) would be required subject to approval by the LACFD HHMD. The Applicant shall show the impermeable membrane on the Project’s building plans for review and approval by the City of Gardena Building Services Division.
If the soil vapor sampling concludes that after the source removal the Project site contains VOCs at a concentration below DTSC’s Final Draft Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Guidance thresholds for residential uses, no further action shall be required.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.10
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hydrology and Water Quality 177 February 2024
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
projects may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
X
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site. X
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on or
off site;
X
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.10
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hydrology and Water Quality 178 February 2024
The basis for the following information and analysis is the Low Impact Development (LID) Report (Tait & Associates, October 2023) and the Hydrology Study (Tait & Associates, October 2023). These reports are included as Appendix 6.10-1: Hydrology Studies and summarized below.
It is noted, Kimley-Horn conducted third-party reviews on behalf of the City of the Project’s LID Report and Hydrology Study, see Appendix 6.10-1. The third-party review concluded the analyses meets the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.10a Would the Project violate water quality or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is fully developed with two, one-story commercial and industrial buildings, asphaltsurface parking lot, and landscaping (see Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map). The Project’s construction-related activities would include demolition of the two existing buildings, asphalt surface parking lot, landscaped areas, and all existing improvements and excavation of existing soils.
Excavation, grading, and trenching could displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. The main pollutant of concern during construction is typically sediment and soil particles that discharge off of the site due to wind, rain, and construction patterns.
Potential construction-related erosion effects would be addressed through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program’s Construction Stormwater General Permit.
Construction activity subject to the Construction Stormwater General Permit includes any construction or demolition activity, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than 1.0 acre. The Project proposes demolition and construction activities throughout the entire site, with a land disturbance of approximately 3.43 acres. Therefore, the Project would be subject to the Construction Stormwater General Permit.
To obtain coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit, dischargers are required to file with the State Water Board the Permit Registration Documents, which include a Notice of Intent and other compliance-related documents. The Construction Stormwater General Permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction Stormwater General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. The types of required BMPs would be based on the amount of soil disturbed, the types of pollutants used or stored at the Project site, and proximity to water bodies. See Appendix 6.10-1: Hydrology Studiesfor specific BMP measures.
The Project would also be required to comply with GMC Chapter 8.70, Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control, which addresses stormwater and runoff pollution control and is intended to reduce the quantity of pollutants being discharged to waters of the United States. GMC Section 8.70.110.B.1, Development Construction, specifies that no Grading Permit would be issued to construction projects that disturb 1.0 or more acres of soil without obtaining a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit [Construction Stormwater General Permit] from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
Following compliance with NPDES, GMC, and the LID Plan’s requirements, which include implementation of BMPs as a Condition of Approval, the Project’s construction-related activities would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, a 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.10
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hydrology and Water Quality 179 February 2024
less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
Operations
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Gardena along with 83 other incorporated cities therein (Permittees) discharge pollutants from their municipal separate storm sewer (drain) system (MS4s). Stormwater and non-stormwater enter and are conveyed through the MS4 and discharged to Los Angeles Region surface water bodies. These discharges are regulated under countywide waste discharge requirements (WDRs) contained in Order No. R4-2012- 0175 (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001), Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges Within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Except Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, which was adopted November 8, 2012. The MS4 Permit Order provides the revised WDRs for MS4 discharges within the Los Angeles County watersheds, which includes Gardena. Los Angeles County uses its LID Ordinance to require that projects comply with NPDES MS4 Permit water quality requirements.
The MS4 Permit Order requires development and implementation of a Planning and Land Development Program for all “New Development” and “Redevelopment” projects subject to the Order. New development and redevelopment projects/activities subject to Los Angeles County’s LID Ordinance include all development projects equal to 1.0 acre or greater of disturbed area and residential new or redeveloped projects that create, add, or replace 10,000 SF or greater impervious surface area. The Project involves development with land disturbance of 3.43 acres and therefore would be subject to compliance with the Order.
Additionally, GMC Section 8.70.110, Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation, requires new development and redevelopment projects subject to the MS4 Permit, such as the proposed Project, to comply with post-construction runoff pollution reduction BMPs implemented through the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The SUSMP requires LID BMPs, source control BMPs, and structural and nonstructural BMPs for specific types of uses. LID controls effectively reduce the amount of impervious area of a completed project site and promote the use of infiltration and other controls that reduce runoff. Source control BMPs prevent runoff contact with pollutant materials that would otherwise be discharged to the MS4. Specific structural controls are also required to address pollutant discharges from certain uses including but not limited to housing developments, parking lots, and new streets, among others.
The Project proposes LID and site design approaches and BMPs that are designed to address runoff and pollution at the source. See Appendix 6.10-1 for a description of Project BMPs and Response 6.10c(iii) for a description of existing and proposed site drainage. Infiltration is Los Angeles County’s first option when screening potentially feasible LID BMPs. Infiltration systems collect stormwater runoff and conduct it into permeable soils beneath the site; effectively reducing pollution, reducing runoff and flooding, and recharging groundwater. The second priority BMP is capturing and reusing stormwater onsite fort either landscape irrigation or toilet flushing.
Under existing conditions, the Project site features a gradual slope from the northwest corner at West Artesia Boulevard down to the site’s southeast corner with a difference of roughly eight feet. The existing drainage pattern consists of overland flow to gutters that flow to the site’s southeastern portion and discharge to a single drop inlet. The drop inlet connects to a private storm drain approximately 80 feet south and exists the site through a headwall to the LACFCD Dominguez Channel. The Dominguez Channel flows east and then south to the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor.
Under proposed conditions, the Project site would maintain the existing drainage pattern with site runoff discharging to the existing site outlet at the southeast corner that connects to the Dominguez Channel. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.10
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hydrology and Water Quality 180 February 2024
Alternative compliance BMPs have been identified for use within the Project site. Specifically, an underground proprietary biotreatment system would be used to treat runoff from the Project site.
Compliance with NPDES and GMC requirements, which include implementation of LID BMPs, would ensure that Project operations would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
6.10b Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
The historical high groundwater level in the area is 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) and groundwater was encountered during exploration with samples taken at reading depths between approximately 19 and 23 ft bgs; see Appendix 6.10-1. The Project would require excavation of existing soils up to 15.0-feet below existing grade to evaluate soil vapor concentrations that would be encountered below the parking garage concrete slab after the sources of the soil vapor concentrations have been removed.
Since the structures would be below an elevation of 10 feet bgs, it is expected that groundwater would be encountered during construction that could require temporary or permanent dewatering operations.
Additionally, it is possible that perched water zones could potentially be encountered elsewhere on the Project site during excavation. If groundwater or perched groundwater were to be encountered, it would be directed to a dewatering system and discharged in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations under NPDES General Construction Permit regulations and City grading permit conditions. Therefore, with compliance with all applicable rules and regulations, potential construction-related groundwater impacts would be less than significant.
During onsite grading and building activities, minimal amounts of hazardous materials such as fuels, paints, solvents, and concrete additives could be used, and the presence of such materials provides an opportunity for hazardous materials to be released into groundwater. The proper management of any resultant hazardous wastes would decrease the opportunity for hazardous materials releases into groundwater. Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local requirements concerning the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste, would reduce the potential for the construction of the Project to release contaminants into groundwater that could affect existing contaminants, expand the area or increase the level of groundwater contamination, or cause a violation of regulatory water quality standards at an existing production well. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operations
The Project site is in Golden State Water Company’s (GSWC’s) service area, and specifically, within the Southwest System service area, which serves Gardena, seven other cities, and portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County. There are no groundwater supply wells located on the Project site. The Project does not include any groundwater pumping and relies on GSWC for water service. The Southwest System’s water supply sources groundwater pumped from the West and Central Coast Groundwater Basins and imported water from the Colorado River Aqueduct and State Water Project (imported and distributed by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California). The Southwest System is supplied by two active wells 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.10
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hydrology and Water Quality 181 February 2024
in the Central Subbasin of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin (Central Basin) and 12 active wells in the West Coast Subbasin of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin (West Coast Basin).
West Coast Subbasin groundwater replenishment occurs through stormwater percolation and imported and recycled water that is injected to prevent seawater intrusion. The Project site is fully developed with two commercial and industrial buildings, an associated surface parking lot, and landscaping. The Project site currently contains approximately seven percent (10,944 SF) of pervious area and approximately 93 percent (138,658 SF) of impervious area. The Project site would include approximately 15 percent (22,558 SF) of pervious area and approximately 85 percent (127,044 SF) of impervious area associated with increased landscaping within the site when compared to existing conditions. The increase in pervious areas would improve the Project site’s stormwater/percolation groundwater recharge capacity over existing conditions. Finally, the Project would include LID BMPs to increase infiltration of stormwater runoff. Therefore, the Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Concerning the Project’s potential to decrease groundwater supplies, as discussed in detail in Section
6.19: Utilities and Service Systems, GSWC would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
Further, both the Central Basin and West Coast Basin were adjudicated in 1961, and as such, is subject to pumping restrictions to avoid overdraft conditions. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
6.10c Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alterations of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
As depicted on the Existing Hydrology Map (see Appendix 6.10-1), the existing site is comprised of 3.18 acres or 93 percent of impervious area and 0.25 acres or 7 percent of pervious areas. As depicted on the Proposed Hydrology Map (see Appendix 6.10-1), the Project site is 3.43 total acres comprised of 2.91 acres or 85 percent of impervious area and 0.52 acres or 15 percent of pervious areas. Surface flows would be directed south along the Project’s western and eastern boundaries to the proposed biofiltration device located on the southeast corner of the property. The biofiltration device would be connected to an onsite inlet which would drain in the Dominquez Channel located on the southern boundary of the site. The proposed Project would result in an increase in landscaped areas throughout the Project site, which would decrease impervious surfaces from 93 percent under existing conditions to 85 percent under proposed Project conditions. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the site’s existing drainage pattern through the addition of impervious surfaces. Further, the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river, as none traverses or are located in the Project vicinity. The decrease in impervious surfaces on the Project site would result in a reduction of flows under 50-year storm events when compared to existing conditions; see Appendix 6.10-1, Attachment H for output calculations. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.10
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hydrology and Water Quality 182 February 2024
(i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less Than Significant Impact. As concluded above, the Project would not substantially alter the Project site’s existing drainage pattern through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces. Further, as concluded in Response 6.10a, the Project would be subject to compliance with NPDES and GMC requirements, which include implementation of BMPs, thus, would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
No Impact. As demonstrated in Appendix 6.10-1, the Project would reduce impervious surfaces thereby reducing flows under 50-year storm events when compared to existing conditions. Because the Project would decrease surface runoff, it would not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impact would occur in this regard.
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; or
No Impact. As demonstrated in Appendix 6.10-1, the Project would reduce impervious surfaces, thereby reducing flows under 50-year storm events, as compared to the existing condition. Because the Project would decrease surface runoff, it would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. No impact would occur in this regard. (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within the 100-year hazard flood zone area. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06037C1935F indicates the Project site is within Zone X, 0.2 percent chance flood; areas with one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the one percent annual chance of flood.44 Further, the Project would use a biofiltration device (i.e., modular wetland MWS L-8-24) to treat runoff and minimize impacts to existing storm water drainage facilities. The Project site is not subject to flooding and would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
6.10d In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes.
When these waves reach shorelines, they sometimes produce coastal flooding. Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, which can occur in response to ground shaking. The Project site is approximately eight miles east of the Pacific Ocean and there are no nearby bodies of standing water. Therefore, the Project site is not within a tsunami or seiche zone.
The Project proposes a residential development that would involve the use of materials associated with routine property maintenance, such as janitorial supplies for cleaning purposes and/or herbicides and 44 United States, Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1935F. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=2323%20West%20Broadway%2C%20Anaheim#searchresul tsanchor. Accessed December 2023.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.10
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hydrology and Water Quality 183 February 2024
pesticides for landscaping. The Project is not within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. Therefore, no risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation by these hazards would occur.
6.10e Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
Project construction activities could result in short-term groundwater quality impacts because of soil or shallow groundwater being exposed to construction activities, materials, wastes and spilled materials.
During on-site grading and building activities, minimal amounts of hazardous materials such as fuels, paints, solvents, and concrete additives could be used, and the presence of such materials provides an opportunity for hazardous materials to be released into groundwater. Additionally, as mentioned in Appendix 6.9-1, identified the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and petroleum hydrocarbons gasoline (TPHg). Thus, the Project requires compliance with MM HAZ-1, which requires the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Health and Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD), Site Mitigation Unit (SMU) to review the Phase I/II ESA and VIRE and provide recommendations, MM HAZ-2, which requires a soil management plan that addresses potentially contaminated soils that may be encountered during construction activities, compliance with MM HAZ-3, which requires the hydraulic auto lifts to be removed prior to demolition to ensure no additional leakage of hydraulic fluid occurred on the surface or below the slab, and compliance with MM HAZ-4, which requires the clarifiers/underground storage tanks to be pumped out, cleaned, and removed prior to demolition activities and any contaminated soil to be removed and handled according to the SMP. If contaminated soils are found within the excavation limits, contaminated soils would be collected within the excavated material, removed from the Project site, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local requirements concerning the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, will reduce the potential for the construction of the Project to release contaminants into groundwater that could affect existing contaminants, expand the area or increase the level of groundwater contamination, or cause a violation of regulatory water quality standards at an existing production well. Therefore, Project construction would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed LID systems are designed to safely convey stormwater runoff into the sub-surface soil without the threat of contaminant mobilization and would assist in improving the groundwater quality.
The Project’s design would ensure all proposed LID systems meet applicable LA County LID Manual requirements. The proposed LID BMP systems are designed to safely convey stormwater runoff into the sub-surface soil without the threat of contaminant mobilization. Additionally, the West Coast Subbasin is managed by the WRD as well as the CDWR and is anticipated to meet all groundwater demands. The Project would follow all requirements regarding groundwater quality to ensure that no impacts from proposed stormwater infiltration occur. Therefore, Project operations would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.10
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Hydrology and Water Quality 184 February 2024
The Project, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future development that would occur within the watershed, would involve construction activities, a new development from which runoff would discharge into waterways, a potential increase in storm water runoff from new impervious surfaces, and a potential reduction in groundwater recharge areas. Construction of new development within the watershed could result in the erosion of soil, thereby cumulatively affecting the watershed’s water quality.
In addition, the increase in impermeable surfaces and more intensive land uses within the watershed resulting from future development may also adversely affect water quality by increasing the amount of stormwater runoff and common urban contaminants entering the storm drain system. However, new development would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations regarding construction and operational practices that minimize impacts concerning water quality and storm water flows. Compliance with requirements would minimize potential impacts at each respective development site. As such, there are no significant cumulative impacts. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 185 February 2024
Land Use and Planning
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.11a Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. Examples of projects that could physically divide an established community include a new freeway or highway which traverses an established neighborhood. The Project proposes residential infill development. The Project would replace the existing commercial and industrial uses and does not propose any new roadways or other physical barriers. Given its nature and scope, the Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur in this regard.
6.11b Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. General Plan Figure LU-2, Land Use Policy Map, depicts the City’s land use designations and indicates the Project site is designated Very High Density Residential.45 The Very High Density Residential land use designation allows compact, multi-family living environment and a residential density range of 51-70 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC).46 The City of Gardena Zoning Map depicts the City’s zones and indicates the Project site is zoned Very High Density Multifamily Residential (R-6) Zone, which is intended for apartments and condominiums. Based on a 3.43-acre Project site and 70 DU/AC, the Project site’s development capacity is approximately 240 DU.
The Project proposes a multi-family residential development with 300 apartment units (283 market rate units and 17 affordable units), which would result in a density of approximately 88 DU/AC, exceeding the Project site’s 70 DU/AC allowable density (i.e., 240 DU development capacity). However, the Project reaches a 88 DU/AC allowable density through a 25 percent density bonus (i.e., 60 DU) based on providing seven percent very low income units. As such, the Project would be consistent with the Project site’s land use designation and zoning.
45 City of Gardena. (2006, Updated 2023). Gardena General Plan 2006. Figure LU-2: 2023 General Plan Land Use Policy Map.
46 City of Gardena. (2006, Updated 2023). Gardena General Plan 2006. page LU-13. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 186 February 2024
Additionally, the Project would comply with all R-6 zoning development standards, with the exception of the following waivers, which are permitted under the Density Bonus Law which is incorporated in GMC Section 18.43.060, Waiver/Modification of Development Standards:
• Waiver to increase the maximum building height from 75 feet to 84.5 feet. GMC Section
18.18A.040(G) states that multi-family development in the R-6 zone can be up to 75 feet tall or up to 40 feet tall if any portion of the development is within 20 feet of a property zoned R-1 or R2 or abuts either a collector or local street. The Project is not located within 20 feet of an R-1 or R-2 property and does not abut a collector or local street, thus per GMC Section 18.18A.040(G), the Project would be allowed a maximum height of 75 feet. The Project requests a waiver to increase the maximum allowed height to 84.5 feet (i.e., an increase of 9.5 feet) as measured from the finished floor (i.e., the level of the finished floor on the ground level) of the roof’s highest point, including non-habitable projections (including without limitation, architectural features, elevator shafts mechanical equipment, stairwells, canopies, or shade structures). • Waiver to reduce required amount of storage space per DU. GMC Section 18.18A.040(H) requires 80 cubic feet (cf) of private secure storage space per DU. Per GMC Section 18.18A.040(H), the Project would be required to provide 300 private storage spaces of 80 cf each (i.e., 24,000 cf). The Project requests a waiver to reduce the total amount of private storage spaces to 124 private storage spaces totaling of 11,520 cf, (i.e., a reduction of 176 private storage spaces or 12,480 cf). • Waiver to reduce required amount of massing. GMC 18.42.120(B)(1), Massing and Articulation, requires variations in wall plane (projection or recess) of a minimum of two feet are required for a minimum of twenty-five percent of all facades of first and second stories of residential buildings.
The Project’s design endeavors to meet the intent of this design standard by providing significant massing breaks along Artesia Boulevard where feasible, including at the project entry. • Waiver to reduce the required recess of the building windows. GMC 18.42.120.F.1, Windows, requires all windows must be recessed by a minimum of four inches or be surrounded by molding at least three and one-half inches wide and projecting from the wall not less than three-quarters of an inch. The Applicant requests a waiver from this standard pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and currently proposes to provide 2" window recesses at prominent façade locations to provide visual interest.
Additionally, the Applicant is requesting reduced parking standards. Under the Density Bonus law, a developer may request, and the City shall not require a vehicle parking ratio that is more than 1 space/unit for studio and 1 bedroom units and 1.5 spaces/unit for 2-3 bedroom units. These ratios include guest parking spaces. Based on these requirements, the Applicant would only be required to provide a total of 339 parking spaces. The Applicant has exceeded this requirement by providing 507 spaces, 39 of which will be allocated for guest spaces.
Table 6-13: General Plan Policy Consistency evaluates the Project concerning the relevant General Plan goals and policies and concludes the Project would not conflict with the relevant General Plan goals and policies. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact concerning a conflict with the General Plan.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 187 February 2024
Table 6-13: General Plan Policy Consistency
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Community Development Element: Land Use Plan
LU Goal 1: Preserve and protect existing single-family and low/medium-density residential neighborhoods while promoting the development of additional high-quality housing types in the City.
Policy LU 1.1: Promote sound housing and
attractive and safe residential neighborhoods.
No Conflict. The Project proposes a high-quality residential development which would facilitate the surrounding
neighborhood’s transition into a more complete multi-family residential community, in that it would bring new residents to the neighborhood, bring new housing to this area, improve the streetscape, and activate the pedestrian realm.
Policy LU 1.2: Protect existing sound residential
neighborhoods from incompatible uses and
development.
No Conflict. Factors influencing land use compatibility include aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic. As concluded in Section 6.1 Aesthetics, Section 6.3: Air Quality, Section 6.13:
Noise, and Section 6.17: Transportation, respectively, the Project would result in less than significant operational impacts concerning these resource areas, which in turn would influence land use compatibility. The Project would be developed
consistent with the land use designation and would further facilitate the General Plan’s vision. Therefore, the Project would be a compatible land use.
Policy LU 1.3: Protect the character of lower
density residential neighborhoods.
No Conflict. The Project is not immediately adjacent to lower density residential land uses. The Project is immediately surrounded by the Dominguez Channel, industrial, commercial, and high density residential land uses. Therefore, the Project would provide an additional 300 DU and would not affect the character of lower density residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU 1.4: Locate new medium- and highdensity residential developments near neighborhood and community shopping centers
with commensurate high levels of community
services and facilities.
No Conflict. Numerous commercial uses and services are
located between approximately 300 feet and one-half mile.
These include Gardena Marketplace, Tokyo Central Market, and Gardena Gateway Plaza. These shopping centers are
characterized by commercial and retail uses that would provide community services and facilities to the Project’s future residents. Food 4 Less and the Gardena YMCA are located less than a mile from the Project site. Additionally, the Project would cluster urban-density housing at an appropriate location in the vicinity of a number of bus lines and the Harbor Gateway Transit Center, which would offer easy access to public transportation and reduce automobile dependence.
Policy LU 1.5: Provide adequate residential
amenities such as open space, recreation, offstreet parking and pedestrian features in multifamily residential developments.
No Conflict. The Project would incorporate quality residential amenities, including private and community open spaces for the residents. The Project’s amenities are anticipated to include two pools, clubhouse, courtyard, fitness center, spa, golf lounge, and business center. The Project provides
adequate residential amenities which would create more
attractive and livable spaces for residents. The Project would 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 188 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
also provide approximately 507 off-street vehicle parking spaces.
Policy LU 1.6: Ensure residential densities are
compatible with available public service and
infrastructure systems.
No Conflict. Public service and infrastructure systems capacity is determined based on the City’s General Plan land uses. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use
designation, thus would be compatible with available public service and infrastructure systems. Further, the Project includes measures to ensure that the plan area is served by adequate public services, infrastructure, and utilities as described in Section 6.15: Public Services, Section 6.16:
Recreation and Section 6.19: Utilities and Service Systems.
Policy LU 1.7: Preserve the City’s residential
buildings of historic and cultural significance.
No Conflict. As described in Section 6.5: Cultural Resources and Section 6.18: Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project would not result in an adverse effect on any buildings of historic or cultural significance.
Policy LU 1.8: Minimize through-traffic on
residential streets.
No Conflict. The Project proposes one vehicle access point along Artesia Boulevard, which is classified as an Arterial roadway in the General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not have an effect on a residential street.
Policy LU 1.12: Require infill development to
provide adequate amenities to minimize the
impact of such development on the immediate
neighborhood and on City services generally,
including off-street parking to meet the
additional demand placed on street parking.
No Conflict. The Project would provide 18,598 SF of amenity areas and 49,701 SF of open space areas. By providing onsite amenities and open space areas, impacts to the City’s open space areas and services would be limited, as described in Section 6.16: Recreation. Additionally, the Project proposes a parking ratio which exceeds that required by the State Density Bonus Law.
LU Goal 4: Provide the highest quality of public facilities possible to meet the needs of the City’s residents and businesses and promote the City’s image and cultural heritage.
Policy LU 4.3: Design public improvements to
encourage pedestrian activity and access and to
provide safe and convenient pedestrian
circulation.
No Conflict. The Project would provide a buffered and
landscaped pedestrian path along Artesia Boulevard which would encourage safe and convenient pedestrian circulation.
LU Goal 5: Create opportunity for diversity in housing opportunities through the City.
Policy LU 5.1: Encourage higher density housing
near arterials and collector streets for all income
levels throughout the City.
No Conflict. The Project proposes 300 DU (283 market rate units and 17 affordable units) which would be located along Artesia Boulevard which is designated as an Arterial roadway in the General Plan.
Policy LU 5.3: Require adequate amenities, open
space, and landscaping for new housing
developments.
No Conflict. The Project would provide 18,598 SF of amenity areas and 49,701 SF of common open space areas with 26,261 SF of landscaping (i.e., 23,041 SF planted area and 3,220 SF artificial turf area) and would meet the City’s open space and landscaping requirements outlined in GMC Section 18.18A.040 and GMC Section 18.42.075.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 189 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Policy LU 5.4: Provide high-quality housing for
current and future residents at all income levels
to achieve a balanced community.
No Conflict. The Project proposes 300 DU (283 market rate units and 17 affordable units). The Project also proposes a mixture of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units.
Therefore, the Project would provide a variety of high-quality housing for a variety of household size and income levels.
Policy LU 5.5: Provide opportunities for a variety
of housing types throughout the City.
Community Development Element: Community Design Plan
DS Goal 1: Enhance the visual environment and create a positive image of the City.
Policy DS 1.3: Promote a stronger design review
process to ensure that public and private projects
comply with best design practices and standards.
No Conflict. The Project has been subject to City review and approval to ensure that future development is held to quality design practices and standards.
Policy DS 1.4: Provide a sense of arrival to
Gardena through entry monument signs,
landscaping features, architectural and motifs at
key gateway locations.
No Conflict. The Project would enhance the visual environment by replacing industrial and commercial development with a new multi-family development. The Project would incorporate high-quality design and landscaping consistent with GMC standards. The Project would provide onsite landscaping features and a high-quality sign identifying the Project, consistent with GMC Chapter 18.58 sign standards, at a key gateway location in the City.
Policy DS 1.6: Require streetscape development
standards for major corridors, including
streetlights, landscaping, public signage and
street furniture, to reinforce Gardena’s
community image.
No Conflict. The Project’s proposed streetscape would be subject to City review and approval to ensure that future development is held to quality design practices and standards.
DS Goal 2: Enhance the aesthetic quality of the residential neighborhoods in the City.
Policy DS 2.1: Provide stronger design guidelines
for residential development, including both new
construction and additions to existing singlefamily units or multi-family dwellings.
No Conflict. The Project is intended to achieve quality and attractively designed development that can serve as a model for future multi-family development in the City. The Project would replace aged industrial and commercial buildings with a residential development that is intended to serve as a catalyst to transform southern according to the General Plan.
Policy DS 2.2: Ensure that new and remodeled
dwelling units are designed with architectural
styles, which are varied and are compatible in
scale and character with existing buildings and
the natural surroundings.
Policy DS 2.3: Encourage a variety of architectural
styles, massing, floor plans, color schemes,
building materials, façade treatments, elevation
and wall articulations.
No Conflict. The Project includes a variety of massing, floorplans, color schemes, façade treatments, elevations, and wall articulations.
Policy DS 2.7: Require appropriate setbacks,
massing, articulation and height limits to provide
privacy and compatibility where multiple-family
housing is developed adjacent to single-family
housing.
No Conflict. The Project is not located adjacent to single-family housing. The Project’s first floor would not include parking, but rather would include the lobby area and landscaped areas which encourages pedestrian traffic and a strong relationship between the apartment building and Artesia Boulevard.
Policy DS 2.9: Integrate new residential
developments with the surrounding built
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 190 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
environment. In addition, encourage a strong
relationship between the dwelling and the street.
Policy DS 2.10: Provide landscape treatments
(trees, shrubs, groundcover, and grass areas)
within multi-family development projects in
order to create a “greener” environment for
residents and those viewing from public areas.
No Conflict. The Project would provide landscape treatments that would create a “greener” environment. The Project would replace existing industrial and commercial uses with a multifamily residential building that incorporates street trees to shade the street and sidewalk and create a pedestrian-scale screen between the ground level and upper levels of the building.
Policy DS 2.11: Incorporate quality residential
amenities such as private and communal open
spaces into multi-unit development projects in
order to improve the quality of the project and to
create more attractive and livable spaces for
residents to enjoy. (Same as Policy EJ 4.12)
No Conflict. The Project would incorporate quality residential amenities, including 18,598 SF of amenity areas and 49,701 SF of open space. include bike parking and a dog spa on the ground level; an indoor and outdoor fitness area, business center, clubroom, golf simulator, and pool courtyard on the second level; pools, BBQ’s and courtyards with fire pits on level three; and a roof deck and lounge area on the fifth level. These amenities would create more attractive and livable spaces for residents to enjoy.
Policy DS 2.12: Provide well-designed and safe
parking areas that maximize security,
surveillance, and efficient access to building
entrances.
No Conflict. The Project would provide parking in an enclosed garage consisting of two vertical floors, starting 10 feet below the proposed grade. The parking garage would be accessible only to residents and would be secured by a key fob entry system. Residents would be able to enter the building directly from the parking garage. Guest parking in the parking garage would be accessible during business hours and access
controlled outside of business hours.
Policy DS 2.13: Encourage lot consolidation for
multi-family development projects in order to
produce larger sites with greater project
amenities.
No Conflict. The Project site is contained within one parcel.
Policy DS 2.14: Require design standards be
established to provide for attractive building
design features, safe egress and ingress,
sufficient parking, adequate pedestrian
amenities, landscaping, and proper signage.
No Conflict. The Project’s design would be consistent with GMC Section 18.18A.040, and therefore would provide for attractive building design features, safe egress and ingress, sufficient parking, adequate pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and proper signage.
Policy DS 2.15: Promote innovative development
and design techniques, new material and
construction methods to stimulate residential
development that protects the environment.
No Conflict. Energy-saving and sustainable design features would be incorporated into the Project as the proposed
building would be subject to compliance with California Code of Regulations Title 24. Project design features would include energy conservation, water conservation, and pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly site design. As it relates to energy conservation, the Project would include ENERGY STAR-rated appliances and install energy-efficient HVAC systems. All glass used in the building design would have minimal reflectivity to reduce glare to surrounding neighbors. As it relates to water conservation, the Project would incorporate efficient water management and 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 191 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
sustainable landscaping. Bicycle parking spaces would be provided on the Project site pursuant to GMC Section
18.18A.040(I)(4) (Development Standards) requirements. In addition, at least 10 percent of the total onsite parking spaces would be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE.
DS Goal 7: Utilize extensive landscaping to beautify Gardena’s streets and sidewalks.
Policy DS 7.1: Pursue unifying streetscape
elements for major corridors, including
landscaping, public signage, banners, streetlights,
and street furniture to foster the City’s
streetscape.
No Conflict. The Project proposes streetscape consistent with the City’s requirements for arterial roadways. Development of the Project would be in furtherance of the City’s goal of pursuing a unifying streetscape along Artesia Boulevard.
Policy DS 7.2: Provide landscaped medians on
Rosecrans Avenue, Western Avenue and
Redondo Beach Boulevard.
No Conflict. The Project does not share a boundary with Rosecrans Avenue, Western Avenue and Redondo Beach
Boulevard.
Policy DS 7.4: Screen or underground unsightly
equipment cabinets, infrastructure support
structures and equipment.
No Conflict. The Project would screen unsightly equipment cabinets, infrastructure support structures and equipment with landscaping. The Project would also underground electric and communication lines. Policy DS 7.5: Underground electric and communication lines.
Policy DS 7.6: Require consistent landscaping
character along streets that reinforces the unique
qualities of each corridor and neighborhood.
No Conflict. The Project proposes streetscape consistent with the City’s requirements for Arterial roadways. Development of the Project would be in furtherance of the City’s goal of pursuing a unique streetscape along Artesia Boulevard.
Community Development Element: Circulation Plan
CI Goal 1: Promote a safe and efficient circulation system that benefits residents and businesses and integrates with the greater Los Angeles/South Bay transportation system.
Policy CI 1.1: Prioritize long-term sustainability
for the City of Gardena, in alignment with
regional and state goals, by promoting infill
development, reduced reliance on singleoccupancy vehicle trips, and improved multimodal transportation networks, with the goal of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions, thereby improving the health and
quality of life for residents.
No Conflict. The Project would provide 75 bicycle parking spaces and 507 auto parking spaces, which exceeds that
required by the State Density Bonus Law. By providing bicycle parking spaces, the Project would discourage vehicle
commuter trips. The Project further promotes use of multimodal transportation networks through its close proximity to such networks. Existing public transit service in the Project area is provided by LA Metro, GTrans, and Torrance Transit. GTrans Line 2 serves the Project site via two bus stops on either side of South Western Avenue at the West Artesia Boulevard and
South Western Avenue intersection. The LA Metro Line 344 serves the Project site via bus stops on the intersections of (i) West Artesia Boulevard and South Western Avenue and (ii) West Artesia Boulevard and South Normandie Avenue.
Torrance Transit Line 13 serves the Project site via two bus stops on Artesia Boulevard almost immediately north of the Project site. The Harbor Gateway Transit Center, which is a Los 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 192 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Angeles County Metro Rail, is located at 731 West 182nd Street, approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the Project site.
CI Goal 3: Develop Complete Streets to promote alternative modes of transportation that are safe and efficient for commuters, and available to persons of all income levels and disabilities.
Policy CI 3.1: Work with Gardena Municipal Bus
Lines and MTA to increase the use of public
transit, establish or modify routes, and improve
connectivity to regional services.
No Conflict. Transit and pedestrian facilities exist within close proximity of the Project site. Existing public transit service in the Project area is provided by LA Metro, GTrans, and Torrance Transit. GTrans Line 2 serves the Project site via two bus stops on either side of South Western Avenue at the West Artesia Boulevard and South Western Avenue intersection. The LA Metro Line 344 serves the Project site via bus stops on the intersections of (i) West Artesia Boulevard and South Western Avenue and (ii) West Artesia Boulevard and South Normandie Avenue. Torrance Transit Line 13 serves the Project site via two bus stops on Artesia Boulevard almost immediately north of the Project site. The Harbor Gateway Transit Center, which provides access to several local and express bus lines, is located at 731 West 182nd Street, approximately 0.9 mile southeast, providing more access to public transit opportunities within the greater region. To improve access to public transportation, the Project includes the reconstruction of sidewalks along West Artesia Boulevard, along the south side of Artesia Boulevard.
The Project, with the incorporation of these sidewalk
improvements, would improve connectivity to regional
services and promote alternative modes of transportation for residents.
Policy CI 3.3: Maintain and expand sidewalk
installation and repair programs, particularly in
areas where sidewalks link residential
neighborhoods to local schools, parks, and
shopping areas.
No Conflict. The Project would include reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters adjoining the Project site pursuant to the General Plan Circulation Element requirements for an Arterial Street.
Policy CI 3.4: Maintain a citywide bicycle route
and maintenance plan that promotes efficient
and safe bikeways integrated with the MTA’s
regional bicycle system.
No Conflict. The Project promotes bicycle usage through provision of bicycle access along street frontages and bicycle parking.
Housing Element
Goal 3.0: Minimize the impact of governmental constraints on housing construction and cost.
Policy 3.2: Encourage the utilization of innovative
construction and design techniques to reduce
housing costs.
No Conflict. The Project would utilize the State Density Bonus law. With incorporation of the 25 percent density bonus and waivers the Project would be able to provide 17 very lowincome affordable DU. The Project offers an opportunity to create a vibrant, multi-family neighborhood. The Project facilitates more diverse multi-family housing options to serve the City’s growing and evolving technology industry, and balances job growth with new high-quality housing
opportunities. By permitting denser development than would Policy 3.3: Encourage the use of special
development zones and other mechanisms to
allow more flexibility in housing developments.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 193 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
otherwise be permitted under existing zoning, the Project incentivizes construction of new multi-family housing with a variety of unit types thereby reducing costs.
Goal 4.0: Provide adequate residential sites through appropriate land use and zoning to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs.
Policy 4.4: Encourage development at maximum
attainable densities and encourage use of density
bonuses for inclusion of affordable units.
No Conflict. The Project would provide a mixture of DU
affordability which would include 283 market rate units and 17 affordable units. By incorporating affordable housing units, the Project would further disperse affordable units within the City. Policy 4.5: Ensure the production of affordable units throughout the community to avoid over
concentration in specific neighborhoods.
Policy 4.6: Facilitate the development of mixed
income projects.
Environmental Justice Element
EJ Goal 1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance air quality, and reduce impacts associated with climate change.
Policy EJ 1.2: Attract new clean industry to the
City which do not emit smoke, noise, offensive
odors, or harmful industrial wastes.
No Conflict. The Project is not an industrial development.
Further, the Project would not require use of equipment or processes that would emit smoke, odors, or harmful industrial wastes. Construction-related particulate emissions would be regulated through best practices and/or SCAQMD rules (e.g., Rule 403, Fugitive Dust).
Policy EJ 1.4: Promote innovative development
and design techniques, new material and
construction methods to stimulate residential
development that protects the environment.
(Same as Policy DS 2.15)
No Conflict. The Project would remove automotive repair uses that are near existing residential uses. In addition, the Project’s residential units are designed around a central courtyard that would include outdoor recreational facilities that would be shielded from external sources of air pollution (such as traffic on Artesia Boulevard). This would help reduce inhalation of particulate matter by residents using outdoor facilities.
Policy EJ 1.5: Prioritize long‐term sustainability
for the City of Gardena, in alignment with
regional and state goals, by promoting infill
development, reduced reliance on single‐
occupancy vehicle trips, and improved multi‐
modal transportation networks, with the goal of
reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions, thereby improving the health and
quality of life for residents. (Same as Policy CI 1.1)
No Conflict. The proposed development would include infill housing along a major mixed-use corridor at a density of about 88 DU/AC, which would contribute to urban densities that can reduce reliance on vehicle travel over time as more origins and destinations would be accessible by active transportation (e.g., bicycling, walking) and public transit.
Community Resources Element: Conservation Plan
CN Goal 2: Conserve and protect groundwater supply and water resources.
Policy CN 2.1: Encourage water conservation
through education and water-conserving
technology.
No Conflict. The Project would comply with the water
conservation measures set forth by the California Department 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 194 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Policy CN 2.2: Comply with the water
conservation measures set forth by the California
Department of Water Resources.
of Water Resources. Further, the Project would implement the following measures to conserve water:
• Installation of “smart” irrigation controller with rainsensor. • The use of low precipitation / low angle irrigation
spray heads.
• The use of low water consuming plants.
• Soil amendment to achieve good soil moisture
retention.
• Mulching to reduce evapotranspiration from the root
zone.
• Installation of automatic irrigation system to provide deep-root watering to trees
CN Goal 3: Reduce the amount of solid waste produced in Gardena.
Policy CN 3.1: Comply with the requirements set
forth in the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling
Element.
No Conflict. The Project would comply with all applicable local and state requirements for waste diversion during both
construction and operations, including the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
CN Goal 4: Conserve energy resources through the use of technology and conservation methods.
Policy CN 4.1: Encourage innovative building
designs that conserve and minimize energy
consumption.
No Conflict. As previously mentioned, the Project would be subject to compliance with California Code of Regulations Title
24. Project design features would include energy conservation, water conservation, and pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly site design. Additionally, the Project would include ENERGY STARrated appliances and install energy-efficient HVAC systems.
Policy CN 4.2: Require compliance with Title 24
regulations to conserve energy.
Policy CN 4.3: Encourage the residential and
business community to install energy saving
features and appliances in existing structures.
CN Goal 5: Protect the City’s cultural resources.
Policy CN 5.3: Protect and preserve cultural
resources of the Gabrielino Native American
Tribes found or uncovered during construction.
No Conflict. The Project would incorporate measures to
protect and preserve any cultural resources of the Gabrielino Native American Tribe, or any other Tribe, found or uncovered during construction. See Section 6.18: Tribal Cultural
Resources.
Community Safety Element: Public Safety Plan
PS Goal 1: A community that is highly prepared and equipped to handle emergency situations in order to minimize loss of life, injury, property damage, and disruption of vital services.
Policy PS 1.7: Development Review. Ensure that
law enforcement, crime prevention, and fire
safety concerns are considered in the review of
planning and development proposals in the City.
No Conflict. The City has considered law enforcement, crime prevention, and fire safety concerns in its Project review. The building and parking structure would be accessible only to residents. The Project would comply with all applicable Fire Code and fire safety regulations.
Policy PS 1.17: Multi-family Residential Property
Management. Promote professional
No Conflict. The Project would include professional
management.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 195 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
management of multi-family residential
buildings.
PS Goal 2: A City that is adequately prepared for fire emergencies.
Policy PS 2.2: Building and Fire Codes. Require
that all buildings and facilities within Gardena
comply with local, state, and federal regulatory
standards such as the California Building and Fire
Codes as well as other applicable fire safety
standards.
No Conflict. The Project would comply with local, state, and federal regulatory standards such as the California Building and Fire Codes as well as other applicable fire safety standards.
Policy PS. 2.5: Water Supply. Coordinate with
applicable water providers and LACOFD to ensure
that water supply and pressure for new and
existing development is adequate for structural
fire suppression.
No Conflict. The City would require LACOFD to ensure that water supply and pressure for the proposed development is adequate for structural fire suppression.
Policy PS 2.7: New Development.
Require adequate fire protection services, fire
protection plans, and emergency vehicle access
for new development.
Locate, design, and construct new development
to minimize the risk of structural loss from fires.
Install visible home and street addressing and
signage.
No Conflict. The Project would provide adequate fire
protection services, fire protection plans, and emergency vehicle access for new development. Additionally, the project would be constructed to minimize the risk of structural loss from fires and would install visible home and street addressing and signage to allow for a quicker emergency response.
PS Goal 3: Protect the community from dangers associated with geologic instability, seismic hazards and other natural hazards.
Policy PS 3.1: California Building Code. Require
compliance with seismic safety standards in the
California Building Code, as adopted and
amended.
No Conflict. The Project would be required to be compliant with seismic safety standards in the CBC. As detailed in Section
6.7: Geology and Soils, the Project is subject to liquefaction, therefore the Project would be required to submit a final geotechnical study. Further, the Project would be required to comply with a final geotechnical report which would
recommend site specific seismic safety measures.
Policy PS 3.2: Geotechnical Studies. Require
geotechnical studies for all new development
projects in the City, including those located in an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or areas
subject to liquefaction.
PS Goal 5: A community that is protected from flood hazards.
PS 5.4: California Building Code. Adhere to the
latest building, site, and design codes in the
California Building Code and FEMA flood control
guidelines to avoid or minimize the risk of
flooding hazards for new development in the City.
No Conflict. The Project would be required to adhere to the latest building, site, and design codes in the California Building Code and FEMA flood control guidelines
PS 5.5: Stormwater Runoff. Encourage new
developments that add substantial amounts of
impervious surfaces to integrate low impact
development (LID) to reduce stormwater runoff.
No Conflict. The Project would be required to integrate LID measures.
PS Goal 6: A resilient, sustainable, and equitable community where risks to life, property, the economy, and the environment resulting from climate change, including extreme weather events, are minimized. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 196 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Policy PS 6.10: Extreme Heat Vulnerabilities.
Encourage new developments, major remodels,
and redevelopments address urban heat island
issues and reduce urban heat island effects for
the proposed project site and adjacent properties
in accordance with the City’s amendments to the
California Building Code set forth in Gardena
Municipal Code Section 15.04.060.
No Conflict. The Project would implement the City’s
amendments to the CBC as set forth in GMC Section 15.04.060.
Overall, the Project would provide greater landscaped areas than the existing land use which would reduce urban heat island effects.
Community Safety Element: Noise Plan
N Goal 1: Use noise control measures to reduce the impact from transportation noise sources.
Policy N 1.1: Minimize noise conflicts between
land uses and the circulation network, and
mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible
to ensure the peace and quiet of the community.
No Conflict. The Project would reduce noise conflicts by replacing the existing auto repair and auto body facility with a residential development, thereby reducing the potential for nuisance for existing residences near the Project site. This would improve the compatibility of land uses along this corridor, as the adjacent uses are similar in nature and increasingly residential.
Policy N 1.8: Encourage walking, biking,
carpooling, use of public transit and other
alternative modes of transportation to minimize
vehicular use and associated traffic noise.
No Conflict. The Project site is well served by three local bus lines that provide transit service within walking distance. The proximity of existing transit service to the Project site would allow for greater use of transit when compared to a project not located in close proximity to transit. In addition, the Project would include bicycle parking pursuant to GMC Section
18.18A.040(l)(4), which would encourage biking as a form of transportation.
N Goal 2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions. (Same as Policy EJ 1.12) Policy N 2.1: Promote noise regulations that
establish acceptable noise standards for various
land uses throughout Gardena.
No Conflict. The Project site is considered “conditionally acceptable” by State land use compatibility guidelines given the ambient noise levels along Artesia Boulevard.
Policy N 2.2: Require noise/land use compatibility
standards to guide future planning and
development.
No Conflict. The Project site is considered “conditionally acceptable” by State land use compatibility guidelines given the ambient noise levels along Artesia Boulevard.
Policy N 2.4: Require mitigation of all significant
noise impacts as a condition of project approval.
No Conflict. The Project’s potential for generating noise impacts on the surrounding environment both during
construction and operation is addressed in Section 6.13: Noise.
As concluded in Section 6.13: Noise, impacts associated with Project onsite construction activities would be significant and unavoidable despite the specified mitigation measures. In accordance with Policy 2.4, mitigation is required to minimize construction noise impacts. As to Policies 2.5 and 2.6, the Project would conduct interior noise level studies and achieve interior noise level standards as required by the Building Code.
As to Policy 2.9, the Project would incorporate design features necessary to control residential interior noise levels and Policy N 2.5: Require proposed projects to be
reviewed for compatibility with nearby noisesensitive land uses with the intent of reducing noise impacts.
Policy N 2.6: Require new residential
developments located in proximity to existing
commercial/ industrial operations to control
residential interior noise levels as a condition of
approval and minimize exposure of residents in
the site design.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.11
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Land Use and Planning 197 February 2024
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Policy N 2.9: Encourage the creative use of site
and building design techniques as a means to
minimize noise impacts.
minimize exposure of residents to nearby mobile noise sources in accordance with the Building Code standards for interior noise levels.
Policy N 2.10: Promote replacement of significant
noise sources with non-noise-generating land
uses when plans for future use of areas are
developed.
No Conflict. The Project would reduce a significant source of operational noise by replacing the existing auto repair and auto body facility with a residential development, thereby reducing the potential for nuisance for existing residences near the Project site.
N Goal 3: Develop measures to control non-transportation noise impacts.
Policy N 3.2: Require compliance with noise
regulations. Review and update Gardena’s
policies and regulations affecting noise.
No Conflict. The Project would be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance.
Policy N 3.3: Require compliance with
construction hours to minimize the impacts of
construction noise on adjacent land.
No Conflict. The Project’s construction activities would comply with the City’s requirements under GMC Section 8.36.080.
Source: City of Gardena. 2023. Gardena General Plan 2006, Updated 2023. https://www.cityofgardena.org/general-plan/. Accessed December 2023.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan policies and all potential environmental impacts associated with land use would be less than significant. City growth would be subject to review for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the City, in accordance with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines, State Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to the approval of entitlements for development.
Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts associated with plans and policies would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.12
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mineral Resources 198 February 2024
Mineral Resources
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.12a Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
6.12b Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires classification of land into mineral resource zones (MRZs) according to the area’s known or inferred mineral potential.47 The Project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone-1 (MRZ-1). Areas designated MRZ-1 are noted to have adequate information that no significant48 mineral deposits are present or it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.49 The Project site is in an urban area and is currently used for commercial and industrial uses. No mineral extraction is occurring on the Project site. Further, the General Plan does not identify any locally-important mineral resource recovery sites within the City. Therefore, the Project would have no impact concerning mineral resources.
Cumulative Impacts
No impacts related to mineral resources would result from the Project. As a result, no cumulative impacts related to mineral resources would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
47 California Department of Conservation. (2018). California Statutes and Regulations for the California Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA: California Geological Survey.
48 Note that use of the term “significant” in this context is used in the MRZ definitions of zones to describe economic value of mineral resources and does not refer to a level of impact under CEQA. 49 California Department of Conservation. (2015). CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Special Report 143, Plate 4-1. Retrieved from http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 199 February 2024
Noise
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generate of excessive ground borne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
X
The basis for the following information and analysis is the Noise Technical Report for the 1610 W. Artesia Boulevard Project, Gardena, California 90248 (CAJA Environmental Services and DKA Planning, January 2024) and the Vibration Technical Report for the 1610 W. Artesia Boulevard Project, Gardena, California 90248 (CAJA Environmental Services and DKA Planning, November 2023). These reports are included in this Initial Study as Appendix 6.13-1: Noise Technical Report and Appendix 6.13-2: Vibration Technical Report and are summarized below.
It is noted, Kimley-Horn conducted third-party reviews on behalf of the City of the Project’s Noise Technical Report and Vibration Technical Report, see Appendix 6.13-1 and Appendix 6.13-2, respectively.
The third-party reviews concluded the analyses meets the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Background
The General Plan establishes goals, policies, and programs to protect residents from excessive noise.
Additionally, GMC Section 8.36.040 and Section 8.36.050 state the City’s exterior and interior noise standards in terms of Leq(15) and Lmax. GMC Section 8.36.080(G) addresses noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, grading, or demolition. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 200 February 2024
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.13a Would the project result in generation a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
On-Site Construction Activities
Construction would generate noise during the approximately 27 months of demolition, site preparation, grading, utilities trenching, building construction, paving and application of architectural coatings, as shown in Table 6-14: Construction Schedule Assumptions. During all construction phases, noisegenerating activities could occur at the Project site between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, in accordance with GMC Section 8.36.080, Exemptions.
Table 6-14: Construction Schedule Assumptions
Phase Construction
Interval
Notes
Demolition Months 1-2
Removal of approximately 1,600 tons of demolition debris in 10- cubic yard capacity trucks, hauled 40 miles to the Olinda Alpha Landfill.
Site Preparation Month 3 (one
week)
Grubbing and removal of trees, plants, landscaping, and weeds.
Grading Months 3-5
Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of soil hauled 40 miles to Olinda Alpha Landfill in 10-cubic yard capacity trucks.
Trenching Months 6-11
Trenching for utilities, including gas, water, electricity, and telecommunications.
Building Construction Months 6-27
Footings and foundation work (e.g., pouring concrete pads, drilling for piers), framing, welding; installing mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. Floor assembly, cabinetry and carpentry, elevator installations, low voltage systems, trash management.
Paving Months 24-27 Flatwork, including paving of driveways and walkways.
Architectural Coatings Months 22-27 Application of interior and exterior coatings and sealants.
Source: DKA Planning, 2023.
Individual pieces of construction equipment that would be used for construction produce maximum noise levels of 74 dBA to 89 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source, as shown in Table 6-15: Typical Construction Noise Levels. The construction equipment noise levels at 50 feet distance (Referred to as Maximum Noise Levels) are based on the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, which is a technical report containing actual measured noise data for construction equipment.
These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions (i.e., the equipment engine at maximum speed). However, equipment used on construction sites often operates under less than full power conditions, or part power. To more accurately characterize construction-period noise levels, the average (Hourly Leq) noise level associated with each construction stage is calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction stage. These noise levels are typically associated with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 201 February 2024
Table 6-15 provides the estimated construction noise levels for various construction phases at the off-site noise sensitive receptors. To present a conservative impact analysis, the estimated noise levels were calculated with all pieces of construction equipment for each construction phase assumed to operate simultaneously. These assumptions represent a conservative noise scenario because construction activities would typically be spread out throughout the Project Site, and, thus, some equipment would be farther away from the affected receptors.
Table 6-15: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Type of Equipment Acoustical Usage Factor (Percent) Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Lmax)
Backhoe 40 78
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79
Crane 16 81
Dozer 40 82
Forklift 20 75
Gradall 40 83
Dump/Haul Truck 40 76
Excavator 40 81
Jackhammer 20 89
Man Lift 20 75
Grader 40 85
Rubber Tired Loader 40 79
Delivery Truck 40 74
Welders 40 74
Pneumatic Tool 50 85
Source: Equipment inventory from CalEEMod model runs; reference noise levels from Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual; September 2018; * Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol; September 2013.
Table 6-16: Construction Noise Impacts at Off-Site Sensitive Receptors (Without Mitigation) Receptor
Estimated Noise Levels dBA (Leq) Measured
Ambient
Noise
Levels
dBA (Leq)
Significance
Threshold Demo
Site
Prep
Grading Trenching
Building
Construction
Paving/
Coatings
1. Residences –
Begonia Way 73.3 73.1 70.3 67.5 69.7 69.1 65.7 75.7
2. Residences – Artesia
Bl. (north side) 73.1 71.7 71.5 69.8 71.3 67.4 65.7 75.7
3. Residences – 17332
Artesia Bl. 73.3 71.7 71.9 71.5 73.0 68.9 68.0 78.0
4. Residences – 1602-
1604 Artesia Sq. 75.9 75.1 73.5 71.5 73.5 69.2 68.0 78.0
5. Residences – 1608
Artesia Sq. 81.6 76.6 73.9 71.5 74.0 69.2 68.0 78.0
6. Mobile Home Park–
17700 Western Ave. 70.5 66.0 69.3 68.1 69.0 67.1 66.6 76.6 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 202 February 2024
Source: DKA Planning, 2023.
As illustrated in Table 6-16, the estimated construction noise levels would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard at the residences at 1608 Artesia Square, which would exceed the 10 dBA significance threshold.
To reduce the Project’s construction-related noise levels, implementation of MM NOI-1 would be required, which requires proper maintenance of construction equipment and installation of noise muffling devices. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicates that muffler systems can reduce noise levels by 10 dBA or more.50 With MM NOI-1 incorporated, construction noise levels would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standard at the residences at 1608 Artesia Square and impacts would be less than significant. As a result, all analyzed sensitive receptors would experience less than a 10 dBA Leq increase in ambient noise levels. As such, construction noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Off-Site Construction Activities
The Project would also generate noise at off-site locations from haul trucks moving debris and soil from the Project site during demolition and grading activities, respectively; vendor trips; and worker commute trips. These activities would generate noise equivalent to an estimated 596 peak hourly PCE vehicle trips, as summarized in Table 6-17: Construction Vehicle Trips (Maximum Hourly), during the grading phase.51 This would represent noise equivalent to approximately 20.9 percent of traffic volumes on Artesia Boulevard, which carries about 2,854 vehicles at Western Avenue in the morning peak hour of traffic.52 Because workers and vendors will likely use more than one route to travel to and from the Project site, this conservative assessment of traffic volumes overstates the likely traffic volumes from construction activities at this intersection.
West Artesia Boulevard would serve as part of the haul route for any soil exported from the Project site given its direct access to the Harbor Freeway. Because the Project’s construction-related trips would not cause a doubling in traffic volumes (i.e., 100 percent increase) on Artesia Boulevard, the Project’s construction-related traffic would not increase existing noise levels by 3 dBA or more, which is less than the 10 dBA threshold of significance for off-site construction noise activities. Therefore, the Project’s noise impacts concerning construction-related traffic would be less than significant.
Table 6-17: Construction Vehicle Trips (Maximum Hourly) Construction Phase Worker
Trips a Vendor Trips Haul Trips Total Trips
Percent of Peak A.M.
Hour Trips on Artesia
Blvd.e
Demolition 15 0 41b 56 2.0
Site Preparation 18 0 0 18 0.6
Grading 15 0 582c 596 20.9
Trenching 3 0 0 3 0.1
Building Construction 307 185d 0 496 17.2
50 Federal Highway Administration, Special Report – Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, Chapter 4 Mitigation, 2017. 51 This is a conservative, worst-case scenario, as it assumes all workers travel to the worksite at the same time and that vendor and haul trips are made in the same early hour, using the same route as haul trucks to travel to and from the Project site.
52 Linscott Law & Greenspan, Memorandum: TPG 1610 Artesia Project – Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment; July 21, 2023.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 203 February 2024
Construction Phase Worker
Trips a Vendor Trips Haul Trips Total Trips
Percent of Peak A.M.
Hour Trips on Artesia
Blvd.e
Paving 20 0 0 20 0.7
Architectural Coating 61 0 0 61 2.2
a Assumes all worker trips occur in the peak hour of construction activity. b The Project would generate 643 haul trips over a 43-day period with seven-hour workdays. Because haul trucks emit more noise than passenger vehicles, a 19.1 passenger car equivalency (PCE) was used to convert noise from haul truck trips to a passenger car equivalent.
c The Project would generate noise equivalent to approximately 13,000 haul trips over a 61-day period with seven-hour workdays.
Assumes a 19.1 PCE.
d This phase would generate noise equivalent to approximately 67.7 vendor truck trips daily over a seven-hour workday. Assumes a blend of vehicle types and a 9.55 PCE.
e Percent of existing traffic volumes on Artesia Boulevard at Western Avenue.
Source: DKA Planning, 2023
Operation
On-Site Operational Noise
During long-term operation, the Project would produce noise from on-site sources such as mechanical equipment or from activity in outdoor spaces.
Mechanical Equipment
The Project would operate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical equipment on the roof five stories above grade that would generate incremental long-term noise impacts. For example, the Project could use heat pumps in the multi-family residences (e.g., Carrier 25HBC5) that centralize heating and cooling functions, with each unit distributed across the roof as needed to serve each residence.53 Heat pumps would generate noise during both heating and cooling sessions while air conditioners operate during cooling cycles. Equipment would include a number of sound sources, including compressors, condenser fans, supply fans, return fans, and exhaust fans. Noise from heat pumps and air conditioners is a function of the model, airflow, and pressure flow generated by fans and compressors. Most modern heat pumps are relatively quiet, with sound ratings of up to 60 decibels, equivalent to normal human conversation.54
However, noise impacts from rooftop mechanical equipment on nearby sensitive receptors would be negligible as there would be no line-of-sight from these rooftop units to the sensitive receptors. Because the residences adjacent to the Project site are three stories in height, there would be no sound path from the HVAC equipment to residences that would be up to 20 feet lower than the roof of the Project. In addition, the ambient noise levels at the closest receptors to the east across Artesia Square (i.e., 66 dBA CNEL) would all but ensure attenuation of any audible noise from rooftop sources. With all these factors, the sound pressure for receptors no closer than 20 feet would negligibly elevate ambient noise levels, far less than the 10 dBA CNEL threshold of significance for operational impacts. 53 Given the Project site’s location in Climate Zone 9, Title 24 would also allow a more conventional gas heating system that uses an internal furnace paired with an external air conditioner that would be ground-mounted. 54 Clean British Columbia. Heat Pumps and Noise. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/heat-pump-noise-guide.pdf. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 204 February 2024
Pad-mounted oil transformers that power high voltage to standard household voltage used to power electronics, appliances, and lighting would be located on the ground level in an unobstructed location.
These transformers are housed in a steel cabinet and generally do not involve pumps, though fans may be needed on some units. Switchgear responsible for distributing power through the development could be located externally, though no mechanical processes that generate noise would be necessary.
Otherwise, all other mechanical equipment would be fully enclosed within the structure. This can include mechanical, electrical, and plumbing rooms, a utility fan room, as well as elevator equipment (including hydraulic pump, switches, and controllers) in the subterranean basement. Two vaults that house pool and spa equipment and pumps would be located inside the enclosed parking garage, thereby shielding off-site sensitive receptors including residences to the east across Artesia Square from any noise impacts.
As all of these activities would generally occur within the envelope of the development, operational noise would be shielded from off-site noise-sensitive receptors, and this impact would be less than significant.
Auto-Related Activities
The majority of vehicle-related noise impacts at the Project site would come from vehicles entering and exiting the residential development from ai surface-level driveway on Artesia Boulevard. During the peak P.M. hour, up to 40 net vehicles would generate noise in and out of the garage, with up to 67 net vehicles using the garage in the peak A.M. hour. These vehicles would use two garage entrances and exits along the west side of the development, completely shielded by the development from residences to the east along Artesia Square.
Residences across Artesia Boulevard would have a direct line-of-sight to the driveway, approximately 170 feet away. As shown in Table 6-18: Parking Garage-Related Impacts at Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, the average vehicle use of the garage during daytime hours (average of 32 vehicles per hour between 8:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M.) and nighttime hours (an average of 13 vehicles hourly from 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M.) would elevate ambient noise levels by less than 0.1 dBA CNEL, well below the 5 dBA threshold of significance for operational sources of noise.
Table 6-18: Parking Garage-Related Impacts at Off-Site Sensitive Receptors Receptor
Maximum
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing
Ambient Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
New
Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Increase
(dBA
CNEL)
Significant?
Residences – Artesia Bl.
(north side) 31.5 63.7 63.7 <0.1 No
Source: FTA Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet.
Parking garage-related noise impacts for other receptors would also be negligible given their more remote locations and/or the lack of a line-of-sight from the garage. Parking garage noise would include tire friction as vehicles navigate to and from parking spaces, doors slamming, car alarms, and minor engine acceleration. Most of these sources are instantaneous (e.g., car alarm chirp, door slam) while others may last a few seconds. These activities would occur in the enclosed ground-level or subterranean garage levels. These activities currently occur in the surface-level parking spaces, including those along the eastern portion of the Project site flanking the Artesia Square residences to the east. Moreover, noise from the existing auto repair (e.g., hydraulic equipment, power tools) and auto body work (e.g., hammering) inside open work bays, especially the nine service bays along the eastern property line, would 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 205 February 2024
be eliminated, substantially reducing daytime noise levels. As such, the Project’s parking garage activities would not have a significant impact on the surrounding noise environment and would reduce noise from current parking-related and auto repair and auto body activities, and this impact would be less than significant.
Outdoor Uses
While most operations would be conducted inside the development, outdoor activities could generate noise that could impact local sensitive receptors. This would include human conversation, recreation, trash collection, and landscape maintenance, each of which are discussed below:
• Human conversation. While noise associated with everyday residential activities would largely occur internally within the development, there could be activities such as human conversation, socializing, and passive recreation in outdoor spaces, which could include:
o Second floor interior courtyard. This would be a shared use space on the podium level for socializing or passive recreation (e.g., reading, dining), with intermittent use largely during day or evening hours. No powered speakers are proposed that would amplify either speech or music. This area would be fully surrounded on all four sides by the six-story development, thereby shielding off-site sensitive receptors including residences to the east across Artesia Square from any noise impacts.
o Private balconies on all floors. These would be private spaces for residents to be used for socializing or passive recreation (e.g., reading), with intermittent use largely during day or evening hours. No powered speakers are proposed that would amplify either speech or music. o Roof deck on the northwest corner of the sixth floor facing Artesia Boulevard. This 580 squarefoot area would be a shared use space for socializing or passive recreation, with intermittent use largely during day or evening hours. The deck would be shielded from the closest sensitive receptors to the east across Artesia Square and would be over 200 feet away from the nearest residences with a line-of-sight across Artesia Boulevard. Based on the California Building Code’s minimum occupancy of 15 square feet per occupant for less-concentrated assembly areas, approximately 39 people could occupy the roof deck. If one-half of these occupants are speaking at any given time, 20 occupants would collectively generate a sound pressure of about 37.3 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors with a line-of-sight, 200 feet north of the roof deck across Artesia Boulevard, assuming the sound of one voice speaking generates a sound pressure of 60 dBA at one meter. Given the 68.0 dBA Leq noise levels along Artesia Boulevard, noise from the roof deck would elevate ambient noise levels less than 0.1 dBA Leq at the receptors across Artesia Boulevard. Noise impacts at the sensitive receptors on Artesia Square about 300 feet to the east of the roof deck would be even lower, especially given the presence of the development’s sixth floor, which would shield noise from the recessed roof deck. No powered speakers are proposed that would amplify either speech or music.
The primary use of these spaces would be for human conversation, which would produce negligible noise impacts, based on the Lombard effect. This phenomenon recognizes that voice noise levels in face-to-face conversations generally increase proportionally to background ambient noise levels.
Specifically, vocal intensity increases about 0.38 dB for every 1.0 dB increase in noise levels above 55 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 206 February 2024
dB.55 For example, the sound of a human voice at 60 dB would produce a noise level of 39 dB at ten feet, which would not elevate ambient noise levels at any of the analyzed sensitive receptors by more than 0.2 dBA Leq. Moreover, noise levels from human speech would attenuate rapidly with greater distance, resulting in a 33 dB noise level at twenty feet, and 27 dB at 40 feet. Further, the infrequent nature of outdoor use of these spaces and any acoustic noise (e.g., speech) makes it impossible to elevate 24-hour noise levels individually or collectively by 5 dBA CNEL or more at any nearby noisesensitive receptors. This impact would therefore be less than significant. • Recreation. Two open air swimming pools would be located in the central courtyard, surrounded by the central courtyard. Assuming a density of ten square meters (108 square feet) per person in the swimming pools, approximately 24 people would use the pools at one time.56 Noise from open-air swimming pools can vary based on a variety of factors, but can average about 75 dB per person, producing a sound power of about 83.3 dBA. 57 Noise at off-site sensitive receptors would be negligible, however, as the pool is fully surrounded on all four sides by the six-story development, thereby shielding off-site sensitive receptors from any noise. This includes the nearest receptors, the Artesia Square residences over 130 feet from the pools to the east across Artesia Square, from any noise impacts. The substantial distance to any sensitive receptors and the presence of over 40 feet of development on the Project site shielding any line-of-sight to those receptors would substantially attenuate any noise exposure at off-site receptors. As shown in Table 6-19: Swimming Pool Noise Impacts at Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, 24-hour noise levels would be negligibly elevated by less than
0.1 dBA CNEL at all analyzed sensitive receptors. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Table 6-19: Swimming Pool Noise Impacts at Off-Site Sensitive Receptors Receptor
Maximum
Swimming Pool
Noise Level (dBA
CNEL)
Existing
Ambient Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Ambient +
Project
Swimming Pool
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Increase
(dBA CNEL)
Potentially
Significant?
1. Residences – Begonia Way 23.4 63.7 63.7 0.0 No
2. Residences – Artesia Bl.
(north side) 25.0 63.7 63.7 0.0 No
3. Residences – 17332 Artesia
Bl. 25.2 66.0 66.0 0.0 No
4. Residences – 1602-1604
Artesia Sq. 27.8 66.0 66.0 0.0 No
5. Residences – 1608 Artesia
Sq. 29.3 66.0 66.0 0.0 No
6. Mobile Home Park – 17700
Western Ave. 21.4 64.6 64.6 0.0 No
Source: DKA Planning, 2023.
55 Acoustical Society of America, Volume 134; Evidence that the Lombard effect is frequency-specific in humans, Stowe and Golob, July 2013.
56 VDI Association of German Engineers; VDI 37700--Emission Characteristics of Sound Sources-Sport and Leisure Facilities; September 2012. Reference noise level from open-air adult swimming pool, assumes density of ten square meters per person.
57 Ibid.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 207 February 2024
• Trash collection. On-site trash and recyclable materials from the residential uses would be managed from three waste collection areas on the first floor of the parking garage. Dumpsters would be moved to the street manually or with container handler trucks that use hydraulic-powered lifts that use beeping alerts during operation. Trash trucks could access solid waste dumpsters from the fire access road around the perimeter of the development, where solid waste activities would include use of trash compactors and hydraulics associated with the refuse trucks themselves. Noise levels of approximately 71 dBA Leq and 66 dBA Leq could be generated by collection trucks and trash compactors, respectively, at 50 feet of distance.58 These noise impacts would be comparable to that generated from current trash collection activities for the existing auto-related uses and likely lower, as collection activities would largely be within the parking garage. As such, there would be no substantial noise from trash collection for the Project, and this impact would be less than significant. • Landscape maintenance. Noise from gas-powered leaf blowers, lawnmowers, and other landscape equipment can generate substantial bursts of noise during regular maintenance. For example, two gas powered leaf blowers with two-stroke engines and a hose vacuum can generate an average of
85.5 dBA Leq and cause nuisance or potential noise impacts for nearby receptors.59 The landscape plan focuses on a modest palette of accent trees and raised planters that will minimize the need for powered landscaping equipment, as some of this can be managed by hand. Because CNEL levels represent the energy average of sound levels during a 24-hour period, the modest sound power from a few minutes of maintenance activities during daytime hours would negligibly affect CNEL sound levels. These noise levels would be comparable to that generated from current landscape maintenance activities for the existing uses. As such, this impact would be less than significant.
As discussed above, the Project would not result in an exposure of persons to or a generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The Project would not increase surrounding noise levels by more than 5 dBA CNEL, the minimum threshold of significance based on the noise/land use category of sensitive receptors near the Project site. As a result, the Project’s on-site operational noise impacts would be considered less than significant,
Offsite Operational Noise
The majority of the Project’s operational noise impacts would be offsite from vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. The Project could add up to 545 net vehicle trips to the local roadway network on a peak weekday at the start of operations in 2026. During the peak P.M. hour, up to 40 net vehicle trips would be added to Artesia Boulevard and the local street network, with about 67 net vehicle trips in the peak A.M. hour.60 This would represent approximately 2.1 percent of the 2,854 vehicles currently using Artesia Boulevard at Western Avenue in the A.M. peak hour.61 Because it takes a doubling of traffic volumes (i.e., 100 percent) to increase ambient noise levels by 3 dBA Leq, the Project’s traffic would neither increase ambient noise levels 3 dBA or more into “normally 58 RK Engineering Group, Inc. Wal-Mart/Sam’s Club reference noise level, 2003. 59 Erica Walker et al, Harvard School of Public Health; Characteristics of Lawn and Garden Equipment Sound; 2017.
This equipment generated a range of 74.0-88.5 dBA Leq at 50 feet. 60 Linscott Law & Greenspan, Memorandum: TPG 1610 Artesia Project – Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment; July 21, 2023.
61 Ibid.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 208 February 2024
unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” noise/land use compatibility categories, nor increase ambient noise levels 5 dBA or more. Twenty-four hour CNEL impacts would similarly be minimal, far below criterion for significant operational noise impacts, which begin at 3 dBA. As such, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Consistency with City General Plan Noise Element
While the City’s Noise Element focuses on a number of measures for Citywide implementation by municipal government, there are some objectives, policies, and programs that are applicable to development projects. Table 6-13: General Plan Policy Consistency in Section 6.11: Land Use and Planning summarizes the Project’s consistency with the policies that are applicable to the Project.
6.13b Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact.
On-Site Construction Vibration
Construction equipment can produce groundborne vibration depending on equipment and construction methods employed. While vibration spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance, buildings on nearby soil can be affected. This ranges from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels.
Table 6-20: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipmentsummarizes vibratory levels for common construction equipment.
Table 6-20: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Approximate PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)
Pile Driver (impact) 0.644
Pile Drive (sonic) 0.170
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202
Hydromill (slurry wall) 0.008
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Truck 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
Groundborne vibration would be generated by a number of construction activities at the Project site. As a result of equipment that could include on-site bulldozer operations or the vibrational equivalent, vibration velocities of up to 0.111 inches per second PPV are projected to occur. These impacts are below the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold of significance for Category III structures. Other potential construction activities would produce less vibration and have lesser potential impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.
As a result, construction-related structural vibration impacts would be considered less than significant. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 209 February 2024
Table 6-21: Building Damage Vibration Levels – On-Site Sources Off-Site
Receptor
Location
Distance
to Project
site (feet)
Vibration Velocity Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Receptors from Construction Equipment (in/sec PPV) Significance
Criterion
(PPV)
Potentially
Significant
Impact? Large
Bulldozer
Caisson
Drilling
Loaded
Trucks
Jackhammer
Small
Bulldozer
FTA Reference
Vibration Level
(25 Feet)
N/A 0.089 0.089 0.076 0.035 0.003 -- --
Residences –
1580-1608
Artesia Square
20 0.111 0.111 0.095 0.044 0.004 0.20a No
Warehouse,
1650 Artesia
Blvd.
50 0.045 0.045 0.038 0.018 0.002 0.20a No
Residence –
17338 Denker
Ave.
125 0.018 0.018 0.015 0.007 0.001 0.20a No
a
FTA criterion for Category III (non-engineered timber and masonry buildings).
Source: DKA Planning, 2023.
Construction of the Project would protect adjacent properties during the excavation process by complying with California Civil Code Section 832.
Off-Site Construction Vibration
Construction of the Project would generate trips from large trucks including haul trucks, concrete mixing trucks, concrete pumping trucks, and vendor delivery trucks. With respect to building damage, based on FTA data, the vibration generated by a typical heavy-duty truck would be approximately 63 VdB (0.006 PPV) at a distance of 50 feet from the truck. According to the FTA “[i]t is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads.” Nonetheless, there are buildings along the Project’s anticipated haul route(s) that could be exposed to groundborne vibration levels of approximately 0.006 PPV. This estimated vibration generated by construction trucks traveling along the anticipated haul route(s) would be well below the most stringent building damage criteria of
0.12 PPV for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration. The Project’s potential to damage roadside buildings and structures as the result of groundborne vibration generated by its truck trips would therefore be considered less than significant.
Operation
During operation of the proposed residential uses, there would be no significant stationary sources of groundborne vibration, such as heavy equipment or industrial operations. Project operations would include typical commercial-grade stationary mechanical and electrical equipment, such as air handling units, condenser units, and exhaust fans. This equipment would be located on the roof or inside the development structure itself, which would help attenuate any impacts on groundborne vibration, thereby producing a negligible amount of vibration. Operational groundborne vibration in the Project site’s vicinity would be generated by vehicle travel on local roadways. However as previously discussed, road vehicles rarely create vibration levels perceptible to humans. As a result, the Project’s long-term vibration impacts would be less than significant.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 210 February 2024
6.13c Would the project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The airport located nearest the Project site is Compton/Woodley Airport (“Airport”), approximately 3.2 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airstrip- or airportrelated noise levels. No impact would occur in this regard. Refer also to Response 6.9e.
Cumulative Impacts
There were 22 potential related projects identified by the City of Gardena near the Project site (Table 6-5:
Related Projects Within City of Gardena). However, only two of these (Projects 11, 14) are within 1,000 feet of the Project site. Noise from construction of development projects is localized and can generally affect noise-sensitive uses within 500 feet. Therefore, this analysis considers related projects within 1,000 feet of the Project site, to account for a potential sensitive receptor that is located 500 feet from the Project site and 500 feet from a related project. In addition, there were two related projects identified in the City of Torrance (Table 6-6: Related Projects Within City of Torrance) that are pending entitlements and are near the Project site. However, both locations are more than 1,000 feet away from the Project site and would not contribute to cumulative noise impacts at sensitive receptors near the Project site.
On-Site Construction Activities
During construction of the Project, there could be other construction activity in the area that contributes to cumulative noise impacts at sensitive receptors. Construction-related noise levels from any related project would be intermittent and temporary. As with the Project, any related projects would comply with local restrictions, including restrictions on construction hours and noise from powered equipment. Noise associated with cumulative construction activities would be reduced to the degree reasonably and technically feasible through proposed mitigation measures for each individual related project and compliance with the City’s noise ordinance.
As discussed previously, noise from construction of development projects is localized and can generally affect noise-sensitive uses within 500 feet. As noted in Table 6-6, one of the two related projects within 1,000 feet of the Project site has completed construction (Project 14 at 1515 West 178th Street). As a result, one project is assumed to potentially undergo concurrent construction with the Project (Project 11 at 1450 West Artesia Boulevard). This location is approximately 970 feet to the east of the Project site, where any construction at that location could elevate noise levels near that related project. As for any overlapping construction activities with the proposed Project, any sensitive receptors near the Project site would be 800-970 feet away from Related Project 11 and vice-versa. As discussed above, noise from construction would generally affect sensitive uses within 500 feet of construction activity. Therefore, since the sensitive receptors would be 800-970 feet away from Related Project 11, the residences and sensitive receptors between these two potential construction sites would not be substantially impacted by both concurrently. This distance and the intervening buildings between would substantially attenuate any cumulative construction noise impacts at residences potentially located within 500 feet of both the Project and Related Project 11. As such, cumulative noise impacts for any sensitive receptors between the Project and Related Project 11 is not expected, and this impact would be less than significant. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 211 February 2024
Off-Site Construction Activities
Other concurrent construction activities from related projects can contribute to cumulative off-site impacts if haul trucks, vendor trucks, or worker trips for any related project(s) were to utilize the same roadways. Distributing trips to and from each related project construction site substantially reduces the potential that cumulative development could more than double traffic volumes on existing streets, which would be necessary to increase ambient noise levels by 3 dBA. The Project would contribute noise equivalent to approximately 596 peak hourly PCE vehicle trips during the grading phase.62 This would represent approximately 20.9 percent of traffic volumes on Artesia Boulevard, which carries about 2,854 vehicles at Western Avenue in the morning peak hour of traffic.63 Any related projects would have to add noise equivalent to 2,258 peak hour vehicle trips to double volumes on this major arterial.
The only related project within 1,000 feet of the Project site (Project 11 at 1450 West Artesia Boulevard) involves 268,000 square feet of warehouse/self-storage uses that could generate construction vehicle activity comparable to the Project. However, it does not have the scale to add noise equivalent to 2,258 peak hour PCE trips to Artesia Boulevard. As such, cumulative noise due to construction truck traffic from the Project and related projects do not have the potential to double traffic volumes on any roadway necessary to elevate traffic noise levels by 3 dBA, let alone the 5 dBA threshold of significance for impacts.
As such, cumulative noise impacts from off-site construction activities would be less than significant.
Operation
The Artesia Boulevard corridor, including the Project site, has been developed with residential and commercial land uses that have previously generated, and will continue to generate, noise from a number of operational noise sources, including mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC systems), outdoor activity areas, and vehicle travel. The one related project in the vicinity of the Project site (Project 11 at 1450 West Artesia Boulevard) is a warehouse/self-storage facility that would also generate stationary-source and mobile-source noise due to ongoing day-to-day operations. These types of uses generally do not involve use of noisy heavy-duty equipment such as compressors, diesel-fueled equipment, or other sources typically associated with excessive noise generation.
On-Site Stationary Noise Sources
Noise from on-site mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units) and any other human activities from the related projects would not be typically associated with excessive noise generation that could result in increases of 5 dBA or more in ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors when combined with operational noise from the Project. The presence of intervening multi-story buildings along Artesia Boulevard and the neighborhoods that flank it will generally shield noise impacts from one or more projects that may generate operational noise. Therefore, cumulative stationary source noise impacts associated with operation of the Project and related projects would be less than significant.
Off-Site Mobile Noise Sources
62 This is a conservative, worst-case scenario, as it assumes all workers travel to the worksite at the same time and that vendor and haul trips are made in the same hour, using the same route as haul trucks that travel to and from the Project Site.
63 Appendix 6.17-3.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.13
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Noise 212 February 2024
During the peak P.M. hour, the Project would add up to 40 net vehicles on Artesia Boulevard and local roadways with up to 67 net vehicles in the peak A.M. hour.64 Related projects would have to generate 2,796 additional vehicle trips onto Artesia Boulevard in the peak A.M. hour to elevate noise by 3 dBA.
Instead, the one related project to the east (Project 11 at 1450 West Artesia Boulevard) is a warehouse facility that could not generate such vehicle traffic. As this would not increase traffic volumes by 100 percent, cumulative noise impacts due to off-site traffic would not increase ambient noise levels by 3 dBA, let alone by the 5 dBA threshold of significance. Additionally, the Project would not result in an exposure of persons to or a generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Therefore, cumulative noise impacts due to off-site traffic would not increase ambient noise levels by 3 dBA to or within their respective “Normally Unacceptable” or “Clearly Unacceptable” noise categories, or by 5 dBA or greater overall. Additionally, the Project would not result in an exposure of persons to or a generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 Best Construction Methods. Prior to issuance of any Demolition or Grading Permit, the City of Gardena Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that require best practice construction methods to be used during Project construction to ensure that ambient noise levels at analyzed sensitive receptors are not elevated by more than 10 dBA Leq over the measured ambient noise levels at 1608 Artesia Square during any construction phase. Such methods may include, but are not limited to:
• Placing advanced exhaust mufflers on internal combustion engines for all noisegenerating construction equipment, and properly maintaining equipment to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated.
• Enclosing stationary noise-producing machinery when operating. 64 Ibid.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.14
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Population and Housing 213 February 2024
Population and Housing
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.14a Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to remove all existing onsite structures and, in their place, construct 300 DU (283 market rate units and 17 affordable units); see Exhibit 2.4A: Conceptual Site Plan – Basement Level through Exhibit 2.4G: Conceptual Site Plan – Level 6. Table 2-3: Residential Unit Summary summarizes the apartment building’s proposed floor areas and various proposed apartment product types (i.e., studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom). The Project proposes 300 DU and, thus, would induce population growth in the City directly through housing development. However, as concluded below, the Project’s forecast population growth is not considered substantial. Additionally, the Project does not propose to extend roads or other infrastructure, thus, would not induce population growth in the City indirectly.
Existing Plus Project Conditions
As previously noted, the Project is a residential development, thus, would induce population growth in the City directly through new housing. Table 6-22: Existing Plus Project Growth Forecast, compares the Project’s estimated population growth to existing 2023 population. As indicated in Table 6-22, the Project is forecast to increase the City’s existing 2023 housing stock to 22,923 DU, representing an approximately
1.3 percent increase in housing. As also indicated in Table 6-22, the Project’s forecast population growth of 810 persons is estimated to increase the City’s existing 2023 population to 60,619 persons, representing an approximately 1.4 percent increase in population.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.14
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Population and Housing 214 February 2024
Table 6-22: Existing Plus Project Growth Forecast
Description Housing (Dwelling Unit) Population (Persons) City’s 2023 Existing Conditions1 22,623 59,809
Proposed Project 300 8102
Existing + Project 22,923 60,619
Percent Change from Existing 1.3% 1.4%
1. State of California, Department of Finance. (2023). 2023 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.
2. Based on 300 DU, 100 percent occupancy, and 2.70 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance. (2023) 2023 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State).
General Plan Plus Project Conditions
The City adopted the comprehensive General Plan in 2006. Subsequently, the various General Plan elements were updated, as summarize below:
• Community Development Element:
o Land Use Plan: Updated June 2012, March 2013, March-April 2021, and February 15, 2023; and
o Circulation Plan: Updated July 2020.
• Housing Element: 2021-2029/6th Cycle adopted in January 2022, and readopted a revised Housing Element that was approved by SCAG in February 2023.
• Public Safety Plan: Updated and adopted February 2022. • Environmental Justice Element (new): Adopted February 2022.
Table 6-23: General Plan Buildout Plus Project Growth Forecasts, compares the Project’s estimated population growth to the forecast General Plan population at buildout.
Table 6-23: General Plan Buildout Plus Project Growth Forecasts Description Housing (Dwelling Units) Population (Persons) City’s 2023 Existing Conditions1 21,781 59,809
Forecast General Plan
Buildout2,3 25,401 72,926
Proposed Project
(70 DU/AC)
+240 +6483
Proposed Project
(25% Density Bonus)
+60 +1623
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.14
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Population and Housing 215 February 2024
General Plan Plus Project 25,461 73,088
General Plan Plus Project %
Change 0.2% 0.2%
1. State of California, Department of Finance. (2023). 2023 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.
2. City of Gardena. (2023). City of Gardena General Plan Land Use Plan, 2023 Update Table LU-3: Residential Capacity (Updated January 2023). Gardena, CA.
3. As part of the Land Use Plan’s 2023 update, residential and non-residential development capacities were updated. The Land Use Plan’s updated residential development capacity, which accounts for the Project site’s Very High Density Residential land use designation at 70 DU/AC, and includes the overlay designations, was estimated to total 25,401 dwelling units. Assuming 2.9 persons per household, the General Plan 2023 update estimated a population of 72,926 persons at buildout.
4. Based on 300 DU, 100 percent occupancy, and 2.70 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance. (2023) 2023 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State).
As discussed in Section 2.3: Project Characteristics, the Project proposes 240 DU at a base density of 70 DU/AC, and 60 additional DU as a 25 percent density bonus, which is provided for by State law because the Project provides affordable housing. As indicated in Table 6-23, the population growth of 648 persons associated with the 240 DU is accounted for within the General Plan 2023 update buildout population estimate. However, the population growth of 162 persons associated with the additional 60 DU allowed would increase the General Plan 2023 update forecast population at buildout by approximately 0.2 percent. Therefore, the Project would induce unplanned population growth in the City directly through new housing based on General Plan 2023 update buildout. However, the Project’s forecast net population growth of 162 persons is not considered substantial based on the following factors:
• It would constitute a nominal 0.2 percent increase over the forecast population at buildout; • The General Plan 6th Cycle Housing Element includes a housing needs assessment in which it outlines local and regional conditions that are limiting housing production. These conditions include:
o New housing is needed as regional employment and population growth generate a demand for new housing throughout Southern California.
o New housing is needed as Gardena’s current population increases and ages. o New construction housing is needed as most of Gardena’s existing multi-family residential uses (i.e., apartment units) are older housing stock that do not provide the types of amenities that renters are currently seeking.
o New housing is needed when vacancy rates are low to ensure reasonable levels of choice and mobility in the marketplace.
The City’s total RHNA allocation is 5,735 DU, of which 2,246 DU are designated for low/very low income.
Additionally, the Project includes 17 affordable housing units, which would be in furtherance of the City meeting their 6th Cycle RHNA allocation of 2,246 low/very low income units.
Additionally, the Project would be in furtherance of various General Plan goals. It is the City’s goal (General Plan Land Use Goal 1) to “preserve and protect existing single-family and low/medium density residential neighborhoods while promoting the development of additional high-quality housing types in the City.” 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.14
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Population and Housing 216 February 2024
The Project would further this goal by converting a commercial and industrial site into a residential one, which would contribute additional housing types in the City. Additionally, the Project would be in furtherance of meeting various General Plan Housing Element Policies. General Plan Housing Element Goal 3, which aims to, “minimize the impact of governmental constraints on housing construction and cost” by encouraging the use of special development zones and other mechanism to allow more flexibility in housing developments.” General Plan Housing Element Goal 4 states “provide adequate residential sites through appropriate land use and zoning to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs” by implementing land use policies which allow for a range of residential densities, encouraging development within the new Housing Overlay, especially production of affordable housing, and to facilitate development of mixed income projects. Additionally, General Plan Housing Element Goal 5 states, “promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice” by providing “a range of housing options, locational choices, and price points to accommodate the diverse needs in Gardena and to allow for housing mobility.” See Table 6-13: General Plan Policy Consistency, which provides a consistency analysis of the Project to the applicable General Plan policies.
Therefore, although the Project would induce unplanned population growth in the City based on the General Plan 2023 update forecasts, the Project’s population growth is not considered substantial given the factors discussed above. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
SCAG RTP/SCS Plus Project Conditions
SCAG’s RTP/SCS forecasts the City’s population will reach 65,700 in 2045, which is an increase of approximately 5,891 persons compared to the existing 2023 population of 59,809 as shown in Table 6-22, or approximately 9.0 percent between 2023 and 2045. Similarly, SCAG’s RTP/SCS forecasts the City’s households will increase by approximately 1,919 households or approximately 8.1 percent between 2023 and 2045. SCAG’s RTP/SCS assumes 23,700 households in the City by 2045, with a population of 65,700 persons. Table 6-24: SCAG RTP/SCS 2045 Plus Project Growth Forecast evaluates the Project’s contribution to 2045 growth forecasts.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.14
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Population and Housing 217 February 2024
Table 6-24: SCAG RTP/SCS 2045 Plus Project Growth Forecast Description Households/Housing
(Dwelling Units)
Population
(Persons)
RTP/SCS + PROJECT
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS1,2 23,700 65,700
Proposed Project +300 +8103
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS Plus Project 24,000 66,510
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS Plus Project % Change 1.3% 1.2%
EXISTING + PROJECT
Existing + Project 22,923 60,619
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS 23,700 65,700
Exceeds 2045 Forecast RTP/SCS? No (-777, -3.3%) No (-5,081, -7.7%) Notes:
1. Southern California Association of Governments. (2021). SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation. Retrieved from:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785, accessed December 2023.
2. This does not reflect the Land Use Plan’s updated residential development capacity, which accounts for the Project site’s Very High Density Residential land use designation at 70 DU/AC, and includes the overlay designations, and was estimated to total 25,401 DU and a population of 72,926 persons at buildout.
3. Based on 300 DU, 100 percent occupancy, and 2.70 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance. (2023). 2023 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.).
As indicated in Table 6-24, the Project’s proposed residential development would increase the RTP/SCS’s forecast 2045 households by approximately 1.3 percent (300 DU) and population by approximately 1.2 percent (810 persons). Therefore, the Project would cause the 2045 RTP/SCS household and population growth forecasts to be exceeded, thus would induce unplanned population growth directly through new housing. However, the Project’s forecast net population growth of 810 persons is not considered substantial concerning the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS based on the following factors:
▪ The Project’s forecast net population growth of 810 persons would constitute a nominal 1.2 percent increase over the forecast population in 2045; and ▪ The recently adopted 6
th Cycle Housing Element for 2021-2029 and land use designations rezoned the Project site to a very high density residential zone, therefore the Project site was envisioned to be redeveloped from Industrial to Residential land uses with adoption of the 6 th Cycle Housing
Element; and
▪ The 2020-2024 RTP/SCS growth forecast was determined based on the General Plan land use designations and their potential for residential development within the City before adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element and the corresponding land use designation changes. Therefore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS does not reflect the current General Plan 2023 update (i.e., 6 th Cycle
Housing Element) and the RHNA allocation assigned by SCAG that the City was required to zone for; and
▪ As shown in Table 6-24, the Project’s estimated housing and population growth, which would increase the City’s existing 2023 housing stock and population to 22,923 DU and 60,619 persons, respectively, would not cause the 2045 RTP/SCS population and housing growth forecasts to be exceeded.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.14
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Population and Housing 218 February 2024
▪ The Project would help the City meet its RHNA Allocation, including its low-income units. ▪ Communities with more than 1.5 jobs per DU are considered “jobs rich” and those with fewer than 1.5 jobs per DU are considered “housing rich.” As shown in Table 6-25: Jobs to Housing Ratio, the City’s existing jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.30 indicates the City is currently housing rich.
Table 6-25: Jobs to Housing Ratio
Jurisdiction 2022 20451
County of Los Angeles
Jobs 4,767,2042 5,382,000
Housing Units3 3,664,1824 4,119,000
County Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.30 1.31
South Bay Region5
Jobs 418,6172 461,900
Housing Units3 289,4554 297,000
South Bay Region Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.45 1.56
City of Gardena
Jobs 29,4052 32,100
Housing Units3 22,6244,5 23,700
City Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.30 1.35
Sources:
1. Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Technical Report – Demographics and Growth Forecast.
2. SCAG, SCAG Local Profiles Data 2019, April 2021.
3. Per SCAG Guidance, “household” refers to the number of occupied housing units while the DOF’s “household” population estimates are derived by multiplying the number of occupied housing units by the current persons per household. This analysis uses SCAG’s “household” methodology.
4. State of California, Department of Finance. (2023). 2023 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.
5. The South Bay Region includes the cities of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Torrance.
Inclusive of the Project’s proposed 300 DU, the City’s jobs-to-housing ratio would remain at 1.30, indicating the City would continue to be housing rich. The City’s employment is forecast to increase by 8.4 percent between 2019 and 2045. The City’s jobs-to-housing ratio is also forecast to increase from 1.30 to 1.35 between 2023 and 2045. Comparatively, Table 6-25 indicates the South Bay Region is also considered “housing rich” with a ratio of 1.45. Future predictions forecast the City gaining a higher proportion of jobs, but remaining housing-rich, while the South Bay Region is forecast to gain a higher proportion of jobs to cross the threshold and be considered jobs rich. Thus, the City would be providing housing that may be lacking in other areas of the South Bay Region where the jobs/housing ratio indicates a “jobs rich” community. Additionally, by providing multi-family housing with amenities, the Project would encourage job growth in the area as employers look to housing opportunities in developing areas to attract potential employees.
Therefore, the Project would induce unplanned population growth in the City directly through housing development, but impacts would be less than significant based on the factors discussed above. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.14
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Population and Housing 219 February 2024
6.14b Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project would remove the existing onsite commercial and industrial uses and, in their place, construct residential uses. The Project would not displace existing housing or people or require construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard.
Cumulative Impacts
Potential cumulative population and housing impacts are assessed relative to the General Plan and regional plans, including SCAG’s RTP/SCS population, housing and employment projections. SCAG’s regional growth projections reflect recent and past trends, key demographic and economic assumptions and include local and regional policies. Local jurisdictions participate in the growth forecast development process.
As discussed above, the Project proposes 300 DU, which are forecast to increase the City’s population by approximately 810 persons (approximately 1.2 percent growth over existing conditions). However, the General Plan and RTP/SCS was adopted prior to the to the adoption of the Housing Element and updated land use designations, as such, these have not been included in the RTP/SCS forecast. As such, cumulative development would include unplanned population growth in the City directly through new housing based on 2045 RTP/SCS forecasts. However, the cumulative forecast population growth is not considered substantial. Cumulative development would be subject to compliance with General Plan land use goals and the City’s Housing Element, which identifies the need for new housing to meet demands throughout southern California and specifically within the City, to account for a growing and aging population, replacement of older housing stock, and to ensure reasonable levels of choice and mobility in the marketplace. All future development would be subject to project-level review and project-specific measures would be required, as needed, to reduce significant impacts. Given the Project’s consistency, as well as the potential for other related projects to be generally consistent with the population and housing policies. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s impacts concerning unplanned population growth would not be cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.15
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Public Services 220 February 2024
Public Services
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.15a Fire Protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City contracts with the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) to provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the City. There are two fire stations located within the City: Fire Station 158 located at 1650 West 162nd Street and Fire Station 159 located at 2030 West 135th Street. The closest fire station to the Project site is Fire Station 158, located approximately 1.2 miles from the site. The Project site is currently developed with two existing commercial and industrial buildings. The Project proposes to remove the existing on-site buildings and develop a new multi-family residential development comprised of a 300 DU apartment building. The Project site would be accessible via one driveway on West Artesia Boulevard, which would allow emergency vehicle access.
As concluded in Section 6.14: Population and Housing, the Project’s forecast population growth is approximately 810 persons. The Project’s forecast population growth would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services to the Project site. However, because the Project site is currently served by fire protection services and is located in an urban setting where fire protection services and equipment/infrastructure are already in place, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities to maintain service objectives.
Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of fire protection facilities.
As part of the development review process, the LACFD Fire Prevention Division would review the proposed Project site plan and determine if access and water system requirements, which would enhance the proposed development’s fire protection, are adequate. Further, the Project would be required to comply with standard LACFD conditions of approval. Specifically, LACFD review addresses fire and life safety requirements for project construction at the fire plan check stage. This includes plan review of the design details of the architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. The Project would be required to comply with applicable City, County, and State code requirements for fire protection. GMC 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.15
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Public Services 221 February 2024
Chapter 8.08, Fire Code, adopts the Los Angeles County Fire Code by reference. Implementation of all Fire Code requirements would further reduce potential impacts concerning fire protection services.
Additionally, pursuant to GMC Chapter 15.48, Construction and Development Fees, the Project would be subject to a $1,000 development fee per unit at the time of Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy issuance which could go towards offsetting any increased costs for fire protection services. The Project would not require the need for new or physically altered fire station facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives and impacts would be less than significant.
4.15b Police Protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Gardena Policy Department (“Gardena Police Department”) provides police protection services to the City, including the Project site. The Gardena Police Department station is at 1718 West 162nd Street, approximately 1.0-mile north of the Project site. The Project site is currently developed with two existing commercial and industrial buildings. The Project proposes to remove the existing on-site buildings and develop a new multi-family residential development comprised of a 300 DU apartment building. The Project site would be accessible via one driveway on West Artesia Boulevard, which would allow emergency vehicle access.
As concluded in Section 6.14: Population and Housing, the Project’s forecast population growth is approximately 810 persons. The Project’s forecast population growth would incrementally increase the demand for police protection services to the Project site. However, because the Project site is currently served by police protection services and is located in an urban setting where police protection services and equipment/infrastructure are already in place, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered police protection facilities to maintain service objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of police protection facilities.
Additionally, as part of the development review process, the Gardena Police Department would review the Project concerning emergency access and site/facility security requirements and recommendations.
Gardena Police Department would review Project plans to ensure compliance with applicable City regulations to ensure adequate site signage, lighting and other crime safety preventative measures are implemented. The Gardena Police Department review would act to ensure that development would conform to Gardena Police Department emergency access and thereby reducing demands on law enforcement services. Additionally, pursuant to GMC Chapter 15.48, Construction and Development Fees, the Project would be subject to a $1,000 development fee per unit at the time of Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy issuance which could go toward offsetting any increased costs for police protection services. The Project would not require the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives and impacts would be less than significant.
4.15c Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Schools serving the Project site would include 186th Street Elementary School, Robert E Peary Middle School, and Gardena High School. The Project site is approximately 1.6 miles north of 186th Street Elementary School, 0.9 mile south of Robert E Peary Middle School, and 1.1 miles from 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.15
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Public Services 222 February 2024
Gardena High School. The LAUSD’s 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study reports that LAUSD facilities capacity exceeded student enrollment for all levels in 2022.65 Table 6-26: Project Forecast Student Generation provides the student generation rates by grade level66 and estimates the Project’s forecast student population growth. As shown in Table 6-26, the Project is forecast to generate a student population growth of approximately 114 new students within the LAUSD.
Table 6-26: Project Forecast Student Generation
Grade Level Student Generation
Factor (per DU)
Proposed Dwelling
Units
Total Students
Generated
Transitional Kindergarten – 6 0.195
300
59 7 – 8 0.054 17
9 – 12 0.107 33
Special Day Class 0.015 5
Total 114
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District. (2022). 2020 Developer Fee Justification Study, Table 3: LA Unified Student Generation Factors.
According to Table 8 of the LAUSD 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study, there were a surplus of 38,426 seats for transitional kindergarten through 6th grade, 3,628 surplus 7th and 8th grade seats, 28,230 surplus 9 th through 12th grade seats, and 10,293 surplus special day class seats available. Therefore, there would be sufficient capacity at LAUSD facilities to accommodate the Project’s proposed student enrollment.
Further, the Project would be subject to payment of school impact fees in accordance with SB 50. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), “payment of statutory fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use or development of real property…” Currently, residential development school impact fees are $4.79 per SF.67 The Project would pay developer fees in compliance with the established regulatory framework to support provision of adequate school services.
Project construction activities would be limited to within the Project site boundaries. No off-site improvements that could disrupt school services within the Project vicinity would occur. Additionally, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered school facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios/standards because there is existing capacity at LAUSD facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of school facilities.
A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
4.15d Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project’s forecast population growth would incrementally increase the demand for parks. However as discussed in Section 6.16: Recreation, the Project does not propose and 65 Los Angeles Unified School District. (2022). 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study. Available at:
https://www.lausd.org/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/921/2022%20Developer%20Fee%20Justificatio n%20Study%20for%20Los%20Angeles%20Unified%20School%20District.pdf, accessed December 2023. 66 Los Angeles Unified School District. (2022). 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study, Table 3: LA Unified Student Generation Factors.
67 Los Angeles Unified School District. (2022). Developer Fee Program Office – School Fee Rates effective July 9, 2022. Available at: https://www.lausd.org/domain/921, accessed December 2023. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.15
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Public Services 223 February 2024
would not require new or physically altered park facilities to maintain service objectives since the Project proposes both private and communal open spaces and recreational amenities for future residents.
Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of park facilities. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
4.15e Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project’s forecast population growth would incrementally increase the demand for library services, and specifically at the Gardena Mayme Dear Library, which is the library facility nearest the Project site. The County Library system has developed a Strategic Plan that identifies goals and objectives including financial management and fundraising strategies to maintain and enhance library facilities to meet future demands. Strategic initiatives associated with the Strategic Plan include Tell the Library Story; Affirm the Library as a Center for Learning; Expand and Support the Digital Library; Transform the Role of the Library as Place; Support and Cultivate the Community’s Creativity; Develop the Library as a Center for Community Engagement; and Develop Staff Prepared for the Future. It is also noted, there are three additional libraries within an approximately two mile radius of the Project site.
Additionally, the County library system has expanded access to online e-books, audiobooks, movies, music, and newspapers.68 As such, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered library facilities to maintain service objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of library facilities. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impact
The provision of public services and facilities takes into consideration a larger service area than is associated with a project site. Therefore, the study area is the service area for the respective agencies and districts. Through coordination with the public services and facilities providers, the area’s cumulative needs are considered. The Project does not cause the need to construct any new or expand any existing facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in incremental environmental effects on public services or facilities that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probably future projects. The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on public services or facilities.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
68 Los Angeles County Library. Digital Library – eBooks and Audiobooks. Available at:
https://lacountylibrary.org/ebooks-audiobooks/. Accessed December 2023. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.16
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Recreation 224 February 2024
Recreation
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.16a Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
6.16b Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project’s forecast population growth of approximately 810 persons could incrementally increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities; see Table 6-22: Existing Plus Project Growth Forecast. However, this incremental increase would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of an existing recreational facility would occur or be accelerated. To offset the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, the Project proposes interior, exterior, and private open space uses. The Project provides 19,597 SF of private open space and 30,104 SF of common open space (i.e., podium courtyard, California room, and outdoor fitness area) for the proposed apartments.
Therefore, considering the Project’s proposed open spaces and recreational amenities, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would not result in significantly increased use of recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no cumulative impacts on recreational facilities would result from Project implementation. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.16
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Recreation 225 February 2024
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.17
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Transportation 226 February 2024
Transportation
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycles, and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (for example, farm
equipment)?
X
d )Result in inadequate emergency access? X
The basis for the following information and analysis is the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, October 2023), the Local Transportation Assessment for the 1610 Artesia Project (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, October 2023), and the Transportation Assessment Scope of Work (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, July 2023). These reports, which are included in this Initial Study as Appendix
6.17-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment, Appendix 6.17-2: Local Transportation Assessment, and Appendix 6.17-3: Transportation Assessment Scope of Work and are summarized below.
It is noted, the transportation reports identified above were based on an earlier Conceptual Site Plan, which has since been slightly modified concerning residential unit mix and open space, among other refinements. However, from the time the transportation studies were completed, the Conceptual Site Plan has not changed concerning Project elements, which are foundational to these transportation studies (e.g., total dwellings and building heights), and which would inform Project-relevant data (i.e., trip generation and VMT). Section 2.3: Project Characteristics describes the proposed Project elements based on the current February 2024 Conceptual Site Plan. Because the Conceptual Site Plan has not changed concerning Project elements foundational to these transportation studies, their conclusions remain valid and applicable to the February 2024 Conceptual Site Plan. As such, updates to these transportation studies to reflect the February 2024 Conceptual Site Plan are not warranted.
It is further noted, Kimley-Horn conducted third-party reviews on behalf of the City of the Project’s VMT Assessment, Local Transportation Assessment, and Transportation Assessment Scope of Work, see Appendix 6.17-1, Appendix 6.17-2, and Appendix 6.17-3, respectively. The third-party review concluded the analyses meets the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.17
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Transportation 227 February 2024
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.17a Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Table 6-13: General Plan Policy Consistency, which evaluates the Project’s consistency with the General Plan. The analysis finds that the Project is consistent with the applicable Community Development Element, Circulation Plan policies. Transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities are discussed further below:
Transit. As discussed in Section 2.0: Project Description, public transit service to the Project area is provided by LA Metro, GTrans, and Torrance Transit. GTrans Line 2 serves the Project site via two bus stops on both the north and south side of South Western Avenue at the West Artesia Boulevard and South Western Avenue intersection (i.e., approximately 1,056 feet and 1,005 feet west of the Project site, respectively). The LA Metro Line 344 serves the Project site via bus stops on the intersections of (i) West Artesia Boulevard and South Western Avenue (approximately 1,068 feet west of the Project site) and (ii) West Artesia Boulevard and South Normandie Avenue (approximately 1,682 feet to the east of the Project site). Torrance Transit Line 13 serves the Project site via two bus stops on East and West Artesia Boulevard immediately north of the Project site. Pedestrian access to the Project site is provided via sidewalks along Artesia Boulevard, South Normandie Avenue, and South Western Avenue. The Harbor Gateway Transit Center, which provides access to several local and express bus lines, including GTrans Line 2; Torrance Transit Route 1, 4X, 6, and 13; as well as Metro J Line bus rapid transit service, and Metro Lines 205, 246, 344, is located at 731 West 182nd Street, approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the Project site.
The Project proposes a residential development with a forecasted population growth of approximately 810 persons, which has the potential to increase public transit ridership. However, as concluded in Table 6-13, the Project is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Plan Policies concerning transit facilities.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning transit facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Roadways. Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via one driveway on Artesia Boulevard.
Additionally, a fire access lane is proposed along the Project’s western boundary to provide adequate emergency access. All roadway and driveway improvements would be constructed pursuant to Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements. There are not proposed offsite roadway improvements.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning roadway facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Bicycle Facilities. There are no bicycle facilities adjacent to the Project site. The City adopted the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan (Bicycle Master Plan), which is a multi-jurisdictional bicycle master plan intended to guide the development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network and set of programs throughout the cities of South Bay, including Gardena. The Bicycle Master Plan (Figure 4-3) identified existing and proposed bicycle facilities within Gardena. According to the Bicycle Master Plan, no bicycle facilities are proposed adjacent to the Project site. Additionally, the Project proposes 75 bicycle parking spaces, which supports General Plan Policy, “CI 3.4 to “maintain a citywide bicycle route and maintenance plan that promotes efficient and safe bikeways integrated with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA’s) regional bicycle system” by providing bicycle amenities and parking for on-site residents, visitors, and employees. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.17
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Transportation 228 February 2024
ordinance, or policy concerning bicycle facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Pedestrian Facilities. A sidewalk is located adjacent to the Project site along West Artesia Boulevard. The Project would not remove existing sidewalks or significantly impact pedestrian access or facilities.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning pedestrian facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.
The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would result in a less than significant impact in this regard and no mitigation is required.
6.17b Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project has been analyzed below to evaluate consistency with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) concerning vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based on the Project’s VMT Assessment; see Appendix 6.17-1.
The City’s SB 743 Implementation Transportation Analysis Updates (Transportation Analysis Guidelines) includes criteria for individual project screening, which can be used to screen projects that are expected to generate low VMT out of a detailed VMT analysis. The City’s three VMT screening criteria are detailed below and applied to the Project to determine if it would have the potential to result in a VMT impact. As outlined in the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines, proposed projects are not required to satisfy all of the screening criteria to screen out of further VMT analysis; satisfaction of one criterion is sufficient for screening purposes. Projects, or project components, which are screened out of detailed VMT assessment based on these criteria are presumed to have less than significant transportation impacts.
Screening Criteria 1: Project Size Screening
Land use projects that generate less than 110 daily trips and local-serving retail projects, defined as commercial projects with local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 SF, are presumed to have less than significant VMT impacts, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Therefore, these projects are screened out from completing a VMT analysis based on project size. Residential projects that are 100 percent affordable are also screened out.
Trip generation rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) were utilized to forecast project traffic generation for the Project. ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multi-Family Housing Mid-Rise) and ITE Land Use Code 223 (Affordable Housing) trip generation rates were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed residential units. The Project is expected to generate 545 net new daily trips. Since the Project would generate more than 110 daily trips and is not a 100 percent affordable residential development, neither of these conditions would apply to the Project. Therefore, the Project is not screened out from VMT analysis based on the project size screening criteria.
Screening Criteria 2: Low VMT Area Screening
As outlined in the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines, residential and office development projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. The Project is located in an area that is more than 15 percent below the baseline regional average. Thus, the Project is in an area with low residential VMT, which means the Project can be presumed to have a less 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.17
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Transportation 229 February 2024
than significant VMT impact and can be screened out from further VMT analysis based on low VMT area screening.
Screening Criteria 3: Proximity to Transit Screening
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) states in part, “Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” Pursuant to the statute, development projects may be screened out of VMT analysis based on proximity to certain transit facilities due to the presumption of less than significant impacts. The OPR Technical Advisory also notes that certain projectspecific or location-specific information might indicate that presumption is not appropriate. If the answers to the following questions are all no, then the presumption is assumed appropriate and the project can be screened out of further analysis.
1. Does the Project have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75 (for office, retail, hotel, and industrial projects) or fewer than 20 units per acre (for residential project)?
2. Does the Project include more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking)?
3. Is the Project inconsistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization)?
4. Does the Project replace residential units set aside for lower income households with a smaller number of market-rate residential units?
The Project site is located within a HQTA as identified in SCAG’s RTP/SCS. HQTAs are areas located within one-half mine of an existing or planned transit stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor. South Western Avenue is identified as a high-quality transit corridor in SCAG’s RTP/SCS. The Project site is located within one-half mile from South Western Avenue, and therefore, meets the statutory requirements to presume less than significant transportation impacts. The Project includes a density of more than 20 units per acre, is consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and does not replace affordable residential units. However, the Project provides more parking spaces than required by the GMC.
Therefore, while the Project does meet the conditions to presume less than significant transportation impacts and screen out of VMT analysis, it has been conservatively concluded that such a presumption may not be appropriate for the Project. Therefore, the Project does not satisfy the proximity to transit screening criteria.
Conclusion
Table 6-27: VMT Screening Options for Land Use Projects, summarizes the findings of the Project’s analysis concerning the three screening criteria discussed above and notes the Project meets the City’s low VMT criteria. Therefore, based on the City’s transportation guidelines and impact thresholds, the Project can be screened out from a full VMT analysis and is presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact concerning VMT under the low VMT screening criteria. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.17
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Transportation 230 February 2024
Table 6-27: VMT Screening Options for Land Use Projects Screening Category Screening Criteria
Project
Screened
Out?
Project Type
Screening
Presumed less than significant impact for 100 percent affordable projects, local serving retail projects (defined as less than 50,000 per OPR’s Technical Advisory) and projects that generate less than 110 daily trips.
No
Low VMT Area
Screening
Presumed less than significant VMT impact for projects located in low VMT generating TAZs. These TAZs generate total daily VMT per capita or per employee that is 15 percent less than the baseline level for the region.
Yes
Transit Proximity
Screening
Presumed less than significant VMT impact for projects located in highquality transit areas. No Source: Appendix 6.17-1.
6.17c Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction may require temporary lane closures for utility hook ups and loading of large equipment. However, no full lane closures are anticipated, and any closures would be temporary and done in coordination with the City. Project construction activities would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use.
Primary vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via one driveway on West Artesia Boulevard. Driveway engineering would comply with the City’s engineering standards to maintain adequate line of sight, thereby reducing vehicle and pedestrian conflicts and hazards. Additionally, internal drive aisles would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses and hammerhead turnaround maneuvers would be designed for emergency vehicles and fire services. Project driveway and internal circulation improvements would be constructed according to City and LAFCD standards; see Exhibit 6.17-1: Fire Master Plan. The Project proposes a residential development within a portion of the City that is predominately urban development. The Project does not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment on the site, such as farm equipment. Project operations would not include sharp curves nor dangerous intersections, or introduce incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 6.17-1: FIRE MASTER PLAN
1610 Artesia Boulevard Project
Source: TCA Architects, Development Application, February 14, 2024. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.17
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Transportation 232 February 2024
6.17d Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. West Artesia Avenue provides direct access to the Project site and would serve as a primary evacuation and emergency access route within the area. The construction and operation of the Project would not place any permanent physical barriers on West Artesia Boulevard.
There is the potential that one or more traffic lanes located immediately adjacent to the Project site may be temporarily closed or controlled by construction personnel during construction activities. Any temporary closures would be required to receive permission from the traffic authority in accordance with GMC Section 13.56.430, Road Closure or Interference with Highway Use. However, this would be temporary and emergency access to the Project site and surrounding area would be required to be maintained along West Artesia Boulevard at all times. Additionally, all construction staging would occur within the Project site’s boundaries and would not interfere with circulation along West Artesia Boulevard or any other nearby roadways.
As described above, primary vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via one driveway along West Artesia Boulevard. Additionally, a fire access lane is proposed along the Project site’s south and west boundary, which would provide emergency access. The LACFD requires fire lanes to be a minimum of 26 feet wide and include fire lane signage. Painted red curbs would delineate the limits of the fire lanes.
Signage for the fire department with direction to units would be placed pursuant to LACFD requirements.
The Project is also located approximately 1.2 miles from LACSD Station 158, which serves the City. While the Project is expected to increase the number of vehicles on local roadways, emergency responders have sirens and are able to bypass intersection queues, utilize two-way left-turn lanes, and use the opposite side of streets. The Project also does not propose any features that would inhibit emergency access to nearby areas.
Further, the Project site is located in an urbanized area where adequate circulation and access are provided to facilitate emergency response. The Project would be subject to compliance with the Gardena Public Safety Plan policies, specifically, PS 1.7, which requires law enforcement, crime prevention, and fire safety concerns are considered in the review of planning and development proposals in the City; PS 2.2, which requires all buildings and facilities within the City comply with local, State, and federal regulatory standards (i.e., California Building and Fire Codes); and PS 2.7, which requires adequate fire protection services, fire protection plans, and emergency vehicle access for new development. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact concerning emergency access during operation and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would have a less than significant impact concerning transportation. The Project and foreseeable future projects would be subject to compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., OPR Technical Advisory, General Plan policies, GMC), which would reduce potential impacts.
Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulatively significant impacts would similarly be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.18
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Tribal Cultural Resources 233 February 2024
Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.18ai Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource , defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or
No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with two, one-story commercial and industrial buildings totaling approximately 39,510 SF, an associated surface parking lot, and landscaping abutting West Artesia Boulevard. As discussed in Section 6.5: Cultural Resources and Appendix 6.5-1: Cultural Resources Assessment, the Project site does not contain any features meeting the historic resources criteria and does not meet the definition of a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of the Project would 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.18
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Tribal Cultural Resources 234 February 2024
not result in any substantial adverse change in a tribal cultural resource defined pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k). No impact would occur.
6.18aii Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource , defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As concluded in the Cultural Resources Assessment, prior to development, the buried archaeological, including tribal cultural resources, sensitivity of the Project area would have been moderate-to-high given the Holocene-age soils tied to human occupation that were present across the property, as well as the Project area’s location on the shores of a marsh/shallow lake. However, in its current condition, the Project area has low potential for archaeological material given the history of extensive modification within the Project site.
Notwithstanding, Project construction would include limited excavation and grading activities that have the potential to unearth undocumented resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during Project construction, the Project would be required to comply with MM CUL-1, which requires that if an archeological resource all earthwork and ground-disturbing activities to halt within 25 feet of the discovery until an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Professional Qualification Standards has evaluated the nature and significance of the find.
Further, if the find is Native American in origin, the Applicant shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission for a list of Native American Tribes to confer with regarding potential significance of the resource. If the resource is determined to be a significant, the remainder of ground-disturbing activities shall be monitored by an archaeological monitor and, if Native American in origin, at least one Native American monitor. Further, GMC Section 18.42.210, Post-Permit Requirements, requires the Applicant to enter into a cultural resources treatment agreement with a local Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the City if Native American or tribal cultural resources are found on the Project site. GMC Section 18.42.210 further requires, in compliance with State law, if human remains are unearthed, the Project developer, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, would be required to contact the County Coroner and ensure no further disturbance occurs until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
Further, if the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be notified within 24 hours. Therefore, following implementation of MM CUL1 and through compliance with the existing regulatory framework would ensure the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.
Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, the Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined in PRC Section 21074, as none are present on the Project site. Therefore, no cumulative impact concerning tribal cultural resources would occur. As concluded above, the potential exists for 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.18
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Tribal Cultural Resources 235 February 2024
undiscovered tribal cultural resources to be adversely impacted during Project construction. With implementation of MM CUL-1 and through compliance with the existing regulatory framework the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of these resources; a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated would occur in this regard.
Future cumulative development projects could encounter tribal cultural resources during ground disturbing activities. Thus, the potential exists for cumulative development to result in the adverse modifications or destruction of tribal cultural resources. Potential tribal cultural resource impacts associated with the individual developments would be specific to each site. As with this Project, all cumulative development in the area would undergo environmental and design review on a project-byproject basis pursuant to CEQA, AB 52, and SB 18, to evaluate the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources. All cumulative development would be subject to compliance with the existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning the protection of tribal cultural resources on a project-byproject basis, including consultation with tribes to identify whether a site may contain tribal cultural resources and if so, what mitigation measures may be required. Additionally, implementation of sitespecific mitigation measures would reduce levels.
Similarly, all future development with the potential to impact tribal cultural resources would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable federal and state regulatory requirements, including General Plan goals and policies of the affected jurisdiction, intended to reduce and/or avoid potential adverse environmental effects. As such, cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would be mitigated on a project-by-project level, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework, through the established regulatory review process.
Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of the cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
See Section 6.5: Cultural Resources.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 236 February 2024
Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded facilities
concerning the following, the construction
or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
i) Water, X
ii) Wastewater, X
iii) Wastewater Treatment (see Response
6.19.c below), X
iv) Stormwater Drainage, X
v) Electric Power, Natural Gas, and
Telecommunications. X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
The basis for the following information and analysis is the Sewer Capacity Assessment (Tait & Associates, February 2024) and the Water Availability Report (Tait & Associates, February 2024). These reports are included as Appendix 6.19-1: Sewer Capacity Assessment and Appendix 6.19-2: Water Availability Report and summarized below.
It is noted, Kimley-Horn conducted third-party reviews on behalf of the City of the Project’s Sewer Capacity Assessment and Water Availability Report; see Appendix 6.19-1 and Appendix 6.19-2, respectively. The third-party review concluded the analyses meets the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 237 February 2024
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.19ai Would the Project Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities concerning the following, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Water demand for construction of the project would be required for dust control, cleaning of equipment, excavation/export, removal and recompaction, etc. During construction, the contractor would bring their own portable bathroom and wash stations which would have their own self-contained water source and wastewater storage. These facilities would not connect to the adjacent sewer or water infrastructure for those uses. The temporary water usage is far less than the proposed water demand and therefore poses no significant impacts.
The Project would require construction of new onsite water facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new onsite water facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site, thus their construction would not cause significant environmental effects.
Golden State Water District (GSWD) would supply water to the Project site via the existing public GSWD 10-inch water main that runs underneath West Artesia Boulevard. 69 The Project would connect a domestic
water line, a fire line, and irrigation line to the existing water main within West Artesia Boulevard rightof-way. The existing water main within West Artesia Boulevard would not need to be upsized to accommodate the Project. The Project would be subject to all pertinent local, regional, and State-level regulations concerning any new connections, laterals, or trenching. Additionally, the Project would extend the existing six-inch fire line within West Artesia Boulevard and relocate an existing fire hydrant that existing along West Artesia Boulevard. The fire hydrant would continue to be served by the six-inch water main within West Artesia Boulevard.
The Project would require construction of new onsite water facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. As such, the Project would result in construction of water facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new onsite water facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site, thus, their construction would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed water facility improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Sections 6.1 through 6.21.
As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Given the proposed water facilities’ nature and scale, their construction-related noise impacts are not considered significant. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed water facilities. 69 See Appendix 6.19-1: Water Availability Report.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 238 February 2024
6.19aii Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 61,950 gallons per day (gpd), or approximately 26,403 gpd over existing conditions; see Table 6-28: Estimated Project Wastewater Generation.
Wastewater flow originating from the Project site would discharge to the six-inch lateral that connects from the Project site to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) sewer main trunk along Artesia Boulevard.70 The LACSD sewer main then flows east towards the Gardena Pump where the Project’s wastewater would be conveyed to the A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility (WWRF) for treatment; see Response 6.19e below.
Table 6-28: Estimated Project Wastewater Generation
Land Use Dwelling Units
Average Generation
Factor (gpd/DU)1
Total Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Apartments
55 Units – (Studio) 150 8,250
151 Units – ( 1-BR) 200 30,200
94 Units – (2-BR) 250 23,500
Total Project 61,950
Total Existing2-35,547
Net Project +26,403 (0.03 mgd)3
Note:
1 Based on the sewer generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works.
2 See Appendix 6.19-2. Note 1 cubic foot per second = 646,371 gallon per day. 3 mgd = million gallons per day
The Gardena Pump Sewer Trunk Sewer has an existing total capacity of 2.2 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 1.7 (when last measured in 2017). Inclusive of the Project, the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer would convey a peak flow of 1.74 mgd, with a remaining capacity of 0.42 mgd. As such, sufficient capacity existing in the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer to serve the Project and County sewer lines would not need to be upsized to accommodate the Project.
The Project would be subject to compliance with all pertinent local, regional, and State-level regulations concerning new connections, laterals, or trenching. The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) empowers the LACSD to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to LACSD’s Sewage System for increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. The LACSD may require payment of a connection fee before the Project is permitted to discharge to the LACSD’s sewerage system.
The Project would require construction of new onsite wastewater conveyance facilities (i.e., pipes), as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new onsite wastewater conveyance facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing LACSD facilities near the Project site, thus, their construction or 70 Appendix 6.19-2: Sewer Capacity Study
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 239 February 2024
relocation would not cause significant environmental effects. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new onsite wastewater conveyance facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing LACSD facilities near the Project site, thus, their construction or relocation would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed wastewater improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Sections 6.1 through 6.21. As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Given the proposed wastewater facilities’ nature and scale, their construction-related noise impacts are not considered significant. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed wastewater facilities.
6.19aiii Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. As concluded in Response 6.19e, adequate capacity exists to serve the Project’s wastewater treatment demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments at WWRF.
Therefore, the Project would not result in construction of wastewater treatment facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
6.19aiv Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
The Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern with site runoff discharging to the existing site outlet which connects to the Dominguez Channel to the Project site’s south. The Project proposes landscaped areas throughout the site that would result in a decrease in the existing impervious surfaces from 93 percent to 85 percent. Stormwater would be captured by a series of drains and discharged directly to ground level, where they join surface-level sheet flows and discharge to a proposed treatment basin that would connect to the existing storm drain at the Project site’s southeast corner. From the treatment basin, stormwater runoff would flow to the public storm drain system. The Project was analyzed under a 24-hour, 50-year storm peak flow and demonstrated that the proposed peak flow will be 0.47 cf per second less than the existing peak flow rate, therefore the Project would not increase runoff. The Project’s proposed drainage patters are further discussed in Section 6.10: Hydrology and Water Quality.
The Project would require construction of new onsite stormwater facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. Any new connections, laterals, or trenching required as a part of Project construction would be subject to compliance with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) requirements, as detailed in the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual (January 20026) and the Low Impact Development Standards Manual (February 2014)16 (LID Standards Manual). The Project would also be subject to compliance with GMC Title 8 Chapter 7, Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Requirements. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new stormwater facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site, 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 240 February 2024
thus, their construction or relocation would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed stormwater facility improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Sections 6.1 through 6.21. As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed stormwater drainage facilities.
6.19av Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
Electric Power Facilities. Table 6-29: Estimated Project Electric Power Demand provides the Project’s estimated electric power demand and indicates it totals 1,871,223 kWh per year (approximately 11,008 kWh per day), or approximately 1,492,241 kWh/yr over existing conditions.
Table 6-29: Estimated Project Electric Power Demand
Land Use Dwelling Units Electricity (kWh/year)1,2
Apartment Mid Rise 300 1,099,750
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 768,187
Recreational Swimming Pool 3,286
Total Project 1,871,223
Total Existing -379,009
Net Project 1,492,241
Notes:
1 CalEEMod was used to calculate the electricity demand based on land use. 2 Kilowatt hours (kWh)
Source: Appendix 6.3-1.
SCE provides electric power to the Project site and operates and maintains transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area. Although the Project’s estimated electricity demand would increase by approximately 1,492,241 kWh/yr over existing conditions, this demand comprises less than 0.005 percent of the typical annual electricity usage in the County and thus would not substantially increase service demand for SCE through substantial unplanned population growth and existing capacity would be sufficient to support Project residents.
The Project would require construction of new onsite electric power facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. As such, the Project would result in construction of electric power facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects.
Natural Gas Facilities – Table 6-30: Estimated Project Natural Gas Demand provides the Project’s estimated natural gas demand and indicates it totals 5,027,255 kBTU per year (approximately 13,773 kBTU per day), or approximately 3,336,150 kBTU/yr over existing conditions. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 241 February 2024
Table 6-30: Estimated Project Natural Gas Demand
Land Use Dwelling Units Natural Gas (kBTU/year)1,2
Apartment Mid Rise 300 3,332,053
Enclosed Parking with Elevator -
Recreational Swimming Pool 1,695,202
Total Project 5,027,255
Total Existing 1,691,105
Net Project 3,336,150
Notes:
1 CalEEMod was used to calculate the natural gas demand based on land use. 2 thousand British thermal units (kBTU)
Source: Appendix 6.6-1.
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas to the Project site and operates and maintains transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area. Although the Project’s estimated natural gas demand would increase by approximately 3,336,150 kBTU/yr over existing conditions, this demand comprises less than 0.0018 percent of the typical annual natural gas usage in the County, thus the Project would not substantially increase service demand for utility providers through substantial unplanned population growth and existing capacity would be sufficient to support Project residents.
The Project would require construction of new onsite natural gas facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. As such, the Project would result in construction of natural gas facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects.
Telecommunication Facilities. Various companies provide telecommunications including AT&T, Direct TV, Dish Network, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and ViaSat. The Project proposes to connect to the existing telecommunication infrastructure at the Project site. The Project would require construction of new onsite telecommunication facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. As such, the Project would result in construction of telecommunication facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects.
Conclusion. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new electric power and telecommunication facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site, thus, their construction or relocation would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed electric power and telecommunication facility improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Section 6.1 through Section 6.21. As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed electric power and telecommunication facilities.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 242 February 2024
6.19b Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project’s estimated water demand would total approximately 76,030 gpd, or approximately 33,466 gpd over existing conditions; see Table 6-31: Estimated Project Water Demand. The Project would include all State-mandated water-saving features, including water-efficient shower faucets, shower heads, and toilets.
Table 6-31: Estimated Project Water Demand
Land Use Units
Average Demand
Factor1
Total
Water Demand (gpd)
Proposed Water Demand
Apartments
55 DU – (Studio) 180 gpd/unit 9,900
151 DU – ( 1-BR) 240 gpd/unit 36,240
94 DU – (2-BR) 300 gpd/unit 28,200
Pool(s) 3,024 SF EPA Method3 514
Landscaping2 23,041 SF4 ETWU Method 1,176
Total Project (Residential) 76,030 (85 AFY)
Total Existing4-42,564 (48 AFY)
Net Project +33,466 (37 AFY)
Note:
1 Based on 120% of the sewer generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works. See Golden State Water Company 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Southwest Service Area, page 1-2.
2 See Appendix 6.19-2.
3 EPA published “Jump Into Pool Water Efficiency” estimates 31,000 gallons/500 SF of pool water per year (3,024 SF of pool/spa * 31,000 gallons/year = 187,488 gallons per year = 514 gpd). 4 Project’s planted area only.
4 Based on 120% of the existing land use wastewater consumption of 35,547 gpd.
GSWC’s Final Urban Water Management Plan – Southwest 2020 (UWMP) water demand forecasts are based on adopted general plans, however, in April 2023 the City amended the Land Use Plan of the Community Development Element of the General Plan with the addition of new land use designations, including on the Project site. Because the Project site’s General Plan land use designation was changed in April 2023, which is after the preparation of the 2020 UWMP, and the Project’s estimated water demand would exceed the UWMP’s assumed water demand for the Project site, the Project’s water demand was not accounted for in the UWMP.
However, GSWC analyzed the Project to determine if sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. GSWC confirmed water service would be available to serve the Project from GSWC’s Southwest System.71 The UWMP projects that the service area’s water demands will increase from 26,939 AFY in 2025 to 28,608 AFY in 2045 for both normal and dry years representing an increase in demand of 1,669 AFY.72 The Project’s increase in water demand of 33,466 gpd 71 See Appendix 6.19-1: Water Availability.
72 Golden State Water Company. (2021). Southwest Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 5-2. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 243 February 2024
(37 AFY) represents approximately 2.2 percent of the UWMP’s forecast increase in demand between 2025 and 2045. GSWC provides conservation programs (e.g., water conservation pricing, public information programs, and workshops) along with incentives (e.g., rebates) to conserve water in the City. Although the GSWC service area population is expected to increase, the overall baseline potable demand in AFY is expected to decrease due to further water use efficiency and recycled water programs. The UWMP also projects adequate supplies to meet all future demands. The GSWC’s UWMP indicates water supplies would meet the service area’s water demands for normal, single-dry, and multiple dry-year conditions through 2045.
Therefore, GSWC would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
6.19c Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 61,950 gpd, or approximately 26,403 gpd (0.03 mgd) over existing conditions; see Table 6-28. The Project’s wastewater flow would be conveyed to the WWRF for treatment. The WWRF currently processes an average wastewater flow of 237 mgd and has a total permitted capacity of 400 mgd.73 The Project’s estimated net wastewater generation of 26,403 gpd (0.03 mgd) ) comprises less than one percent of WWRF’s remaining available capacity of 163 mgd.74 As such, sufficient capacity exists at WWRF to serve the Project and no WWRF expansion/modification would be required to accommodate the Project. Therefore, the WWRF has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s estimated wastewater treatment demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
6.19d Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
6.19e Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Waste Resources of Gardena (WRG) is the authorized waste hauler for the City, providing construction debris and other building materials removal, as well as commercial, industrial, and residential refuse collection. Waste from Gardena is disposed of a at number of solid waste facilities, with the majority of waste disposed at the Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill.
The Project proposes to remove all existing onsite structures and surface parking lot and construct/operate a 300 DU multi-family residential development. State law requires a 65 percent diversion rate for Construction and Demolition (C&D) projects. GMC Chapter 8.20, Solid Waste and Recyclable Collection and Disposal, addresses solid waste disposal, including requirements for C&D projects. In accordance with GMC Section 8.20.060, Solid Waste Disposal and Diversion, each C&D project 73 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. (2022). AK Warren Water Resource Facility 2022 Annual Performance Data. Available at: https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/ak-warren-water-resourcefacility/plant-performance. Accessed December 2023. 74 (Total Permitted Capacity) – (Average Wastewater Flow) = Remaining Available Capacity; 400-237 = 163 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 244 February 2024
for which a building and/or demolition permit is applied for and approved must achieve the waste diversion performance standard or show a good faith effort to achieve that standard.
CalRecycle provides multi-family residential solid waste generation rates from various sources (i.e., five sources), which range from 3.6 pounds per DU per day (lbs./DU/day) to 8.6 lbs./DU/day, and average 5.1 lbs./DU/day. Based on 300 DU and 5.1 lbs./DU/day, the Project would generate approximately 1,530 lbs./day (approximately 0.77 tons per day).
Project implementation would increase solid waste disposal demands over existing conditions. Solid waste within the City is primarily disposed of at the Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill located at 29201 Henry Mayo Drive. In 2019, approximately 72 percent of solid waste from Gardena was disposed of at the Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, the El Sobrante Landfill, and the Sunshine Canyon City/County landfill received approximately 8.5 and 5.1 percent of solid waste from Gardena, respectively.75 Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 12,000 tons per day. The facility’s maximum capacity is 110,366,000 cubic yards and has a remaining capacity pf 60,408,000 cubic yards. 76 It is anticipated that Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill would continue to receive a majority of the solid waste from the City. Solid waste generated from the Project could be accommodated at the Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill or a combination of the disposal facilities currently receiving solid waste from the City.
As previously noted, Chiquita’s maximum permitted throughput is 12,000 tons per day. The Project’s estimated solid waste generation of approximately 0.77 tons per day comprises less than one-tenth percent of Chiquita’s maximum permitted daily throughput. Chiquita’s remaining and maximum capacities are approximately 60.4 million cubic yards and approximately 110.4 million cubic yards, respectively. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient remaining permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, Chiquita could accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. Operational activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under CALGreen and AB 939.
The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, in excess of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning solid waste, and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to utilities and service systems.
Development of public utility infrastructure is part of an extensive planning process involving utility providers and jurisdictions with discretionary review authority. The coordination process associated with the preparation of development and infrastructure plans ensures that adequate resources are available to serve both individual projects and the cumulative demand for resources and infrastructure because of cumulative growth and development in the area. Each individual project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruptions in service or inadequate supplies. Coordination with the utility companies would allow for the provision of utility services to the Project and future developments 75 CalRecycle, Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility, accessed December 2023.
76 CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill (19-AA-0052), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3574?siteID=1037, accessed December 2023. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.19
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Utilities and Service Systems 245 February 2024
in the City. The Project and other planned projects are subject to connection and service fees to assist in facility expansion and service improvements triggered by an increase in demand. Because of the utility planning and coordination activities described above, there are no significant cumulative utility impacts.
Mitigation Measures
See Section 6.5: Cultural Resources, Section 6.7: Geology and Soils, Section 6.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 6.13: Noise .
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.20
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Wildfire 246 February 2024
Wildfire
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.20a Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
6.20b Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
6.20c Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
6.20d Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.20
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Wildfire 247 February 2024
No Impact. The Project site is in a highly urbanized area and is not classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). 77 The Project is a residential development that would tie into existing infrastructure and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities. The Project site and surrounding vicinity are relatively flat. There are no known landslides near the site nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, the Project would result in no impact concerning wildfire.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project is within an urbanized and developed area of the City. There are no undeveloped natural areas that are prone to wildfires. The Project is not subject to wildfire risk, and therefore, would not contribute to a potential cumulatively considerable impact related to wildfires.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
77 CalFire. (September 2023). Los Angeles County FHSZ Map. Retrieved from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zonesmaps-2022. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.21
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mandatory Findings of Significance 248 February 2024
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the Project:
a) Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.21a Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the Project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment or result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level with compliance with the established regulatory framework and implementation of mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval.
As discussed in Section 6.4: Biological Resources, the Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.21
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mandatory Findings of Significance 249 February 2024
to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
As discussed in Section 6.5: Cultural Resources, the Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As also concluded in Section 6.5: Cultural Resources and Section 6.18: Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project is not anticipated to result in impacts to known cultural or tribal cultural resources. However, in the unlikely event that buried archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbance activities, MM CUL-1 would require all earthwork and grounddisturbing activities to halt within 50 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. Further, GMC Section 18.42.210, Post-Permit Requirements, requires the Applicant to enter into a cultural resources treatment agreement with a local Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the City if Native American or tribal cultural resources are found on the Project site. Thus, the Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation.
6.21b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in significant impacts unless mitigated for the following environmental resources areas: cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. The impacts associated with these resource areas are localized, thus, would not result in cumulative impacts.
Mitigation has been prepared for each of these environmental issue areas to reduce impacts to less than significant. The City would also impose Conditions of Approval on the Project. Other development projects within the City would also be subject to these requirements, as applicable.
For all other resource areas, it was determined the Project would either have no impact or a less than significant impact following compliance with the established regulatory framework, without the need for mitigation. Cumulatively, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially combine with impacts of other current or probably future impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project, when combined with other projects, would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts, and no mitigation is required.
6.21c Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the Project’s potential impacts to human beings related to several environmental topical areas.
As determined throughout this Initial Study, the proposed Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated or reduced with implementation of mitigation measures (i.e., MM GEO-1, MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-5, and MM NOI-1) and/or standard conditions (i.e., COA HAZ-1 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.21
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mandatory Findings of Significance 250 February 2024
and COA HAZ-2) imposed by the City. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
See Section 6.5: Cultural Resources, Section 6.7: Geology and Soils, Section 6.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 6.13: Noise.
REFERENCES
Advanced Environmental Ground, Inc. (December 2023). Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation (VIRE); see Appendix 6.9-3.
Caja Environmental Services (November 2023). Air Quality Technical Repot for the 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project in the City of Gardena; see Appendix 6.3-1.
Caja Environmental Services (November 2023). Greenhouse Gas Technical Repot for the 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project in the City of Gardena; see Appendix 6.8-1.
Caja Environmental Services (November 2023). Noise Technical Repot for the 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project in the City of Gardena; see Appendix 6.13-1.
Caja Environmental Services (November 2023). Vibration Technical Repot for the 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project in the City of Gardena; see Appendix 6.13-2.
CalFire. (September 2023). Los Angeles County FHSZ Map. Retrieved from:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/firehazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps.
California Department of Conservation. (2015). CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps.
Retrieved from:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps.
California Department of Conservation. (2022). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
California Department of Conservation. (2023). Williamson Act/Land Conservation Act. Retrieved from:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
California Department of Conservation. Seismic Hazard Zones, Map Data Viewer. Retrieved from: Maps and Data (ca.gov).
California Department of Finance. (2023). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2023, with 2020 Benchmark. Retrieved from:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimatesfor-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.21
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mandatory Findings of Significance 251 February 2024
California Department of Transportation. (2023). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
California Department of Water Resources. (2020). Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Retrieved from:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/.
City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006. Figure CI-1: Roadway Network and Figure CI-2:
Roadway Cross Sections. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena. Retrieved from:
https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Circulation-Plan-2020-Update.pdf accessed December, 2023.
City of Gardena. (2006, Updated April 2021). Gardena General Plan 2006. Figure LU-2: 2021 General Plan Land Use Policy Map. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena.
City of Gardena. (2006, Updated 2023). Gardena General Plan 2006. Land Use Plan, 2023 Update.
Gardena, CA: City of Gardena.
City of Gardena. (2006, Updated February 2013). Gardena General Plan 2006. Figure LU-2: 2013 General Plan Land Use Policy Map. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena. Retrieved from:
https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Land-use-Plan-2023-Update-FINAL.pdf, accessed December, 2023.
City of Gardena. (2020). City of Gardena Zoning 2020. Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/Gardena_Zonning_2020.pdf. accessed December, 2023.
City of Gardena. (2020). Zoning Map. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena Planning Division. Retrieved from:
https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Gardena_Zonning_2020.pdf.
City of Gardena. (2022). Public Safety Plan. Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/Gardena_Public-Safety-Element_FINAL-FOR-ADOPTION.pdf.
City of Gardena. Gardena Facilities. Retrieved from: Gardena Facilities – City of Gardena.
Environmental Management Strategies, Inc. (2023). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – Stein Project 1610 West Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, CA; see Appendix 6.9-1.
Environmental Management Strategies, Inc. (2023). Phase II Environmental Site Assessment – Stein Project 1610 West Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, CA; see Appendix 6.9-2.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Retrieved from:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=1610%20W%20Artesia%20Garden.
Golden State Water Company. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan – Southwest Service Area.
Retrieved from:
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 6.21
Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mandatory Findings of Significance 252 February 2024
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F7646146476 %2FGSWC-Southwest%202020%20UWMP%20Final.pdf.
Kling Consulting Group, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for Feasibility Purposes, 1610 W. Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, California, 90248; see Appendix 6.7-1.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project – Energy Assessment; see Appendix 6.6-1.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Health Risk Assessment - 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project Gardena, California; see Appendix 6.3-2.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project in the City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, California; see Appendix 6.5-1.
LA County Library. (2018). Public Libraries. https://www.lacounty.gov/things-to-do/librariesmuseums/public-libraries/.
Lincoln Law & Greenspan. (2023). Local Transportation Assessment TPG 1610 Artesia Project; see Appendix 6.17-1.
Lincoln Law & Greenspan. (2023). TPG 1610 Artesia Project – Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment; see Appendix 6.17-2.
ParcelQuest. (January 2021). Assessor Data. Retrieved from: https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home.
Tait & Associates. (2023). Low Impact Development Plan for 1610 W Artesia Boulevard; see Appendix
6.10-1.
Tait & Associates. (2022). Hydrology Study, 1610 W. Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, California; see Appendix 6.10-1.
Tait & Associates. (2022). Sewer Capacity Assessment, 1610 W. Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, California; see Appendix 6.19-1.
Tait & Associates. (2022). Water Availability Report, 1610 W. Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, California; see Appendix 6.19-2.
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1610 ARTESIA BOULEVARD PROJECT
LEAD AGENCY
City of Gardena
Amanda Acuna – Community Development Manager
Community Development Department
1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, California 90247
310.217.9593
APPLICANT
CONSULTANT
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Rita Garcia – Project Manager
1100 West Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
714.786.6116
May 2024
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 1.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Introduction 1 May 2024
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Gardena (“City”), as Lead Agency, has prepared a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (“SCEA”) for the 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project (“Project”) (SCH No. 2024020743). The SCEA was made available for review and comment to the public, responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations for a 30- day review period that occurred between February 20, 2024 and March 20, 2024. The SCEA was also made available directly to State agencies through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research.
Comments on the SCEA were received from three public agencies: California Department of Transportation, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 2 May 2024
2.0 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
As previously noted, the SCEA was made available for review and comment for a 30-day public review period. Although CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines do not require a Lead Agency to prepare responses to comments raised regarding a SCEA, as contrasted with the requirements to prepare responses to comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (State CEQA Guidelines §15088), the City has elected to prepare the following written responses in the spirit and with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the Project. The number designations in the responses correlate with the comment letter.
The comment letters received during and after the public review period are listed below and provided in Appendix A: Comment Letters of this Final SCEA.
SCEA Public Review
Letter Number / Author / Date
1. Patricia Horsley, Environmental Planner, Facilities Planning Department, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. March 6, 2024.
2. Miya Edmonson, LDR/CEQA Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation, District 7 – Office of Regional Planning. March 20, 2024.
3. Ronald M. Durbin, Chief, Forestry Division, Prevention Services Bureau, County of Los Angeles Fire Department. April 1, 2024.
4. City of Gardena, Staff Note to File.
Text changes are intended to clarify or correct information in the Draft SCEA as initiated by the Lead Agency staff or due to comments raised during the public review period. Revisions to the Draft SCEA are presented as excerpts, with deleted text indicated as strikethrough (example) and added/modified text indicated as double underline (example).
Deleted IS/MND text Added IS/MND text
None of the corrections or clarifications to the SCEA identified in this document constitute “significant new information” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. They do not involve changes in the Project or environmental setting, or significant additional data. They do not result in any new or substantially greater environmental impacts, as compared to those identified in the SCEA. Moreover, the revisions do not affect the SCEA’s overall conclusions.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 3 May 2024
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 1
Patricia Horsley, Environmental Planner, Facilities Planning Department, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. March 6, 2024.
1-1 This comment introduces the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts’ (LACSD) response to the Project’s Notice of Availability. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary. 1-2 This comment provides a revision to the SCEA Section 6.19: Utilities and Service Systems concerning the sewer main trunk along Artesia Boulevard’s flow direction and notes the sewer main trunk along Artesia Boulevard flows west towards the Gardena Pumping Plant. To correct the error, SCEA Page 238 is revised as follows:
The LACSD sewer main then flows east west towards the Gardena Pump where the Project’s wastewater would be conveyed to A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility (WWRF) for treatment.
It is noted this comment does not change the SCEA’s analysis concerning the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance facilities and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1-3 This comment notes the Project is less than 0.5-mile from the LACSD Gardena Pumping Plant, a publicly owned wastewater facility that serves the local community. This comment is acknowledged and does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.
1-4 This comment provides a correction concerning the trunk sewer in Artesia Boulevard that would serve the Project site. SCEA Page 238 is revised as follows:
The Gardena Pump Sewer Trunk Sewer has an existing total capacity of 2.2 3.1 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 1.7 2.6 mgd (when last measured in 2017). Inclusive of the Project, the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer would convey a peak flow of 1.74 2.64 mgd, with a remaining capacity of 0.42 0.46 mgd. As such, sufficient capacity existing in the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer to serve the Project and County sewer lines would not need to be upsized to accommodate the Project.
It is noted this comment does not change the SCEA’s analysis concerning the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance facilities and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1-5 This comment notes the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant currently processes an average flow of 243.1 million gallons per day (mgd), as such, SCEA Page 243 is revised as follows:
The WWRF currently processes an average wastewater flow of 237 243.1 mgd and has a total permitted capacity of 400 mgd. The Project’s estimated net wastewater generation of 26,403 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 4 May 2024
42,810 gpd (0.03 0.04 mgd) ) comprises less than one percent of WWRF’s remaining available capacity of 163 156.9 mgd.
It is noted this comment does not change the SCEA’s analysis concerning adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments and impacts would remain less than significant. 1-6 This comment notes that using LACSD wastewater generation factors, the Project’s expected net increase in average wastewater flow is 42,810 gallons per day (gpd) after all structures on the Project site have been demolished. As discussed on in SCEA Appendix 6.19-1: Sewer Capacity Study, the SCEA’s estimated wastewater calculations were based on sewer generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department. However, because the Project’s wastewater flow would discharge to LACSD’s Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer, SCEA Appendix 6.19-1: Sewer Capacity Study and SCEA Appendix 6.19-2: Water Availability Report have been updated to reflect LACSD wastewater generation factors and are included in this Final SCEA as Appendix 6.19-3: Sewer Capacity Study and Appendix 6.19-4: Water Availability Report. Further, the SCEA has been revised as follows:
SCEA Page 108-109
The Project would be estimated to increase wastewater generation by approximately 26,403 42,810 gallons per day (gpd), which comprises less than one percent of the available capacity of 163 156.9 million gpd at the WWRF.
SCEA Page 109
According to the Project’s Water Availability Report, the Project would increase water demands for the Project site by 33,466 53,062 gpd.
SCEA Page 238
The Project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 61,950 46,800 gallons per day (gpd), or an increase of approximately 26,403 42,810 gpd over existing conditions; see Table 6 28: Estimated Project Wastewater Generation. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 5 May 2024
SCEA Page 238
Table 6-28: Estimated Project Wastewater Generation
Land Use Dwelling Units Average Generation
Factor (gpd/DU)1
Total Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Apartments
55 Units – (Studio) 150 8,250
151 Units – ( 1-BR) 200 30,200
94 Units – (2-BR) 250 23,500
Residential
(5+ DU) 300 156 46,800
Total Project 61,950
46,800
Total Existing2 -35,547
-3,990
Net Project +26,403 (0.03 mgd)3
+42,810 (0.04)3
Note:
1 Based on the sewer wastewater generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works LACSD “Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use”. 2 See Appendix 6.19-23. Note 1 cubic foot per second = 646,371 gallon per day. 3 mgd = million gallons per day 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 6 May 2024
SCEA Page 242
Table 6-1: Estimated Project Water Demand
Land Use Units Average Demand
Factor1
Total
Water Demand (gpd)
Proposed Water Demand
Apartments
55 DU – (Studio) 180 gpd/unit 9,900
151 DU – ( 1-BR) 240 gpd/unit 36,240
94 DU – (2-BR) 300 gpd/unit 28,200
Residential
(5+ DU) 300 DU 187.2 gpd/unit 56,160
Pool(s) 3,024 SF EPA Method3 514
Landscaping2 23,041 SF4 ETWU Method 1,176
Total Project (Residential) 76,030 (85 AFY)
57,850 (65 AFY)
Total Existing4 -42,564 (48 AFY)
-4,788 (5 AFY)
Net Project +33,466 (37 AFY)
+53,062 (59 AFY)
Note:
1 Based on 120% of the sewer wastewater generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works LACSD “Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use”. See Golden State Water Company 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Southwest Service Area, page 1-2.
2 See Appendix 6.19-24.
3 EPA published “Jump Into Pool Water Efficiency” estimates 31,000 gallons/500 SF of pool water per year (3,024 SF of pool/spa * 31,000 gallons/year = 187,488 gallons per year = 514 gpd). 4 Project’s planted area only.
4 Based on 120% of the existing land use wastewater consumption of 35,547 3,990 gpd.
SCEA Page 243
The Project’s increase in water demand of 33,466 53,062 gpd (37 59 AFY) represents approximately 2.2
3.5 percent of the UWMP’s forecast increase in demand between 2025 and 2045.
SCEA Page 243
As discussed above, the Project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 61,950 46,800 gpd, or approximately 26,403 42,810 gpd (0.03 0.04 mgd) over existing conditions; see Table 6-
28. The Project’s wastewater flow would be conveyed to the WWRF for treatment. The WWRF currently processes an average wastewater flow of 237 243.1 mgd and has a total permitted capacity of 400 mgd.
The Project’s estimated net wastewater generation of 26,403 42,810 gpd (0.03 0.04 mgd) ) comprises less than one percent of WWRF’s remaining available capacity of 163 156.9 mgd.74 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 7 May 2024
SCEA Page 243
74 (Total Permitted Capacity) – (Average Wastewater Flow) = Remaining Available Capacity; 400-237 243.1 = 163 156.9 mgd
It is noted the revisions made as a result of this comment do not change the environmental impact conclusions within SCEA Section 6.19. The Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer has sufficient capacity to serve the Project’s estimated wastewater generation of 42,810 gpd, as revised, over existing conditions, and the Golden State Water Company has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project, based on the revised generation rates, and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. 1-7 This comment provides information regarding LACSD connection fees. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.
1-8 This comment provides background information concerning LACSD wastewater treatment facility capacities. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 8 May 2024
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 2
Miya Edmonson, LDR/CEQA Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation, District 7 – Office of Regional Planning. March 20, 2024.
2-1 This comment introduces the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) response and summarizes the Project. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary. 2-2 This comment states the closest State facilities are State Route 9 (SR-9) [sic] (this is a typographical error and should be State Route 91), SR-110, and SR-405. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.
2-3 This comment requests a Traffic Impact Analysis and a queuing analysis of the following locations be completed to make sure the turning lane storage lengths are adequate: (1) Intersection of Vermont Avenue and SR-91/Artesia Boulevard; (2) SR-91/Artesia Boulevard and SR-110 including the on/off-ramp in all directions; and (3) On/off-ramp on I-405 at Western Avenue in both directions. It is noted, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA (Public Resources Code §21009(b)(3)). Notwithstanding, a Local Transportation Assessment was prepared for the Project in accordance with the City of Gardena’s SB 743 Implementation Transportation Analysis Updates Guidelines (City Guidelines); see SCEA Appendix 6.17-2: Local Transportation Assessment. According to the City Guidelines, where a project is expected to add 50 or more peak hour trips to (AM or PM) to an intersection, that intersection should be evaluated. As described in SCEA Appendix 6.17-2, the Project is expected to generate 60 net new vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 38 net new vehicle trip during the weekday PM peak hour when compared to the existing uses on the site.1 As shown in SCEA Appendix 6.17-2, Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5, the net new Project southbound traffic volumes on Western Avenue, south of Artesia Boulevard, would total 3 outbound trips (no inbound trips) during the AM peak hour and 9 inbound trips (no outbound trips) north on Western Avenue during PM peak hour. On Artesia Boulevard, the net new Project eastbound traffic volumes from the Project site are 14 outbound trips (no inbound trips) during the AM peak hour and 9 inbound trips (no outbound trips) during the PM peak hour. On Artesia Boulevard, the net new Project eastbound traffic volumes from the Project site, east of Normandie Avenue (towards Vermont Avenue), would total 14 outbound trips (no inbound trips) during the AM peak hour and total 9 inbound trips (no outbound trips) during the PM peak hour. Thus, because the intersection of Vermont Avenue and SR-91/Artesia Boulevard would not exceed 50 or more peak hour trips, this intersection is not required to be 1 Transit/walk-in adjustments were conservatively not applied to the Project’s trip generation forecast. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 9 May 2024
studied as part of the Project pursuant to the City Guidelines. Further, because the SR-110 and I-405 on/off ramps locations referenced in the comment letter are approximately 1 to 1.25 miles from the Project site, the anticipated small net increase in new vehicle trips during the weekday AM and PM peak hours resulting from Project implementation would result in nominal additional trips. Therefore, consistent with the City Guidelines, no queuing analysis for the above referenced on/off ramps is warranted.
2-4 This comment expresses Caltrans’ support of this Project, which helps achieve State planning priorities contained in State law and meets State policy goals on transportation, VMT reduction, GHG emissions reduction, and betterment of the environment and human health. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.
2-5 This comment expresses Caltrans’ support of the Project’s inclusion of bicycle infrastructure.
Caltrans’ recommends the City consider revisions to its South Bay Bicycle Master Plan to include more Class II buffered bike lanes and add Artesia Boulevard to the network. The Caltrans’ suggestions are noted as relevant to Citywide policy and go beyond the scope of review for the 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary. 2-6 This comment requests a detailed Construction Management Plan be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval before issuance of demolition, grading, and building permits. As discussed on SCEA page 173, while Project construction would likely require traffic lane, parking lane, and/or sidewalk closures, it would not require the complete closure of any public or private street. The Project would be conditioned to prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan, approved by the City to minimize the potential conflicts between construction activities, street traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians during construction, as well as ensure emergency access.
Further, as discussed in SCEA Table 4-1: Applicability of 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Final EIR Mitigation Measures, a Condition of Approval will be added to the Project requiring the Project developer to provide a traffic control plan, which would include street closure information, a detour plan, haul routes, and a staging plan per Caltrans request. The Project would require temporary sidewalk closures along West Artesia Boulevard to allow for utility and sidewalk improvements. No further response is necessary.
This comment also requests the Project Applicant to work with Caltrans Office of Permits, MultiModal Unit, for a designated truck route for construction trucks to transport construction equipment to and from the construction sites. This comment also notes that construction vehicles/equipment should use alternative routes to avoid congested State facilities, especially during peak hours and that construction trucks should be covered with tarpaulin to avoid debris spillage onto State facilities. These comments are acknowledged; however, they do not address the adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. Notwithstanding, the Project would be required to comply with California Vehicle Code Sections 23114 and 23115, which prohibit the 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 10 May 2024
operation of a vehicle on the highway which is improperly covered, constructed or loaded. Thus, the Project’s construction trucks would be required to be covered with tarpaulin to avoid debris spillage onto State facilities or local streets. No further response is necessary. 2-7 This comment indicates that any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that requires the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways would require a Caltrans transportation permit. This comment is acknowledged; however, this comment does not address the adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. Caltrans recommends that the Project limit construction traffic to off-peak periods and that a construction traffic control plan be submitted if construction traffic is expected to cause issues on any State facilities. As noted in Response 2-6, the Project will be conditioned to prepare a traffic control plan. As such, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 3
Ronald M. Durbin, Chief, Forestry Division, Prevention Services Bureau, County of Los Angeles Fire Department. April 1, 2024.
3-1 This comment notes the County of Los Angeles Fire Department (LACFD) Planning Division does not have any comments concerning the Project. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary. 3-2 This comment notes the Project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water main, fire flows and fire hydrants. Compliance with applicable regulations is noted. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary. 3-3 This comment notes the statutory responsibilities of the LACFD Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, brush clearance, vegetation management, fuel modification for Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archeological and cultural resources, and County Oak Tree Ordinance. This comment further notes the LACFD Forestry Division has no further comments regarding this Project. This comment does not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.
3-4 This comment provides a correction to SCEA Section 6.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials in that the LACFD Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) does not design, permit, approve, inspect, or monitor Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Systems (VIMS) nor does LACFD HHMD implement or manage VIMS Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OM&M) Plan. As such, the SCEA has been revised as follows:
SCEA Page 171-172
If the Subsurface Investigation Report concludes that the Project site still contains VOCs at a concentration exceeding DTSC’s Final Draft Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 2.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Comment Letters and Responses 11 May 2024
Vapor Intrusion Guidance thresholds for residential uses, implementation of an engineering control (e.g., impermeable membrane or passive venting) would be required subject to LACFD HHMD City of Gardena Building Services Division review and approval (MM HAZ-5).
SCEA Page 176
If the soil vapor sampling concludes that after the source removal the Project site contains VOCs at a concentration exceeding DTSC’s Final Draft Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Guidance thresholds for residential uses, implementation of a registered design professional, such as a licensed civil engineer, shall recommend an engineering control (e.g., impermeable membrane or passive venting) would be required subject to approval by the LACFD HHMD to prevent concentrations of VOCs above DTSC’s established thresholds for residential uses. The Applicant shall show the impermeable membrane recommended engineering control on the Project’s building plans for, subject to review and approval by the City of Gardena Building Services Division. The Applicant shall be required to implement the recommended engineering control and, at the time of the final building inspection, the registered design professional shall furnish a signed statement attesting that the building or structure has been constructed in accordance with their recommendations to address the contaminated soil conditions.
The comment further notes that questions pertaining to County regulatory oversight and permitting of VIMS should be directed to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs Division and that the HHMD Site Mitigation Unit is currently not overseeing or involved with this Project site. These comments are noted and do not address the SCEA’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 3.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Revisions, Clarifications, and Modifications 12 May 2024
STAFF NOTE TO FILE 1
RE: Noise Impacts
The Project’s construction noise impacts were concluded to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated as presented in SCEA Appendix 6.13-1: Noise Technical Report and in SCEA Section 6.13:
Noise. However, SCEA Section 6.11: Land Use and Planning (page 196) and SCEA Section 6.19: Utilities and Service Systems(pages 237 and 239) incorrectly reported the Project’s construction noise impacts as significant and unavoidable.
To correct these inadvertent errors, the SCEA is revised as follows:
SCEA page 196
As concluded in Section 6.13: Noise, impacts associated with Project onsite construction activities would be significant and unavoidable despite the specified mitigation measures less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
SCEA page 237
As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
SCEA page 239
As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 3.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Revisions, Clarifications, and Modifications 13 May 2024
STAFF NOTE TO FILE 2
RE: PMM NOISE-1
As presented in SCEA Appendix 6.13-1: Noise Technical Report and in SCEA Section 6.13: Noise, the Project would implement the Project-specific mitigation measure MM NOI-1, which requires best practice construction methods be used during Project construction to reduce construction noise to less than significant levels. SCEA Section 4.0: Mitigation Measures from Prior EIRs (page 95) incorrectly summarizes MM NOI-1 and incorrectly states that certain measures within PMM NOISE-1 would be included as conditions of approval that were determined to either not apply to the proposed Project, or are duplicative of MM NOI-1. Specifically, PMM NOISE-1(j), which requires improved acoustical insulation in dwelling units where feasible, is not required because, as concluded in SCEA Appendix 6.13-1 and SCEA Section 6.13, the Project’s operational noise impacts would be less than significant; thus, no improved acoustical insulation is necessary. PMM NOISE-1(l), which requires noise attenuation measures during pile driving, is not required because the Project does not require pile driving during construction. PMM NOISE1(q), which requires use of portable barriers in the vicinity of sensitive receptors during construction, is not required because MM NOI-1 already requires best practice construction methods be used during Project construction to reduce noise to less than significant levels.
To correct these inadvertent errors, the SCEA is revised as follows:
SCEA page 95
The Project would implement the Project-specific mitigation measure MM NOI-1, which requires proper maintenance of construction equipment and installation of noise muffling devices best practice construction methods to reduce construction noise to less than significant levels. Further, Conditions of approval will be added to incorporate items c), d), e), f), g), h), j)_, l) and o) and q). The other measures included in PMM NOISE-1 are determined to be inapplicable to the Project or duplicative of other measures that will be imposed as conditions of approval. Regarding potential operational impacts on surrounding uses, the potential exterior noise would be consistent with the area and with the exterior noise standards detailed in GMC Section 8.36.040, Exterior Noise Standards. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the applicable requirements of PMM NOISE-1.
Therefore, the City has determined that the Project’s substantially conforms through regulatory compliance and implementation of Project-specific mitigation measures (i.e., MM NOI-1) which are equal to or more effective than PMM NOISE-1.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 3.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Revisions, Clarifications, and Modifications 14 May 2024
3.0 REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND
MODIFICATIONS
This section provides revisions, clarifications, and corrections to the SCEA that have been made to clarify, correct, or supplement the information provided in that document. The following revisions, clarifications, and modifications are intended to update the SCEA as a result of the responses to agency comments received on the SCEA, or due to recognition of inadvertent errors or omissions. These changes constitute the Final SCEA, to be considered by the City for adoption. None of the changes to the SCEA would require recirculation of the document. Revisions made to the SCEA do not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures, nor has the severity of any impact increased. None of the CEQA criteria for recirculation have been met, and recirculation of the SCEA is not warranted.
The supplementary information to the SCEA is indicated below under the respective section heading and page number. Deletions are shown with strikethrough and additions are shown with double underline.
Existing text to remain unchanged is included as plain text, without strikethrough or double underlines, to provide context for the revisions, clarifications, and corrections.
Revisions to SCEA Appendix 6.19-1: Sewer Capacity Study and SCEA Appendix 6.19-2: Water Availability Report are included in this Final SCEA as Appendix 6.19-3: Sewer Capacity Study and Appendix 6.19-4:
Water Availability Report.
It is noted, none of the corrections or clarifications to the SCEA identified in this document constitute “significant new information” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. They do not involve changes in the Project or environmental setting, or significant additional data. They do not result in any new or substantially greater environmental impacts, as compared to those identified in the SCEA. Moreover, the revisions do not affect the SCEA’s overall conclusions.
3.1. Public Review Draft Sustainable Communities
Environmental Assessment
SCEA SECTION 2.4: AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
SCEA Page 13
The Applicant is requesting two four waivers from the following development standards:
SCEA SECTION 4.0: MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PRIOR EIRS
SCEA Page 95
The Project would implement the Project-specific mitigation measure MM NOI-1, which requires proper maintenance of construction equipment and installation of noise muffling devices to reduce construction noise to less than significant levels. Further, Conditions of approval will be added to incorporate items c), d), e), f), g), h), j)_, l) and o) and q). The other measures included in PMM NOISE-1 are determined to be inapplicable to the Project or duplicative of other measures that will be imposed as conditions of approval. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 3.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Revisions, Clarifications, and Modifications 15 May 2024
Regarding potential operational impacts on surrounding uses, the potential exterior noise would be consistent with the area and with the exterior noise standards detailed in GMC Section 8.36.040, Exterior Noise Standards. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the applicable requirements of PMM NOISE-1. Therefore, the City has determined that the Project’s substantially conforms through regulatory compliance and implementation of Project-specific mitigation measures (i.e., MM NOI-1) which are equal to or more effective than PMM NOISE-1.
SCEA Page 108-109
The Project would be estimated to increase wastewater generation by approximately 26,403 42,810 gallons per day (gpd), which comprises less than one percent of the available capacity of 163 156.9 million gpd at the WWRF.
SCEA Page 109
According to the Project’s Water Availability Report, the Project would increase water demands for the Project site by 33,466 53,062 gpd.
SCEA SECTION 6.9: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
SCEA Page 171-172
If the Subsurface Investigation Report concludes that the Project site still contains VOCs at a concentration exceeding DTSC’s Final Draft Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Guidance thresholds for residential uses, implementation of an engineering control (e.g., impermeable membrane or passive venting) would be required subject to LACFD HHMD City of Gardena Building Services Division review and approval (MM HAZ-5).
SCEA Page 176
If the soil vapor sampling concludes that after the source removal the Project site contains VOCs at a concentration exceeding DTSC’s Final Draft Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Guidance thresholds for residential uses, implementation of a registered design professional, such as a licensed civil engineer, shall recommend an engineering control (e.g., impermeable membrane or passive venting) would be required subject to approval by the LACFD HHMD to prevent concentrations of VOCs above DTSC’s established thresholds for residential uses. The Applicant shall show the impermeable membrane recommended engineering control on the Project’s building plans for, subject to review and approval by the City of Gardena Building Services Division. The Applicant shall be required to implement the recommended engineering control and, at the time of the final building inspection, the registered design professional shall furnish a signed statement attesting that the building or structure has been constructed in accordance with their recommendations to address the contaminated soil conditions. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 3.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Revisions, Clarifications, and Modifications 16 May 2024
SCEA SECTION 6.11: LAND USE AND PLANNING
SCEA Page 196
As concluded in Section 6.13: Noise, impacts associated with Project onsite construction activities would be significant and unavoidable despite the specified mitigation measures less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
SCEA SECTION 6.19: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
SCEA Page 237
As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
SCEA Page 238
The Project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 61,950 46,800 gallons per day (gpd), or an increase of approximately 26,403 42,810 gpd over existing conditions; see Table 6-28:
Estimated Project Wastewater Generation.
SCEA Page 238
The LACSD sewer main then flows east west towards the Gardena Pump where the Project’s wastewater would be conveyed to A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility (WWRF) for treatment.
SCEA Page 238
Table 6-28: Estimated Project Wastewater Generation
Land Use Dwelling Units Average Generation
Factor (gpd/DU)1
Total Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Apartments
55 Units – (Studio) 150 8,250
151 Units – ( 1-BR) 200 30,200
94 Units – (2-BR) 250 23,500
Residential
(5+ DU) 300 156 46,800
Total Project 61,950
46,800
Total Existing2 -35,547
-3,990
Net Project +26,403 (0.03 mgd)3
+42,810 (0.04)3
Note:
1 Based on the sewer wastewater generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works LACSD “Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use”.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 3.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Revisions, Clarifications, and Modifications 17 May 2024
Land Use Dwelling Units Average Generation
Factor (gpd/DU)1
Total Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
2 See Appendix 6.19-23. Note 1 cubic foot per second = 646,371 gallon per day. 3 mgd = million gallons per day SCEA Page 238
The Gardena Pump Sewer Trunk Sewer has an existing total capacity of 2.2 3.1 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 1.7 2.6 mgd (when last measured in 2017). Inclusive of the Project, the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer would convey a peak flow of 1.74 2.64 mgd, with a remaining capacity of 0.42 0.46 mgd. As such, sufficient capacity existing in the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer to serve the Project and County sewer lines would not need to be upsized to accommodate the Project.
SCEA Page 237
As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
SCEA Page 242
Table 6-1: Estimated Project Water Demand
Land Use Units Average Demand
Factor1
Total
Water Demand (gpd)
Proposed Water Demand
Apartments
55 DU – (Studio) 180 gpd/unit 9,900
151 DU – ( 1-BR) 240 gpd/unit 36,240
94 DU – (2-BR) 300 gpd/unit 28,200
Residential
(5+ DU) 300 DU 187.2 gpd/unit 56,160
Pool(s) 3,024 SF EPA Method3 514
Landscaping2 23,041 SF4 ETWU Method 1,176
Total Project (Residential) 76,030 (85 AFY)
57,850 (65 AFY)
Total Existing4 -42,564 (48 AFY)
-4,788 (5 AFY)
Net Project +33,466 (37 AFY)
+53,062 (59 AFY)
Note:
1 Based on 120% of the sewer wastewater generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works LACSD “Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use”. See Golden State Water Company 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Southwest Service Area, page 1-2. 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 3.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Revisions, Clarifications, and Modifications 18 May 2024
Land Use Units Average Demand
Factor1
Total
Water Demand (gpd)
2 See Appendix 6.19-24.
3 EPA published “Jump Into Pool Water Efficiency” estimates 31,000 gallons/500 SF of pool water per year (3,024 SF of pool/spa * 31,000 gallons/year = 187,488 gallons per year = 514 gpd). 4 Project’s planted area only.
4 Based on 120% of the existing land use wastewater consumption of 35,547 3,990 gpd.
SCEA Page 243
The Project’s increase in water demand of 33,466 53,062 gpd (37 59 AFY) represents approximately 2.2
3.5 percent of the UWMP’s forecast increase in demand between 2025 and 2045.
SCEA Page 243
As discussed above, the Project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 61,950 46,800 gpd, or approximately 26,403 42,810 gpd (0.03 0.04 mgd) over existing conditions; see Table 6-28.
The Project’s wastewater flow would be conveyed to the WWRF for treatment. The WWRF currently processes an average wastewater flow of 237 243.1 mgd and has a total permitted capacity of 400 mgd.
The Project’s estimated net wastewater generation of 26,403 42,810 gpd (0.03 0.04 mgd) ) comprises less than one percent of WWRF’s remaining available capacity of 163 156.9 mgd.74 74 (Total Permitted Capacity) – (Average Wastewater Flow) = Remaining Available Capacity; 400-237 243.1 = 163 156.9 mgd
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 4.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19 May 2024
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
4.1. Purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring/reporting procedures for mitigation adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor the mitigation measures (MMs) specified in the 1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project (Project) Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA). The Project MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Public Resources Code §21081.6 and City of Gardena (City) monitoring requirements. Specifically, Public Resources Code §21081.6 states:
(a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
State CEQA Guidelines §15097 clarifies mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and provides guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during Project implementation. The City is the Lead Agency for the Project and is therefore responsible for ensuring MMRP implementation. The MMRP has been drafted to meet Public Resources Code §21081.6 requirements as a fully enforceable monitoring program.
The MMRP is comprised of the Mitigation Program and includes measures to implement and monitor the Mitigation Program. The MMRP defines the following for each MM:
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 4.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 20 May 2024
• Definition of Mitigation. The Mitigation Measure contain the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation.
• Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated, an applicant would be the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Gardena or designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. • Time Frame. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation or the review of evidence that mitigation has taken place. The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impact-related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity.
The numbering system in the table corresponds with the SCEA’s numbering system. The MMRP table “Verification” column will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when the mitigation measure has been completed. The City will complete ongoing documentation and mitigation compliance monitoring. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City Community Development Department.
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 4.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 21 April 2024
MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING
MONITORING/
REPORTING METHODS
RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPROVAL/
MONITORING
VERIFICATION
DATE INITIALS
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of an
Archaeological Resource. Before ground disturbing
activities are initiated on the Project site, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Preconstruction Worker Training on the types of unanticipated resources that could be encountered
during construction, based on the site’s history. This
archaeologist may also be retained to ensure prompt
assessment in the event that unanticipated cultural
resources are encountered during construction.
If archaeological resources are exposed during
construction, work within 50 feet of the find must
stop until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the
significance of the find. Construction activities may
continue in other areas. If the discovery proves
significant under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5[f]; PRC
21082), additional work such as testing, or data
recovery may be warranted.
Prior to any ground
disturbance
During construction, if
an archaeological
resource is discovered
Notification to
construction personnel
Archaeological
Resource Evaluation
General Contractor
Qualified Archaeologist
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Monitor.
Monitoring shall be conducted by a Paleontological
Resources Monitor, defined as one who meets the
Society for Vertebrate Paleontology standards for a
Paleontological Resources Monitor. The
Paleontological Resources Monitor shall be under the
supervision of the Project Paleontologist. A Project
Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological
Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP).
As defined in the PRMMP, Paleontological monitoring
During ground
disturbance
Paleontological
Resources Monitoring
Paleontological Monitor
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 4.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 22 May 2024
MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING
MONITORING/
REPORTING METHODS
RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPROVAL/
MONITORING
VERIFICATION
DATE INITIALS
shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units
during active excavations within sensitive geologic
sediments that occur in previously undisturbed
sediment, which has been estimated as any portion of
the Project site where excavation exceeds 10 feet in
depth. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on
consultation with or periodic inspection by the Project Paleontologist and shall depend on the rate of
excavation and grading activities and the materials
being excavated.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1: Los Angeles County Fire Department
Approval. Prior to grading permit issuance, the
findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) for the Stein Project 1610 West Artesia
Boulevard, Gardena, CA 90248, Phase II ESA for 1610
West Artesia Boulevard, Gardena, California, and
Technical Memorandum/Vapor Intrusion Risk
Evaluation (VIRE) shall be reported to the Los Angeles
County Fire Department (LACFD) Health and
Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD), Site Mitigation
Unit (SMU) for review and recommendations. Any
recommendations from the LACFD HHMD SMU shall
be incorporated into the Project’s design.
Prior to grading permit
issuance
Report the Phase I ESA
and Phase II ESA
findings to the LACFD
HHMD SMU and
incorporate any
recommendations into
the Project’s design
City of Gardena
Community
Development Director
MM HAZ-2: Soil Management Plan. Prior to grading
permit issuance, the Applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a Soil
Management Plan (SMP) for the Project site. The SMP
shall include the LACFD’s recommendations (see MM
HAZ-1 above). The SMP shall establish procedures for
Prior to grading permit
issuance
Prepare a Soil
Management Plan
City of Gardena Building
Services Division
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 4.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 23 May 2024
MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING
MONITORING/
REPORTING METHODS
RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPROVAL/
MONITORING
VERIFICATION
DATE INITIALS
identification and management of impacted and clean
soil, segregation and management of impacted soil in
accordance with regulatory requirements,
transportation of impacted soil to an off-site disposal facility licensed to accept such soil, and identification and management of construction debris during
excavation, grading, and construction activities to be
completed at the Project site. The SMP shall be
submitted to the City of Gardena Building Services
Division for review and approval. The SMP shall
include the following:
• Procedures for identification, handling, reporting,
and removal of the hydraulic auto lifts and
clarifiers/underground storage tanks, piping,
dispensers or other underground storage tank
components that may be encountered.
• Health and safety measures for when performing
demolition, grading, or other construction
activities, which may include but are not limited
to, personal protective equipment and periodic
work breathing zone monitoring for volatile
organic compounds using a handheld organic
vapor analyzer in the event impacted soils are
encountered during excavation activities.
• A health risk assessment for any workers that may
come in contact with contaminated soil.
• A soil vapor sample work plan that outlines
potential soil vapor probe installation locations
and depths, and includes a requirement for a
qualified environmental consultant to compare
soil vapor sampling results collected both from the
Prepare a soil vapor
sample work plan
Qualified Environmental
Consultant
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 4.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 24 May 2024
MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING
MONITORING/
REPORTING METHODS
RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPROVAL/
MONITORING
VERIFICATION
DATE INITIALS
October 2022 Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment and after the excavation and removal
of soil down approximately 15 feet across the
Project site.
o The results of the soil vapor sampling
shall be presented to the City of Gardena
Building Services Division and Los
Angeles County Fire Department in a
Subsurface Investigation Report
prepared by a qualified environmental
consultant to the Los Angeles County
Fire Department (LACFD) Health and
Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD)
for review and approval.
Submit Subsurface
Investigation Report to
LACFD HHMD for
approval
Los Angeles County Fire
Department (LACFD)
Health and Hazardous
Materials Division
(HHMD)
MM HAZ-3: Hydraulic Lift Removal. Prior to
demolition permit issuance, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the City of Gardena Building Services
Division that a licensed contractor has been retained
to remove the hydraulic auto lifts to verify that
additional leakage of hydraulic fluid has not occurred
on the surface or below the slab. The Applicant shall
demonstrate to the City of Gardena Building Services
Division a qualified environmental professional has
been retained to conduct follow-up sampling to
confirm no contamination exists. If soil contamination
exists, the impacted soils shall be removed and
handled properly according to the Soil Management
Plan (see MM HAZ-2).
Prior to demolition
permit issuance
Proof of retention of
licensed contractor
Submit copy of followup soil sampling results
City of Gardena Building
Services Division
Licensed Contractor
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 4.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 25 May 2024
MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING
MONITORING/
REPORTING METHODS
RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPROVAL/
MONITORING
VERIFICATION
DATE INITIALS
MM HAZ-4: Underground Storage Tank Removal.
Prior to demolition permit issuance, the Applicant
shall demonstrate to the City of Gardena Building
Services Division that a licensed contractor authorized to remove the clarifiers/underground storage tanks
has been retained. The clarifiers/underground
storage tanks shall be pumped out and cleaned prior
to removal. The Applicant and licensed contractor
must obtain all permits required by the Los Angeles
County Public Works, Environmental Programs
Division (DPW EPD). The Applicant shall demonstrate
to the City of Gardena Building Services Division that
a qualified environmental professional has been
retained to conduct follow-up sampling to confirm if
any leaking occurred that caused soil contamination.
If soil contamination exists, then impacted soils shall be removed and handled properly according to the
Soil Management Plan (see MM HAZ-2).
Prior to demolition
permit issuance
Proof of retention of a
licensed contractor
Obtain Los Angeles
County DPW EPD
permits, as necessary
Submit copy of follow
up soil sampling
City of Gardena Building
Services Division
Project Applicant
Licensed Contractor
MM HAZ-5: Soil Vapor Sampling. Prior to building
permit issuance, soil vapor sampling shall be
conducted in accordance with the approved Soil
Management Plan (see MM HAZ-2) to assess the
effectiveness of the source removal (i.e., removal of
soil down to approximately 15 feet across the site).
The soil vapor sampling shall include soil vapor probes to evaluate the remaining soil vapor concentrations
below the parking garage. The soil vapor sampling
findings shall be documented in a Subsurface
Investigation Report that compares soil vapor
sampling results collected both from the October
2022 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and
Prior to building permit
issuance
Submit a Subsurface
Investigation Report
City of Gardena Building
Services Division and
Los Angeles County Fire
Department (LACFD)
Health and Hazardous
Materials Division
(HHMD)
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 4.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 26 May 2024
MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING
MONITORING/
REPORTING METHODS
RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPROVAL/
MONITORING
VERIFICATION
DATE INITIALS
after the excavation and removal of soil down
approximately 15 feet across the Project site. The
Subsurface Investigation Report shall be submitted to
the City of Gardena Building Services Division and Los
Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Health and
Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) for review and
approval.
If the soil vapor sampling concludes that after the
source removal, the Project site contains VOCs at a
concentration exceeding DTSC’s Final Draft
Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating
Vapor Intrusion Guidance thresholds for residential
uses, a registered design professional, such as a
licensed civil engineer, shall recommend an
engineering control (e.g., impermeable membrane or
passive venting) to prevent concentrations of VOCs
above DTSC’s established thresholds for residential
uses. The Applicant shall show the recommended
engineering control shall be included on the Project’s
building plans and subject to review and approval by
the City of Gardena Building Services Division. The
Applicant shall be required to implement the
recommended engineering control and, at the time of
the final building inspection, the registered design
professional shall furnish a signed statement attesting that the building or structure has been constructed in
accordance with their recommendations to address
the contaminated soil conditions.
If soil vapor sampling
concludes that after the
source removal the
Project site contains
VOCs at a concentration
exceeding DTSC’s
thresholds
At the time of final
building inspection
Verify impermeable
membrane on Project
building plans, if
required
Verify signed statement
that the building has
been constructed in
accordance with the
design professional’s
recommendation, if
required
City of Gardena Building
Services Division
Registered design
professional, as
required
1610 West Artesia Boulevard Project Section 4.0
Final Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 27 May 2024
MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING
MONITORING/
REPORTING METHODS
RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPROVAL/
MONITORING
VERIFICATION
DATE INITIALS
If the soil vapor sampling concludes that after the
source removal the Project site contains VOCs at a
concentration below DTSC’s Final Draft Supplemental
Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion
Guidance thresholds for residential uses, no further
action shall be required.
NOISE
MM NOI-1: Best Construction Methods. Prior to
issuance of any Demolition or Grading Permit, the City
of Gardena Public Works Department shall verify that
the Project plans and specifications include provisions that require best practice construction methods to be
used during Project construction to ensure that
ambient noise levels at analyzed sensitive receptors
are not elevated by more than 10 dBA Leq over the
measured ambient noise levels at 1608 Artesia Square
during any construction phase. Such methods may
include, but are not limited to:
• Placing advanced exhaust mufflers on internal
combustion engines for all noise-generating
construction equipment, and properly maintaining
equipment to assure that no additional noise, due
to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be
generated.
• Enclosing stationary noise-producing machinery
when operating.
Prior to issuance of any
demolition or grading
permit
Verification of
provisions that require
best practice
construction methods
to be used during
Project construction
City of Gardena Public
Works Department
Appendix $
&RPPHQW/HWWHUV
DOC 7169845.D05
March 6, 2024
Ref. DOC 7158452
VIA EMAIL [email protected]
Ms. Amanda Acuna, Senior Planner
City of Gardena
1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247
Dear Ms. Acuna:
Second Response to 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the subject project located in the City of Gardena on February 20, 2024. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 5.
Previous comments submitted by the Districts in correspondence dated May 3, 2023 (copy enclosed), to your agency, still apply to the subject project with the following updated information:
1. Section 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems, Impact Analysis 6.19aii subsection, page 238: The second paragraph stated that “Wastewater flow originating from the Project site would discharge to the six-inch lateral that connects from the Project site to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) sewer main trunk along Artesia Boulevard. The LACSD sewer main then flows east towards the Gardena Pump where the Project’s wastewater would be conveyed to A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility (WWRF) for treatment;”. Please note that the sewer main trunk along Artesia Boulevard flows west towards the Gardena Pumping Plant.
2. The project proponent is advised that the subject project is located less than half a mile from the District’s Gardena Pumping Plant, a publicly owned wastewater lift station that serves the local community.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2742, or [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Patricia Horsley
Environmental Planner
Facilities Planning Department
PLH:plh
Enclosure
DOC 6904741.D05 A Century of Service
May 3, 2023
Ref. DOC 6904716
Ms. Amanda Acuna, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Gardena
1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247
Dear Ms. Acuna:
Comment Letter for 1610 Artesia Boulevard Apartments
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received the email and plans for the subject project forwarded by your office on April 21, 2023. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundary of District No. 5. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:
1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge directly to the Districts’ Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer, located in Artesia Boulevard at Denker Avenue. The Districts’ 22.7–inch diameter lined trunk sewer has a capacity of 3.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 2.6 mgd when last measured in 2017. A 6-inch diameter or smaller direct connection to a Districts’ trunk sewer requires a Trunk Sewer Connection Permit issued by the Districts. An 8-inch diameter or larger direct connection to a Districts’ trunk sewer requires submittal of Sewer Plans for review and approval by the Districts. For additional information, please contact the Districts’ Engineering Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 1205.
2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 243.1 mgd.
3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project, described in the plans as 300 residential apartments, is 42,810 gallons per day, after all structures on the project site are demolished. For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater Program and Permits and select Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.
4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the Ms. Amanda Acuna 2 May 3, 2023
DOC 6904741.D05 A Century of Service
connection fee application procedure and fees, the developer should contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727.
5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise the developer that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the developer of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts’ facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2708 or at [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Donna J. Curry
Customer Service Specialist
Facilities Planning Department
DC:sw
cc: A. Schmidt
A. Howard
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 266-3562
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life
March 20, 2024
Amanda Acuna
City of Gardena
1700 W. 162nd St.
Gardena, CA 90247
RE: 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project: Draft
Sustainable Communities
Environmental Assessment (DSCEA)
Vic. LA-91/6.102, LA-110/9.694, LA405/14.217
SCH # 2024020743
GTS # 07-LA-2024-04463
Dear Amanda Acuna:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. The Project proposes to demolish the existing onsite commercial and industrial uses and in their place construct and operate a multi-family residential housing development with 300 apartment units (283 market rate units and 17 affordable units) in a six-story, podium apartment building.
Various apartment types (i.e., studios, and one- and two-bedroom units ranging from 515 SF to 1,280 SF) are proposed on levels two through six, with various amenities (i.e., two pools, a clubhouse, courtyard, fitness center, spa, golf lounge, and business center/leasing office) proposed on the podium level, and a lounge and deck on the roof.
The building’s proposed height is 84.5 feet. Additionally, the Project proposes approximately 49,701 SF of open space (approximately 19,597 SF of private open space and approximately 30,104 SF of common open space). The Project would be developed with 240 units at a base density of 70 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC), and 60 units considering a 25 percent density bonus, allowed for providing affordable housing in the amount of seven percent of the base density. Additionally, 507 onsite parking spaces in an on-grade parking garage with one subterranean level are proposed. Access to the Project site would be provided via one driveway on Artesia Boulevard. The City of Gardena is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The closest state facilities are SR-9, SR-110, and SR-405. After reviewing the project’s DSCEA, Caltrans has the following comments:
• Caltrans requests that the project documents include a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and a queuing analysis of the following locations to make sure that the turning lane storage lengths are adequate. If not, mitigation measures need to be implemented.
Amanda Acuna
March 20, 2024