feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. SAFER also joins in all other comments submitted in opposition to the Project and EIR, including comments submitted by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, the California Department of Transportation, and the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. SAFER reserves the right to further supplement this comment during the administrative process. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).) SAFER respectfully requests that the Commission refrain from recommending approval of the Project to the City Council until the EIR’s deficiencies are remedied and a revised EIR is circulated for public review and comment.
Sincerely,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP
ATTACHMENT 1
Via Email
March 27, 2024
Deryl Henderson, Chair
Stephen P. Langley, Vice-Chair
Jules Kanhan
Steve Sherman
Ronald Wright-Scherr
Planning and Envtl. Quality Commission
City of Gardena
1700 W. 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247
[email protected]
Amanda Acuna, Planner
Community Development Department
City of Gardena
1700 W. 162nd Street, Room 101
Gardena, CA 90247
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project EIR EA 20-21; GPA 3-21; ZC 4-21; ZTA 6-21; SP 1-21; SPR 11-21; VTM 4-21; DA 2-21
Hearing Date: April 2, 2024
To Chair Henderson, Vice-Chair Langley, Honorable Commissioners, and Ms. Acuna, This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living in/near the City of Gardena regarding the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project (EA 20-21; GPA 3-21; ZC 4-21; ZTA 6-21; SP 1- 21; SPR 11-21; VTM 4-21; DA 2-21) (“Project”) to be heard at the Commission’s April 2, 2024 meeting.
The Project proposes the demolition of 115,424 square feet of industrial uses and construction of 403 multi-family dwelling units, including 328 apartment units in one building and 75 townhome units in nine buildings, located at 16829, 16835, and 16907 South Normandie Avenue.
SAFER is concerned that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) (collectively, “EIR”) fail to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). SAFER respectfully requests that the Commission refrain from recommending approval of the Project until the EIR’s deficiencies are remedied and a revised EIR is circulated for public review and comment.
March 27, 2024
SAFER Comment
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
DISCUSSION
I. The EIR Relies on Improperly Deferred Mitigation.
An agency’s adoption of a mitigation measure for a significant environmental effect that merely states a “generalized goal” to mitigate a significant effect without committing to any specific criteria or standard of performance violates CEQA by improperly deferring the formulation and adoption of enforceable mitigation measures. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670.) Here, the City is improperly relying on deferred mitigation for the Project’s impacts from asbestos and soil contamination and, as a result, the EIR does not comply with CEQA.
According to the DEIR, the potential impacts from asbestos exposure during demolition will be mitigated by 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.
(DEIR, p. 4.6-22.) COA HAZ-1 only requires a future survey to determine the presence or absence of asbestos. There are no specific criteria or standards of performance in COA HAZ1 to address how the impacts of asbestos will be mitigated in the event that asbestos is detected prior to demolition. Without any such criteria or standards of performance, the City cannot rely on COA HAZ-1 to mitigate the Project’s asbestos impacts.
MM HAZ-1 similarly requires a future “Construction Management Plan” with no specific criteria or performance standards:
MM HAZ-1. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit for the onsite structures, a construction management plan addressing procedures and requirements for responding to disturbance of undocumented contaminated soil shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval.
(DEIR, p. 4.6-23.) MM HAZ-1 is improperly vague and only requires that a plan be submitted prior to demolition. MM HAZ-1 does not provide any criteria or performance standards for the plan. Instead, MM HAZ-1 only requires a future plan that will discuss the “procedures and requirements for responding to a disturbance of undocumented contaminated soil.”
March 27, 2024
SAFER Comment
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
CEQA is clear that the City may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it “recognizes the significance of the potential environmental effect, commits itself to mitigating its impact, and articulates specific performance criteria for the future mitigation.” (Gentry v. City of Murietta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1411.) Because COA HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-1 do not contain any specific performance criteria, those measures amount to improperly deferred mitigation. As a result, the EIR must be revised to include specific performance criteria for hazards.
II. The EIR Fails to Sufficiently Justify a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
As the City concedes, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts due to construction noise. Under CEQA, when an agency approves a project with significant environmental impacts that will not be fully mitigated, it must adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” finding that, because of the project’s overriding benefits, it is approving the project despite its environmental harm. (14 CCR § 15043; PRC § 21081(B); Sierra Club v. Contra Costa Cnty. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1222). A statement of overriding considerations expresses the “larger, more general reasons for approving the project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes and the like.” (Concerned Citizens of South Central LA v. Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 847).
A statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (14 CCR § 15093(b); Sierra Club v. Contra Costa Co. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1223.) The agency must make “a fully informed and publicly disclosed” decision that “specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.” (14 CCR § 15043(b)). As with all findings, the agency must present an explanation to supply the logical steps between the ultimate finding and the facts in the record. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.
County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515). Key among the findings that the lead agency must make is that:
“Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report…[and that those] benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.” (PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b).) The City must make specific findings, supported by substantial evidence, concerning both the environmental impacts of the Project, and the economic benefits including “the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers” created. However, the City fails to include any mention of the Project’s use of highly trained workers in the EIR or Staff Report.
March 27, 2024
SAFER Comment
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
In short, the City cannot support its conclusion that the economic benefits of the Project outweigh the environmental costs if it does not know what the economic benefits will be. A revised EIR, Fiscal Analysis and Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to provide this information. The analysis must analyze whether the Project will provide employment opportunities for highly trained workers during construction and operation, or whether employment opportunities will be only for low-paid, unskilled workers.
CONCLUSION
Due to improperly deferred mitigation for the impacts of hazards and hazardous materials and the failure to justify a statement of overriding considerations for the significant and unavoidable noise impacts, SAFER respectfully requests that the Commission refrain from recommending certification of the EIR. Instead, a revised EIR should be prepared and circulated for public review and comment prior to further consideration of the Project.
SAFER reserves the right to further supplement this comment during the administrative process. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).)
Sincerely,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP
Chair Deryl Henderson and Commissioners
Planning & Environmental Quality Commission
City of Gardena, Council Chamber at City Hall
1700 W. 162nd Street
Gardena, California 90247
TO: [email protected], [email protected] DATE: 12/3/2024
SUBJECT: Comment Letter for Gardena PEQC on Normandie Ave Project Dear Chair Henderson, Gardena Planning & Environmental Quality Commission, and City Staff, South Bay Forward is a volunteer-run advocacy organization that seeks to move the South Bay region forward on housing, transit, and active mobility. We are a local chapter of Abundant Housing LA, a grassroots nonprofit organization working to solve Southern California’s housing crisis. We envision a South Bay with abundant and affordable housing near good jobs with convenient, sustainable transportation.
We advocate for more housing of all types and for all income levels in the South Bay for a more inclusive, equitable, affordable, and sustainable community. We are actively monitoring housing proposals and tracking RHNA progress in our priority member cities of Torrance, Gardena, Redondo Beach, and Hermosa Beach and submitting letters accordingly. We mobilize support on a grassroots level and in coordination with pro-housing organizations working to address the local and statewide housing crisis. Locally, we remind you that the South Bay is the 3rd largest jobs center in LA County and suffers from a severe jobs-housing imbalance with the number of jobs far outweighing the availability of housing units. In high-opportunity and high cost-of-living areas like the South Bay, a greater supply of housing can bring down the cost of housing, as seen consistently in economic data and studies on the housing market. 1 Together with our active members and steering committee members based in Gardena, we are writing this letter to strongly urge you to approve the proposed project at 16831-16911 South Normandie Avenue (“Normandie Crossing”) without further delay. We remind the City that it is obligated to follow state law in processing housing applications which are consistent with applicable objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards. The denial in April stated in part, “the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan project is out of character with the community.” 2 We note that the “community character” of this land parcel at the present moment includes, in the City’s own description, a warehouse showing “extensive and/or severe physical blighting conditions that … [impair] the value of the existing use” of the site. 3 The proposed housing
3 City of Gardena Housing Element, 2021-2029, Readopted February 15, 2023, pg. 73 2 City of Gardena Resolution No. PC 6-24, 2 April 2024
1 https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/supply-skepticism-revisited-research-supply-affordability project continues to comply with all relevant building standards and addresses all comments raised by local regulatory agencies, and will revitalize these parcels of land.
The project provides much-needed infill housing units for over 300 households on a blighted industrial parcel with no residential displacements. The housing crisis facing our region is caused by a shortage in the supply of housing at all income levels. Our region is over a quarter million housing units short of the amount needed to meet the current demand. 4 In a jobs- and
resources-rich community like Gardena this housing project will provide much-needed options for people who live and work in the South Bay. This project includes a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments, as well as for-sale townhomes supplying different options for people in a wide range of life, income and family situations. Through the filtering effect, we know that those who move into new housing units usually reside within the same community, and that new units free up older housing stock in the community, allowing rents to stabilize or lower. 5 This
phenomenon is well-documented in places that have actively built new housing such as Austin and Minneapolis.
6 As residents and advocates, we support new housing in our community for multiple reasons.
This development will positively impact property and sales tax revenues in Gardena, providing additional revenue to the City for infrastructure and community improvements. Such improvements could include nearby Gardena Boulevard, which the City Council has expressed a desire to reinvigorate. Residents will frequent local businesses, especially those along Gardena and Artesia Boulevards, and add to deeper community ties in Gardena. Many of these business owners have already identified the new residents as being beneficial to their businesses and written in support of Normandie Crossing. The project includes secure bicycle parking for residents and pedestrian mobility enhancements on the sidewalks adjoining the site, allowing future residents the ability to safely walk to nearby restaurants like California Fish Grill, Aunties Cafe, or The Pan, or to pick up groceries at Sam’s Club by bike or cargo bicycle. The Planning Commission should look to enhance safe pedestrian and non-car mobility on Normandie Ave and Gardena Blvd to enhance mobility around the City as areas are redeveloped or streets repaved. We suggest requiring new development to include street improvements such as Class IV protected bike lanes, as seen with new mixed-use and housing development in Long Beach.
This can alleviate traffic concerns and create a citywide network of safe mobility lanes.
We also want to express our disappointment in the down-scoping of the original plan. The current Normandie Crossing plan before you has been reduced by 70 apartment units from the original 403-unit plan presented to the Planning Commission in March 2024. This number represents 70 fewer households that can live closer to their employer, in a safer neighborhood, or in a larger space than their current housing situation. The original plan also set aside 5% of the apartment units for lower-income residents, but this number has been reduced to less than half this amount in the amended plan, and now 13 fewer low-income families will have an option to rent a home in Gardena. By delaying the project by almost a full year, reducing the scope and 6 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/high-housing-costs-minneapolis-solution-rcna170857 5 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-061520.html 4 https://theangelenoproject.org/the-hard-facts/
compelling the developer to add costs with a subterranean parking garage as a result of the initial denial, the City has all but guaranteed the final rent prices of the apartment units and sale prices of the townhomes will be more expensive than under the original plan.
We also wish to remind you that the original project and 403 units was included in the City’s approved Housing Element as part of its future sites inventory. With the decreased number of units in the updated plan, the City will now have less of a buffer to meet its RHNA requirements and the upcoming mid-cycle review. Your role in the Planning Commission is to adequately plan for future housing and use opportunities such as this one to improve the vitality and fabric of the City. Every large development such as Normandie Crossing adds to our sorely needed housing stock and helps alleviate rising prices caused by the imbalance of housing supply and demand.
Every long delay, enforced downsizing, and increase in construction cost only serves to increase final market rents. For the benefit of its residents, current and future, the City of Gardena must approve this rezoning and development application and we ask that you recommend its approval to the City Council and consider mobility enhancements as described above.
South Bay Forward is a chapter of Abundant Housing L.A., a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization.
You may read more about our mission at www.southbayforward.org. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
South Bay Forward Steering Committee & Gardena Residents Brandon Smith, Gardena City Lead, Gardena Resident
Irvin Samuel, Gardena Resident
Chester Li, Gardena Resident
Hope Furukawa, Gardena Resident
Courtney Alicia Miles, Field Organizer, Gardena Resident Brianna Egan, Co-Chapter Lead, South Bay Forward
Matthew Lawrence, Co-Chapter Lead, South Bay Forward
From: Graham W. Jenkins
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment: 16911 Normandie
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 4:19:45 PM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Dear Councilmembers,
I write to you today to express my firm support for the proposed development on Normandie Avenue between 168th and 170th Streets. I am a homeowner in the 1600 at Artesia development, and frankly, have always wanted more neighbors. These additional housing units can help justify running more frequent transit and support even more businesses and density in the area, helping to turn the sad, auto-oriented blocks surrounding Artesia Blvd into a vibrant, walkable, dense community.
300 units of new housing is an invaluable addition to our community and state at a time when more than ever we must address the crippling regional housing crisis and develop more sustainable ways of living in the face of climate change.
Replacing the current use (and eyesore) of a dilapidated warehouse is a public service unto itself, and, coupled with the improvements to pedestrian walkability and bicycle access, adds tremendous value to the city. I hope it is only the first step in a citywide process of densification and homebuilding.
If I had my druthers this project would be far larger and even denser, but absent the overdue rewrite of Gardena's zoning code, this will do for the time being. I urge the council to take advantage of this opportunity and to approve the planned development unconditionally and without delay.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Graham W. Jenkins
1568 W Artesia Sq Unit C
Gardena, CA
RESOLUTION NO. 6683
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDENA,
CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MAKING CEQA FINDINGS RELATING TO THE
NORMANDIE CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED
ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE 5.25 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16829, 16835, and 16907 SOUTH NORMANDIE AVENUE AND LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES FOR THE 0.11 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
16964 BRIGHTON AVENUE AND THE 0.43 ACRE PROPERTY
LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE PROJECT SITE
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2021, 16911 Normandie Associates, LLC (“Developer”), filed an application for a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Plan (the “General Plan Amendment”), Specific Plan, Zone Change, Zoning Code Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Site Plan Review to develop a 273 unit apartment building and 76 townhome style units on a total of 5.25 acres located at 16829, 16835, and 16907 South Normandie Avenue (APN ## 6106-030-011, 6106-030-015, 6106-030- 016 - 6106-030-017) (the “Property); and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2022, Developer amended its project to develop a 328 unit apartment building and 75 townhomes on the Property; and WHEREAS, the City determined that in addition to the residential development and needed entitlements proposed by Developer, the project should also include revisions to the General Plan land use designations and zoning for two adjacent properties on the same block as the Project to match the actual uses of the properties. Specifically, for the property located at 16964 Brighton Avenue (APN # 6106-030-008), change the General Plan Amendment from Industrial to Single Family Residential and change the zoning from General Industrial (M-2) to Single Family Residential (R-1); and for the property just to the east of the Project site owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad (APN # 6106-030- 800), change the General Plan land use designation from Industrial to Public/Institutional and change the zoning from General Industrial (M-2) to Official (O); and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan, Zone Changes, Zoning Code Amendment, Development Agreement, Site Plan Review, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map are collectively referred to as the Project; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Gardena held a duly, noticed public hearing on the Project at which time it considered all evidence presented, both written and oral; and
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
2 WHEREAS, on April 2, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 4-24, recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), but did not recommend approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, after the Planning Commission’s actions, Developer attended a community meeting where the project was discussed; and
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024, Developer submitted revised plans to the City for a new alternative to be considered which consists of 70 fewer units in the apartment building and a reduction in height level from ground floor from seven stories to five stories, with one underground level of parking (hereafter the “Community Input Alternative;” and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, including revisions to the Final EIR to address the new Community Input Alternative submitted by the Developer; and WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Revised and Updated Final EIR, make CEQA findings regarding mitigation measures and alternatives, and adopt a statement of overriding considerations; and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time it also considered the EIR prepared for the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDENA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. CEQA Procedures. The City Council of the City of Gardena does hereby find as follows:
A. In December 2021, the City entered into a consultant agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare an EIR for the Project.
B. On June 23, 2022, a First Amendment to the consultant agreement was entered into to account for the change in the project description submitted by the applicant. The City entered into a number of other amendments to the consultant agreement and reimbursement agreement required of the Developer throughout the process.
C. A Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Draft EIR and the Initial Study (“IS”) was timely distributed and the public comment period on the NOP was from May 10, 2023 through June 9, 2023.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
3 D. On May 8, 2023, the City held a scoping meeting in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21083.9 and CEQA Guidelines § 15082(c).
E. The Draft EIR was made available for a 45-day public review period from December 4, 2023, through January 20, 2024. The Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was sent to a list of interested persons, agencies and organizations, adjacent property owners, and to anyone who had requested notice. The Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The DEIR and all the appendices were made available on the City’s website with directions to contact staff if help was needed in accessing the document.
F. Prior to the release of the DEIR and in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City sent notices to the list of Native American Tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Council. Only one tribe requested consultation: the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The City engaged in consultation and mitigation measures have been included in the EIR as a result of the consultation.
G. The City received and reviewed comments on the Draft EIR and prepared responses to those comments which were incorporated into that document entitled Final EIR and dated March 2024. The Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR and all Appendices thereto, incorporating the written comments and responses thereto, as well as the changes to the DEIR.
H. Prior to releasing the Final EIR dated March 2024, the applicant submitted changes to the previous Project plans that were primarily required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Southern California Edison. The changes do not modify the total number of units or impacts associated with the Project. Instead, the changes primarily have to do with reductions in open space and landscaped area, size of the townhome units, and layout of the amenity space in the townhome area.
I. Responses were sent to the public agencies that commented on the DEIR and the Final EIR was made available for public review on March 13, 2024.
J. None of the comments received or the changes submitted resulted in any changes that necessitated recirculation of the DEIR. The comments did not disclose any significant information. The changes in the plans did not lead to any new or different impacts. The changes made to the document merely clarify/amplify and make insignificant modifications to the DEIR.
K. After Developer submitted plans for the Community Input Alternative, the City’s Consultant provided an analysis of this alternative. The analysis showed that there Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
4 would be no new significant impacts, no increase in the severity of any identified significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures that would be required.
L. City, through its Consultant, prepared a Revised and Updated Final EIR dated November 2024. This document amended the previous Final EIR in part by including a thorough analysis of the Community Input Alternative and responding to all comments that had been received after the close of the public comment period on the DEIR.
M. Although not required by law, the Revised and Updated Final EIR was sent to public agencies who responded to the DEIR on November 22, 2024.
N. The City has complied with all procedural requirements relating to CEQA and other requirements of law. The Revised and Updated Final EIR is adequate and complete and complies with all CEQA requirements.
O. After the Planning Commission hearing, the City received a number of additional comment letters. None of the comments raised any new issues or provided any new information and there was no need fur further revisions to the Revised and Updated Final EIR
P. In certifying the Revised and Updated Final EIR, adopting the Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the City Council has exercised its independent judgement and analysis. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Revised and Updated Final EIR, agenda reports, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record and reviewed this information prior to acting upon the Project.
SECTION 2. CEQA Findings Regarding Impacts.
A. An Initial Study was prepared for the Project which determined that a number of topics were not required to be discussed in the EIR.
B. Despite the findings of the Initial Study, the EIR examined two topics under aesthetics (conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and creation of a new source of light or glare), as well as hydrology and water quality with respect to a decrease in groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (see Impact 4.7-2).
C. The City Council finds that the topics listed in Section 7.0 of the EIR of Effects Found Not to Be Significant did not require any further analysis.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
5 D. The impacts that are analyzed in the EIR are discussed in detail in Sections
4.1 through 4.16 and summarized in Section ES.8 of the Draft EIR and identified therein as less than significant, less than significant after mitigation, and significant even after mitigation. Project Design Features (PDFs) were incorporated into the analysis under the topics of Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation. The following is a summary of the mitigation measures and impacts which are all fully described in the EIR.
E. The EIR identifies the below topic areas as significant, but to be mitigated below a level of significance.
1. Under Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, it was determined that the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource and cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, and TCR-1 through TCR-3, will mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, under Cultural Resources it was determined that the Project could disturb human remains, but Mitigation Measure TCR-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant as well.
2. Under Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources it was determined that the Project could destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature. Standard conditions of approval, along with Mitigation Measure GEO-1, requiring a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, monitoring by a Paleontological Monitor, and assessment by the Paleontologist if fossils are discovered will reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
3. Under Hazardous Materials and Wastes, it was determined that the Project could create a significant hazard through a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Mitigation Measures HAZ 1 requiring a construction management plan to be submitted to the City addressing procedures and requirements for responding to disturbances of undocumented contaminated soil will mitigate those impacts below a level of significance and HAZ 2 requiring the installation of an impermeable vapor membrane under the slab areas, along with standard conditions of approval relating to asbestos and lead-based paint, will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
4. Under Noise, it was determined that the Project could result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Mitigation Measure NOE3 which requires that large construction equipment be used a minimum of 45 feet away from the house at 16964 Brighton Avenue will mitigate this impact to less than significant.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
6 5. Under Tribal Cultural Resources, it was determined that the project could potentially result in significant impacts. The City consulted with the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and in accordance with such consultation is imposing Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through TCR-3, which will mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level.
6. The construction of the utilities associated with the project would have potentially significant impacts under the impact areas described above, as well as construction noise describe below. The mitigation measures listed above and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 described below will reduce these impacts to less than significant, except for construction noise.
F. Construction noise, which takes place during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, is exempt from the City’s noise standards. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the EIR identified construction noise as a significant impact. The only impact which cannot be mitigated below a level of significance is the construction noise associated with the Project. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires power construction equipment to be equipped with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices and to be properly maintained. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 requires a temporary and impermeable sound barrier of at least 10 feet that reduces noise by at least 12dB(A). Even with these measures, construction noise could be significant and unavoidable.
SECTION 3. Alternatives.
A. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR examined four alternatives to the Project. Three of the Alternatives are discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the EIR and summarized in Section ES.6. The fourth alternative was analyzed in the Revised and Updated Final EIR.
B. The purpose of looking at alternatives is to try and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project while still attaining most of the basic objectives. As discussed in Section 3 above, the only impact of the Project that could not be reduced to a less than significant level is construction noise.
1. The No Project/No Construction Alternative would retain the Project site in its current condition with decades-old buildings on site which does not conform to current development standards. This alternative does not implement any of the Project’s improvements and would not meet any of the Project’s objectives.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
7 2. The No Project/Existing Land Use Designation Alternative provides for the site to be redeveloped in accordance with its current General Plan and zoning designation, which is for industrial purposes. This alternative involves the demolition of the existing buildings and construction up to 228,690 square feet of new industrial uses within an industrial business park. Redevelopment of the site in this manner would still cause significant and unavoidable noise impacts and the alternative would not meet any of the Project’s objectives.
3. The Reduced Density Alternative would still develop the 75 townhomes along the western and southern borders of the Project site, but would reduce the number of units in the apartment building from 328 to 192 and reduce the height to five stories. This alternative would still have significant and unavoidable noise impacts and would not provide any affordable housing.
4. The Community Input Alternative would also still develop the 75 townhomes along the western and southern borders of the Project site, but there is now increased guest parking that has been added and the driveway access along 170th Street has been realigned so as to avoid any problem with lights shining into the homes across 170th Street. Additionally, the number of apartment buildings has been reduced by 70 units and the height of the project was reduced by 20 feet to a maximum of 70 feet. The overall density is reduced from 77 units per acre to 63 units per acre. This alternative will include seven moderate units for the apartment building. While the number of units is reduced by 70 units, the number of parking spaces is only reduced by 12 spaces and 29 guest parking spaces have been added. There will still be significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts.
C. An EIR is supposed to identify alternatives that were considered for analysis, but rejected. The only impact that was significant and could not be mitigated was construction noise. As demolition of the existing buildings will create a significant and unavoidable noise impact, the only way to avoid this impact would be to reuse the buildings, which is not feasible for a residential development. An alternative site was considered but rejected because the applicant does not have an interest in any alternative site in the City which is not also the subject of a development application.
D. CEQA requires an identification of the environmentally superior alternative and if that alternative is one of the No Project alternatives, then an identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. In this case the No Project/No Construction alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, although it is noted that it will leave the Property in a blighted condition. Among the other alternatives, the reduced density alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.
However, while construction noise impacts would be reduced, the impact would still be Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
8 significant and unavoidable and the developer would not be able to provide any affordable housing.
SECTION 4. CEQA Section 15091 Findings.
CEQA Section 15091 provides that the City shall not approve a project when there are significant environmental effects unless certain findings are made. In accordance with Section 15091, the City Council makes the following findings:
A. The applicant has incorporated Project Design Features into the Project which will help avoid impacts relating to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation.
B. Mitigation Measures will be imposed on the Project which will reduce the impacts to cultural resources, geology, soils, and paleontological resources, hazardous materials and wastes, noise impacts relating to groundborne vibration, tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels.
C. Mitigation Measures will be imposed to reduce construction noise impacts, but the impact will still remain significant. There is no alternative that would both eliminate the significant construction noise impact and achieve the objectives of the Project.
D. The Reduced Density alternative would achieve most of the objectives, but would still have significant construction noise and would eliminate 20 affordable units for lower income families that the project will provide. Social and economic justifications lead the City Council to reject this alternative.
1. The Reduced Density alternative would reduce the amount of housing available in the City. The City received a final Regional Housing Needs Allocation from SCAG for a total of 5,735 housing units for the period of 2021 – 2029; the City’s previous allocation was 397 units. The allocation was broken down as follows: abovemoderate units -2,595; moderate units – 894; low income units – 761; and very low income units – 1,485. The Reduced Density alternative will cause a loss of 136 units, including 20 units for lower income households. Although only a portion of the Project Site was identified as a Housing Inventory Site, the entire Project of 403 was included in the Housing Element as a credit against future needs.
2. The Reduced Density alternative would not bring the same level of economic benefits to the City. A reduction in size would reduce the both the one-time economic impacts as construction time would be reduced and would also reduce the recurring economic impacts from the Project as proposed.
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
9 E. The two No Project alternatives would not achieve any of the project objectives or provide the housing and economic benefits of the Project.
F. The Community Input Alternative responds to the objections raised by the community regarding parking, height and density and provides seven moderate income units; this is a housing income-category that has not previously been provided for anywhere in the City.
SECTION 5. CEQA Section 15093 Findings. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
CEQA requires decisionmakers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This statement sets forth the project benefits or reasons why the City Council is in favor of approving the Project, and weighs these benefits against the Project's environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant as identified in the Revised and Updated Final EIR. In adopting this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds that while all of these benefits are important, each benefit on its own supports a sufficient reason why the benefits outweigh the significant impacts, of which only one cannot be mitigated below a level of significance and that impact is temporary in nature (construction noise).
A. As identified above, the City’s final RHNA allocation for the 6th Cycle of the Housing Element is 5,735 units, with 2,595 units being allocated to the above-moderate income level and 2,246 units allocated to lower income units. This Community Input Alternative Project will satisfy approximately 10 percent of the City’s above-moderate allocation and provide seven moderate income units.
B. The Project will help revitalize a site that does not meet current development standards and whose buildings are in a deteriorated condition.
C. The Project will provide the following one-time economic benefits from the construction:
1. The Project will provide numerous construction jobs amounting to the equivalent of 1,580 total job years. As the Project includes a commitment from the developer to implement a local hiring policy, this will benefit lower income individuals and individuals who live in the City. Additionally, there will be an indirect benefit of additional jobs created because of the construction jobs, amounting to approximately another 414 job years; and
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
10 2. Construction is expected to create approximately $109 million in total labor income, due to direct, indirect, and induced workers associate with the construction. Of that, $80.9 million is projected to be paid to onsite construction employees, providing individuals with additional income to spend on services and goods in Gardena; and
3. The principles of Developer also own Tasoro, a company which provides quality building materials for apartments and is located in Gardena. Use of these products will provide sales tax revenue to the City. Additionally, the Development Agreement provides for a local buying program for construction goods as well as a local hire program; and
4. Developer will pay in-lieu park fees under the Subdivision Map Act of $10,000 per unit on the 75 condominium units; and
5. Developer will provide one-time construction-related revenues totaling over $3 million, including construction fees, development impact fees, and sales tax from construction materials; and
6. Each contractor that does business in the City will be required to obtain and pay for a City business license.
D. The Project will provide the following recurring annual revenues to the City:
1. The creation of approximately 73 jobs per year which includes 47 direct onsite jobs, plus indirect and induced jobs created in the local economy by residential spending; and
2. Economic output associated with operations of approximately $12.6 million per year in the local economy, of which $7.1 million is attributable to the value of direct project operations and household spending; and
3. Over $455,538 in revenues per year, $444,938 larger than the estimated revenues generated by the current use at the Property. This includes sales tax, property tax, utility tax, and other revenues generated from the new residential units.
E. Adding new residents to the City will create more residential spending in the City from people eating at local restaurants, shopping in Gardena, and using services in Gardena and will therefore help existing businesses and encourage new businesses.
F. The Project will help encourage people to use alternate means of transportation by providing one-month free transit passes to persons who sign a oneyear lease.
G. The Project will provide off-site safety improvements by providing sidewalks Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
11 along 169th street where there currently are none.
H. The Project will provide safety improvements by upgrading the railway crossing and sidewalks in front of the Project site along Normandie Avenue.
SECTION 6. Certification. Based on the above, the City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project attached hereto has Exhibits A (Draft EIR) and B (Revised Final and Updated EIR) and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C.
SECTION 7. Custodian of Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information in the findings which precede this section are based on the entire record.
The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings and approval are based are located in the Community Development Department at City Hall, 1700 W. 162nd Street, Gardena, California 90247. The Custodian of Records is Greg Tsujiuchi, Community Development Director who can be reached at 310/217-9546 or [email protected].
SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage of this resolution.
SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately.
Passed, approved, and adopted this ____ day of ______, 2025.
TASHA CERDA, Mayor
ATTEST:
14 January
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
12 MINA SEMENZA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CARMEN VASQUEZ, City Attorney
Exhibit A – Draft EIR, dated December 2023
Exhibit B – Revised and Updated Final EIR, dated November 2024 Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
13 Exhibit A – Draft EIR, dated December 2023
CLICK HERE to view
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
14 Exhibit B – Revised and Updated Final EIR,
dated November 2024
CLICK HERE to view
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Resolution No. 6683
EA # 20-21; SCH #2023050241
15 Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
Docusign Envelope ID: 3F1E63C0-D87C-46A0-9802-393F955A8AF5 DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH # 2023050241
NORMANDIE CROSSING
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
LEAD AGENCY
CITY OF GARDENA
Greg Tsujiuchi - Community Development Director
Amanda Acuna – Senior Planner
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 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
714.786.6116
DECEMBER 2023
1 NEXTGEN
SAIKO INVESTMENT CORP. APARTM ENTS
Kimley>>> Horn
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page i December 2023
Table of Contents
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ES-1 ES.1 Introduction....................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Project Location and Setting ...........................................................................ES-1 ES.3 Project Characteristics Summary.....................................................................ES-2 ES.4 Project Objectives...........................................................................................ES-3 ES.5 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .....................................................................ES-4 ES.6 Alternatives to the Project ..............................................................................ES-4 ES.7 Areas of Controversy.......................................................................................ES-5 ES.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................ES-6
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose of the EIR.............................................................................................1-1
1.2 Compliance with CEQA......................................................................................1-2
1.3 Scope of the Environmental Impact Report.......................................................1-3
1.3.1 Initial Study ...........................................................................................1-3
1.3.2 Notice of Preparation ............................................................................1-3
1.3.3 Scoping Meeting....................................................................................1-7
1.3.4 Scope and Focus of EIR ..........................................................................1-7
1.4 Public Review - Compliance with CEQA .............................................................1-8
1.4.1 Public Review of Draft EIR......................................................................1-8
1.4.2 Final EIR.................................................................................................1-9
1.4.3 Certification of Final EIR ........................................................................1-9
1.4.4 Project Considerations.........................................................................1-10
1.5 Format of the EIR ............................................................................................1-10
1.6 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ..................................................................1-11
1.6.1 Lead Agency ........................................................................................1-11
1.6.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies.......................................................1-11 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page ii December 2023
1.7 Incorporation by Reference.............................................................................1-12
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Environmental Setting.......................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Onsite Land Uses...................................................................................2-2
2.2.2 Existing General Plan and Zoning ...........................................................2-7
2.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses........................................................................2-10
2.3 Project Characteristics......................................................................................2-11
2.3.1 Project Overview.................................................................................2-11
2.3.2 Land Use Plan......................................................................................2-11
2.3.3 Utilities and Infrastructure...................................................................2-17
2.3.4 Development Regulations and Requirements......................................2-18
2.3.5 Implementation...................................................................................2-19
2.4.6 Offsite Improvements and Entitlements..............................................2-19
2.4 Project Construction Activities and Phasing ......................................................2-16
2.5 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................2-16
2.6 Agreements, Permits, and Approvals ..............................................................2-17
3.0 BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS .................................................................................3-1
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Cumulative Projects List....................................................................................3-3
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .........................................................................................4-1
4.1 AIR QUALITY...................................................................................................4.1-1
4.1.1 Existing Setting ..................................................................................4.1-1
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................4.1-6
4.1.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.1-11
4.1.4 Project Design Features....................................................................4.1-12
4.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.1-12
4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.1-22 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page iii December 2023
4.1.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................4.1-23
4.1.8 References .......................................................................................4.1-23
4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES...................................................................................4.2-1
4.2.1 Cultural Resources Terminology and Concepts ...................................4.2-1
4.2.2 Existing Setting ...................................................................................4.2-3
4.2.3 Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................4.2-8
4.2.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.2-13
4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.2-13
4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.2-19
4.2.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................4.2-20
4.2.8 References .......................................................................................4.2-20
4.3 ENERGY..........................................................................................................4.3-1
4.3.1 Existing Setting ...................................................................................4.3-1
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................4.3-5
4.3.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds ...................................................4.3-8
4.3.4 Project Design Features......................................................................4.3-9
4.3.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.3-10
4.3.6 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.4-14
4.3.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................4.4-15
4.3.8 References .......................................................................................4.4-15
4.4 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................4.4-1
4.4.1 Existing Setting ...................................................................................4.4-1
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................4.4-2
4.4.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds ...................................................4.4-4
4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................4.4-5
4.4.5 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................4.4-7
4.4.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.........................................................4.4-7
4.4.7 References .........................................................................................4.4-7 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page iv December 2023
4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................................4.5-1
4.5.1 Existing Setting ...................................................................................4.5-1
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................4.5-3
4.5.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.5-17
4.5.4 Methodology and Assumptions........................................................4.5-19
4.5.5 Project Design Features....................................................................4.5-25
4.5.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.5-26
4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.5-40
4.5.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................4.5-41
4.5.9 References .......................................................................................4.5-41
4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................4.6-1
4.6.1. Existing Setting ...................................................................................4.6-2
4.6.2. Regulatory Setting ............................................................................4.6-12
4.6.3. Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.6-19
4.6.4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.6-20
4.6.5. Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.6-23
4.6.6. Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................4.6-25
4.6.7. References .......................................................................................4.6-25
4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY................................................................4.7-1
4.7.1 Existing Setting ...................................................................................4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................4.7-5
4.7.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.7-11
4.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.7-12
4.7.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.7-20
4.7.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................4.7-22
4.7.7 References .......................................................................................4.7-22
4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................4.8-1
4.8.1 Existing Setting ...................................................................................4.8-1 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page v December 2023
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................4.8-5
4.8.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds ...................................................4.8-9
4.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.8-10
4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.8-22
4.8.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................4.8-23
4.8.7 References .......................................................................................4.8-23
4.9 NOISE.............................................................................................................4.9-1
4.9.1 Existing Setting ...................................................................................4.9-1
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................4.9-9
4.9.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.9-12
4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.9-14
4.9.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.9-25
4.9.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................4.9-27
4.9.7 References .......................................................................................4.9-27
4.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................4.10-1
4.10.1 Existing Setting .................................................................................4.10-1
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................4.10-5
4.10.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.10-9
4.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.10-9
4.10.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................4.10-15
4.10.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................4.10-16
4.10.7 References .....................................................................................4.10-16
4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES..........................................................................................4.11-1
4.11.1 Existing Setting .................................................................................4.11-1
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................4.11-3
4.11.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.11-5
4.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.11-6
4.11.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................4.11-10 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page vi December 2023
4.11.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................4.11-11
4.11.7 References .....................................................................................4.11-11
4.12 RECREATION ................................................................................................4.12-1
4.12.1 Existing Setting .................................................................................4.12-1
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................4.12-2
4.12.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.12-4
4.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.12-5
4.12.5 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.12-7
4.12.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................4.12-7
4.12.7 References .......................................................................................4.12-8
4.13 TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................4.13-1
4.13.1 Existing Setting .................................................................................4.13-1
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................4.13-4
4.13.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.13-8
4.13.4 Project Design Features....................................................................4.13-8
4.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................4.13-9
4.13.6 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................4.13-17
4.13.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................4.13-19
4.13.8 References .....................................................................................4.13-19
4.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.....................................................................4.14-1
4.14.1 Existing Setting .................................................................................4.14-1
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................4.14-5
4.14.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.14-8
4.14.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................4.14-10
4.14.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................4.14-17
4.14.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................4.14-18
4.14.7 References .....................................................................................4.14-18
4.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................4.15-1 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page vii December 2023
4.15.1 Existing Setting .................................................................................4.15-1
4.15.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................4.15-8
4.15.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds ...............................................4.15-23
4.15.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................4.15-24
4.15.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................4.15-33
4.15.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................4.15-35
4.15.7 References .....................................................................................4.15-35
4.16 AESTHETICS..................................................................................................4.16-1
4.15.1 Visual Terminology and Concepts.....................................................4.16-1
4.15.2 Existing Setting .................................................................................4.16-3
4.15.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................4.16-5
4.15.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................4.16-8
4.15.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................4.16-10
4.15.6 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................4.16-12
4.15.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................4.16-13
4.15.8 References .....................................................................................4.16-13
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................5-1
5.1 Any Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Mitigated ...................5-1
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes that Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented .....................................................5-1
5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts..................................................................................5-2
5.4 Mandatory Findings of Significance...................................................................5-4
6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................6-1
6.1 Project Summary...............................................................................................6-2
6.2 Project Objectives.............................................................................................6-2
6.3 Project Impacts ................................................................................................6-3
6.4 Project Alternatives...........................................................................................6-4
6.5 Alternatives to be Considered, but Rejected ...................................................6-33 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page viii December 2023
6.6 “Environmentally Superior” Alternative ..........................................................6-33
7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT.....................................................................7-1
7.1 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................7-1
7.2 Agriculture and Forestry ...................................................................................7-2
7.3 Biological Resources..........................................................................................7-3
7.4 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................7-5
7.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.....................................................................7-8
7.6 Hydrology and Water Quality..........................................................................7-11
7.7 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................7-11
7.8 Mineral Resources ..........................................................................................7-12
7.9 Noise...............................................................................................................7-12
7.10 Population and Housing ..................................................................................7-12
7.11 Wildfire...........................................................................................................7-13
8.0 LIST OF PREPAPERS.......................................................................................................8-1
8.1 Lead Agency......................................................................................................8-1
8.2 Applicant...........................................................................................................8-1
8.3 Lead Consultant ................................................................................................8-1
8.4 Technical Consultants .......................................................................................8-2 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page ix December 2023
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval…… ............................................................................................................................................ .ES-7 Table 1.3-1: Summary of Comments on Notice of Preparation .............................................…1-3 Table 2-1: Existing Onsite Structure Summary…………………………………………………………………..……2-2 Table 2-2: Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning .........................................................…2-7 Table 2-3: Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning ...................................................................... .2-10 Table 2-4: Land Use Summary - Proposed Project ................................................................ .2-15 Table 2-5: Land Use Summary – Proposed Apartment Building ............................................ .2-16 Table 2-6: Land Use Summary – Proposed Townhomes........................................................ .2-17 Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects...................................................................................…3-4 Table 3-2: Geographic Context for Cumulative Analysis………………………………………………………….3-6 Table 4.1-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns................................. 4.1-2 Table 4.1-2: Maximum Daily Net Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates For Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 4.1-6 Table 4.1-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................................. 4.1-9 Table 4.1-4: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds………………4.1-11 Table 4.1-5: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions……………………………………………………………...4.1-15 Table 4.1-6: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions……………………………………………………………….4.1-16 Table 4.1-7: Localized Significance Of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4.1-18 Table 4.1-8: Maximum Residential Receptor and Carcinogenic Risk…………………………………..4.1-20 Table 4.2-1: Onsite Land Use Characteristics........................................................................ 4.2-5 Table 4.3-1: California’s Total Energy Usage 2020 ................................................................ 4.3-3 Table 4.3-2: Electricity Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011-2021 ............................... 4.3-4 Table 4.3-3: Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011-2021 ............................ 4.3-4 Table 4.3-4: Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011-2021..................... 4.3-5 Table 4.3-5: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption………………………………………..……..4.3-10 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page x December 2023
Table 4.5-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases..................................................................... 4.5-2 Table 4.5-2: Summary of Construction GHG Emissions……………………………………………………...4.5-27 Table 4.5-3: Summary of Operational GHG Emissions………………………………………………..………4.5-28 Table 4.5-4: City of Gardena Climate Action Plan Analysis………………………………………………….4.5-30 Table 4.5-5: RTP/SCS Goals Analysis…………………………………………………………………....…………….4.5-33 Table 4.5-6: RTP/SCS Guiding Principles Analysis……………………………………..………………………..4.5-35 Table 4.5-7: CARB Scoping Plan Analysis……………………………………………………………………....…..4.5-38 Table 4.6-1: Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Noted at Northern Portion of Project Site………………………………………………..…………………………………..……………………………………4.6-4 Table 4.7-1: Dominguez Channel List of 303(d) Impairments and TDML’s............................. 4.7-2 Table 4.7-2: Existing Conditions Hydrology........................................................................... 4.7-3 Table 4.7-3: Potential Pollutants………………………………………………………..………….…………..……..4.7-14 Table 4.7-4: Existing Versus Proposed Drainage Conditions……………………………………………….4.7-18 Table 4.8-1: Existing Onsite Land Uses.................................................................................. 4.8-2 Table 4.8-2: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations .................................................... 4.8-8 Table 4.8-3: Existing Zoning.................................................................................................. 4.8-9 Table 4.8-4: Gardena General Plan 2006 Analysis………………………………………………………………4.8-11 Table 4.9-1: Offsite Roadway Traffic Noise Levels – Existing Conditions ............................... 4.9-4 Table 4.9-2: Existing Ambient Noise Levels........................................................................... 4.9-5 Table 4.9-3: Gardena Noise and Land Use Compatibility…………………………………………..……….4.9-10 Table 4.9-4: Gardena Allowable Exterior Noise Levels…………………………………………………….….4.9-11 Table 4.9-5: Construction Equipment Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4.9-15 Table 4.9-6: Estimated Construction Noise Levels………………………………………………………………4.9-16 Table 4.9-7: Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels………………………………………………..4.9-18 Table 4.9-8: Outdoor Activity Noise Levels…………………………………………………………………………4.9-19 Table 4.9-9: Parking Facility Noise Levels………………………………………………………………………….4.9-20 Table 4.9-10: Offsite Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts………………………………………………………….4.9-21 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page xi December 2023
Table 4.9-11: Composite Noise Impacts……………………………………………………………..……………..4.9-22 Table 4.9-12: Construction Vibration Impacts – Human Annoyance…………………………………..4.9-24 Table 4.9-13: Construction Vibration Impacts – Building Damage………………………………………4.9-25 Table 4.10-1: Population, 2023-2045................................................................................. .4.10-1 Table 4.10-2: Dwelling Units and Households, 2023-2045 ................................................. .4.10-2 Table 4.10-3: Housing, 2023.............................................................................................. .4.10-3 Table 4.10-4: Employment, 2019-2045.............................................................................. .4.10-4 Table 4.10-5: Jobs to Housing Ratio................................................................................... .4.10-5 Table 4.10-6: City of Gardena RHNA Allocation ................................................................. .4.10-8 Table 4.10-7: Existing Plus Project Growth Forecast…………………………………………………………4.10-11 Table 4.10-8: General Plan Buildout Plus Project Growth Forecasts………………………………...4.10-12 Table 4.10-9: SCAG RTP/SCS 2045 Plus Project Growth Forecast……………………………………..4.10-14 Table 4.10-10: Existing Plus Cumulative Growth Forecast………………………………………………..4.10-15 Table 4.10-11: SCAG RTP/SCS 2045 Plus Cumulative Growth Forecast…………………………….4.10-16 Table 4.11-1: Fire Stations Serving the Project Site............................................................ .4.11-1 Table 4.11-2: LAUSD School Facilities................................................................................ .4.11-2 Table 4.11-3: Project Forecast Student Generation ........................................................... .4.11-8 Table 4.11-4: Project Forecast Student Generation by School ........................................... .4.11-9 Table 4.12-1: Parks and Recreational Facilities in Gardena ................................................ .4.12-1 Table 4.13-1: Baseline Regional VMT and City of Gardena VMT Impact Thresholds…………4.13-12 Table 4.13-2: VMT Screening Options for Land Use Projects…………………………………………….4.13-14 Table 4.15-1: Estimated Existing Water Demand............................................................... .4.15-3 Table 4.15-2: Normal and Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Through 2045 (AFY)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4.15-4 Table 4.15-3: Five Consecutive Dry Years Water Supply and Demand Through 2045 (AFY)………….. .............................................................................................................................. .4.15-4 Table 4.15-4: Estimated Existing Wastewater Generation ................................................. .4.15-6 Table 4.15-5: Estimated Existing Electrical Demand........................................................... .4.15-7 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page xii December 2023
Table 4.15-6: Estimated Existing Natural Gas Usage .......................................................... .4.15-7 Table 4.15-7: Estimated Project Wastewater Generation…………………………………………………4.15-25 Table 4.15-8: Estimated Project Electric Power Demand………………………………………………….4.15-28 Table 4.15-9: Estimated Project Water Demand………………………………………………………………4.15-30 Table 6-1: Comparison Between Proposed Project and No Project/Existing Land Use Designation Alternative.....................................................................................................….6-14 Table 6-2: Comparison Between Proposed Project and Reduced Density Alternative........….6-24 Table 6-3: Comparison of Alternatives...............................................................................….6-35 Table 6-4: Alternatives Ability to Meet Project Objectives.................................................….6-36
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1: Regional Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................2-3 Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map................................................................................................2-5 Exhibit 2-3: Zoning Map..........................................................................................................2-8 Exhibit 2-4: Conceptual Site Plan ..........................................................................................2-13 Exhibit 3-1: Cumulative Project Locations...............................................................................3-7 Exhibit 4.8-1: Existing Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses......................................................4.8-8 Exhibit 4.9-1: Receptor Locations..........................................................................................4.9-7
APPENDICES (PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
Appendix 1.0-1: Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendix 4.1-1: Air Quality Technical Report
Appendix 4.2-1: Archeological Resources Assessment
Appendix 4.2-2: Tribal Cultural Resources Review
Appendix 4.2-3: Historical Resources Assessment
Appendix 4.3-1: Energy Data
Appendix 4.4-1: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix 4.5-1: Greenhouse Gas Technical Report
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Page xiii December 2023
Appendix 4.6-1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 16831 South Normandie Avenue
Appendix 4.6-2: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Food & Beverage Processing Plant, 16911 South Normandie Avenue
Appendix 4.6-3: Assessment Report 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue Appendix 4.6-4: Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue
Appendix 4.6-5: Opinion Letter: Light Industrial Property 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue
Appendix 4.6-6: Technical Memorandum Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue
Appendix 4.6-7: Peer Review for Hazardous Materials Data for Normandie Crossing Project Appendix 4.6-8: Peer Review for Supplemental Hazardous Materials Data for Normandie Crossing Project
Appendix 4.7-1: Water Resources Technical Report
Appendix 4.9-1: Noise Impact Study
Appendix 4.13-1: Local Transportation Assessment
Appendix 4.13-2: CEQA Transportation Impact Assessment
The Appendices are available on the City website at:
https://cityofgardena.org/community-development/planning-projects/
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
Page ES-1 December 2023
ES Executive summary
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Gardena (City) in compliance with CEQA. This EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with planning, constructing, and operating the proposed Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project (the “Project” or “proposed Project”). The Project would develop up to 403 dwelling units (DUs) and adopt the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (herein referred to as “Specific Plan” or “NCSP”).
The proposed Specific Plan would establish site specific zoning regulations and development standards for the area, which would accommodate the proposed number of dwelling units. The Specific Plan includes the statutorily required elements, including a land use plan, a circulation plan, a description of existing and proposed utilities and infrastructure, design guidelines, development standards, and administrative provisions. In addition to the Zoning Code Text Amendment, the Project seeks approval of the following entitlements: Zone Change/Map Amendment; General Plan/Map Amendment; Site Plan Review; Development Agreement; Vesting Tentative Tract Map TTM #; Affordable Housing Agreement; Environmental Assessment; and EIR certification.
ES.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The Project site is in the City of Gardena (City), which encompasses approximately 6.0 square miles in the County’s South Bay region. The City is approximately 12 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles. The approximately 5.25-acre Project site is comprised of four parcels (APNs 6106-030-011, 6106-030-015, 6106-030-016, 6106-030-017) generally bound by West 169th and West 170th Streets on the north and south, and South Normandie Avenue and Brighton Way on the east and west.
Regional access to the Project site is provided via four major freeways: I-105 to the north; I-405 to the south and east; and I-110 and SR-91 (becomes West Artesia Boulevard) to the east. From I-105, access to the Project site is provided via Vermont Avenue, from I-405, access is provided via South Normandie Avenue, from I-110, access is provided via Artesia Boulevard at the City’s northern portion, which intersects with Normandie Avenue, and from SR-91, access is provided via Artesia Boulevard in the City’s southern portion, which intersects with Normandie Avenue.
Local access is also provided via the following:
Normandie Avenue, which is a four-lane Major Collector oriented north-south to the west of the Project site.
Brighton Way, which is a two-lane alleyway classified as a Local Street oriented northsouth and forms the Project site’s western boundary. West 169th and West 170th Streets are two-lane Local Streets oriented east west and form the Project site’s northern and southern boundaries, respectively.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
Page ES-2 December 2023
ES.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
The Project proposes the construction and operation of a residential development comprised of 403 dwelling units (DU). The Project would construct two subareas – an apartment portion and a townhomes portion – connected by internal streets. The following proposed land uses would be developed in each sub area:
Apartments (Subarea A); See Table 2-5: Land Use Summary – Proposed Apartment Building
o A single 7 story, 90-foot tall 308,308-SF apartment building with 328 DU at a density of approximately 155 DU/AC
o Minimum 50 SF of private open space per DU
o 22,698 SF of common open space
Townhomes (Subarea B); See Table 2-6: Land Use Summary – Proposed Townhomes o Nine townhome buildings with 75 3-story, 40-foot-tall townhomes totaling 120,673 SF at a density of approximately 24 DU/AC
o 50 SF private open space per DU
o 7,645 SF of common open space
The Project is designed to be residential development with a variety of housing types. and common open spaces. The apartment subarea common open space includes a swimming pool, a dog park, fitness room, club houses, and a courtyard; and the townhomes subarea common open space includes a swimming pool, dog park, club house, and paseos with seating areas.
The Project proposes 568 vehicle, and 173 bicycle parking spaces as follows:
Apartments (Subarea A)
o Level 1
Bicycle Parking, 173 spaces
Vehicle Parking, 204 spaces
o Level 2
Vehicle Parking, 204 spaces
Townhomes (Subarea B)
o Approximately 160 vehicle parking spaces
150 spaces in attached garages
10 guest spaces
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
Page ES-3 December 2023
Additionally, the Project proposes offsite improvements/actions as described below:
Sidewalk improvements
Various railroad improvements on South Normandie Avenue, including the removal of 1,000 linear feet of railroad spur track.
Redesignate the residential parcel at 16964 179th Street from Industrial to Single Family Residential and rezone from General Industrial Zone (M-2) to Single Family Residential Zone (R-1) consistent with the existing residential land use. Redesignate the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad Parcel from Industrial to Public/Institutional and rezone from General Industrial Zone (M-2) to Official (O) consistent with the existing railroad land use.
The Project construction is anticipated to occur in a single phase over approximately 3.5 years, beginning June 2024 and ending September 2027. Phased occupancy of the proposed Project would be permitted, provided all occupiable areas are deemed safe for fire and life safety purposes. Grading for the Project would require cut and fill, which would include export. The Project site would be graded to match the existing grading and drainage patterns. The overall site grading and drainage pattern would be southeasterly towards Normandie Avenue.
ES.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b), the EIR Project description must include “[a] statement of objectives sought by the proposed project…The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the Project.”
The Project objectives are:
Diversify the City of Gardena’s existing housing options, by providing a range of housing types and sizes, to serve the region’s growing and evolving technology and creative sectors and aid in recruiting and retaining talent for local companies. Support the expanding technology and creative sector with newly constructed, highquality housing opportunities, enabling local employees to live close to where they work. Cluster urban residential development near technology firms, other large employment centers, and commercial corridors providing City residents with the opportunity to live, work, and shop with less reliance on automobiles.
Establish housing development that meets high standards of design and pursues environmental sustainability.
Redevelop a blighted site, increase tax revenues to the City, provide affordable housing to support the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals, and create a catalyst for future development in this part of Gardena.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
Page ES-4 December 2023
ES.5 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Based on the analysis contained in Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis of this Draft EIR, the Project would have a significant unavoidable impact concerning construction noise; see Section 4.9.6: Significant Unavoidable Impacts.
ES.6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
CEQA states that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” [14 Cal. Code of Reg. 15126.6(a)]. As described in Section
6.0: Alternativesto the Proposed Project of this DEIR, three project alternatives were identified and analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the Project:
“No Project/No Construction” Alternative;
“No Project/Existing Land Use Designation” Alternative; and “Reduced Density” Alternative.
“NO PROJECT/NO CONSTRUCTION” ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/No Construction Alternative would retain the Project site in its current condition.
The Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and minimal landscaping. Approximately 115,424 square feet (SF) of industrial floor area is present on the Project site, however, only 106,100 SF of industrial uses are currently operational. Under this Alternative, the existing industrial uses would continue to operate and none of the proposed Project improvements would be implemented. Further, the Project’s requested entitlement (i.e., General Plan/General Plan Map Amendment (GPA #3-21), Zone Change and Zone Map Amendment (ZC #4-21), Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA #6-21), Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (NCSP) (SP #1-21), Site Plan Review (SPR #11-21), Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM #4-21), Development Agreement (DA #2-21), and CPUC General Order 88-B Permit) would not be granted.
“NO PROJECT/EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION” ALTERNATIVE
This Alternative consists of a “No Project” condition whereby the Project would not proceed, but rather the Project site is redeveloped pursuant to the existing General Plan land use designation.
Table 2-2: Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning identifies the GGP land use designations for the Project site and indicates the Project site is designated Industrial, which provides for a wide range of industries, technology-related uses and supporting facilities, and business parks.
Additionally, the GGP assigns a High Density 30 Overlay to the northern approximately 1.4 acres of the Project site. Based on the existing Industrial land use designation, the Project site’s maximum development capacity is approximately 228,690 SF of industrial floor area. It is noted, although the High Density 30 Overlay on the Project site’s northerly 1.4 acres would allow Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
Page ES-5 December 2023
development of residential uses, only industrial uses would be allowed on the site’s southerly portion. Also, because no roadway or other buffer would exist between these two areas, this Alternative assumes no residential development on the Project site. Therefore, this Alternative assumes demolishing the existing 115,424 SF of industrial uses and in their place constructing up to 228,690 SF of industrial uses. Given that the Industrial land use designation is intended for a wide range of industrial uses, and since the Project site is surrounded by residential uses, this Alternative assumes development of an industrial business park, which could include any uses permitted within the Industrial zone; see GMC §18.36.020. Additionally, because the proposed access driveways under this Alternative are unknown, it is unknown whether it, like the Project, would require offsite railroad improvements pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) standards and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) guidelines. “REDUCED DENSITY” ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Density Alternative assumes development of the Project site similar to the proposed Project. The townhomes would remain unchanged; however, for purposes of this Alternative, the apartment building would be reduced to 192 DUs (from 328) and the building height would be reduced to five stories (from seven stories). This Alternative proposes a total of 267 DU, or approximately 34 percent fewer DU than the Project, and would reduce the density to 51 DU/AC. Thus, with fewer total units, the Applicant would not be able to provide affordable housing. Additionally, it is assumed that the access driveways would be the same under this Alternative, thus, similarly to the Project, this Alternative would require offsite railroad improvements pursuant to CPUC standards and UPRR guidelines.
ES.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
This Draft EIR discusses environmental impacts that would occur as a result of implementing the proposed Project. This Draft EIR also includes proposed mitigation measures that have been identified to reduce or avoid significant effects that would result from the construction and operation of the proposed on-site uses. CEQA Guidelines § 15123(b)(2) requires that areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency (City of Gardena) be stated in the EIR summary. The following discussion identifies issues raised by other agencies and the public during the 30-day public comment period of the NOP.
The following issues were raised during the commenting period of the NOP. These issues will be examined in the cited sections of this Draft EIR.
Project-related impacts on Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions; see Section 4.1:
Air Quality and Section 4.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project proximity to the existing railroad right-of-way; see Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project-related traffic causing congestion and excess noise on local roads; see Section
4.13: Transportation and Section 4.9: Noise
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
Page ES-6 December 2023
Project-related impacts on utilities; see Section 4.15: Utilities and Service Systems Project-related impacts on local services; see Section 4.11: Public Services Project’s visual character; see Section 4.16: Aesthetics ES.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table is a summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures and conditions of approval associated with the Project as identified in this Draft EIR. Refer to Section 4.1through Section 4.16 for a detailed description of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Project.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-7 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.1: Air Quality
Impact 4.1-1: Would the Project
conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.1-2: 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 No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.1-3: Would the Project
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.1-4: Would the Project
result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.2: Cultural Resources
Impact 4.2-1: Would the Project
cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
No impact No mitigation is required. No Impact
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-8 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.2-2: Would the Project
cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
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.
See also MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, MM TCR-3 below.
Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.2-3: Would the Project
disturb any human remains,
including those interred outsides
of dedicated cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
See MM TCR-2 below. Less Than
Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-9 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.3: Energy
Impact 4.3-1: Would the Project
result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during Project
construction or operation?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.3-2: Would the Project
conflict with or obstruct state or
local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.4: Geology, Soils and Paleontological Resources Impact 4.4-1: Would the Project
directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Potentially
Significant
COA GEO-1. Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing
activities, a qualified vertebrate paleontologist (as defined by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology) shall develop Worker Awareness and Environmental Program (WEAP) Training for construction personnel. This training shall be presented to construction personnel and include what fossil remains may be found within the Project area, and policies and procedures that must be followed in case of a discovery. Verification of the WEAP Training shall be provided to the Gardena Community
Development Department.
Paleontological resources monitoring by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist (as defined by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology) shall be required during ground disturbances greater than 5.0 feet below the historic surface elevation in native sediments. Auguring, potholing, and pile driving activities do not Less Than
Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-10 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
need to be monitored as these activities are unlikely to produce significant fossil because information about formation, depth, or context is impossible to discern. Should similar activities be planned, the qualified paleontologist shall be consulted prior to commencement so they may determine if that activity requires monitoring.
COA GEO-2. If fossils or fossil bearing deposits are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within a 25-foot radius of the find shall halt and a professional vertebrate paleontologist (as defined by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. The paleontologist shall have the authority to stop or divert construction, as necessary. Documentation and treatment of the discovery shall occur in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The significance of the find shall be evaluated pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. If the discovery proves to be significant, before construction activities resume at the location of the find, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted, as deemed necessary by the paleontologist.
MM GEO-1: Monitor for Paleontological Resources. Monitoring shall be conducted by a Paleontological Monitor, defined as one who meets the SVP standards for a Paleontological Resource Monitor. The Paleontological 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 Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-11 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
geologic sedimentsthat occur in previously undisturbed sediment, which has been estimated as any portion of the Project site where excavation exceeds 0.9 m (3.0 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.
Section 4.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.5-1: Would the Project
generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
Impact 4.5-2: Would the Project
conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.6-1: 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?
Potentially
Significant
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. If paint is separated from building materials Less Than
Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-12 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
(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 HighEfficiency 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.
MM HAZ-1: Construction Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit for the onsite structures, a construction management plan addressing procedures and requirements for responding to disturbance of undocumented contaminated soil shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-13 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
MM HAZ-2: Engineered Vapor Mitigation and Ventilation. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the City of Gardena Building Department shall review the building plans to verify that an engineered vapor measure (such as an impermeable membrane or equivalent) is included in the design of all townhomes and that the apartment parking structures include sufficient ventilation to minimize accumulation of VOCs on the Project site. The
impermeable vapor membrane shall not underlay non-slab areas, such as landscaping and the dog run area, because these spaces are not enclosed. The City of Gardena Building Department shall have oversight/sign-off responsibility for the vapor barrier.
Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.7-1: Would the Project
violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.7-2: Would the Project
substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
the projects may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.7-3: Would the Project
substantially alter the existing
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-14 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
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:
i. Result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or offsite?
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?
Impact 4.7-4: Would the Project
conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-15 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.8: Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.8-1: Would the Project
cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any Gardena
General Plan 2006 land use plan,
policies, or regulations adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.8-2: Would the Project
cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any Gardena
Municipal Code land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.8-3: Would the Project
cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any Connect SoCal
2020-2045 RTP/SCS land use
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-16 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.9: Noise
Impact 4.9-1: Would the Project
result in the generation of 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?
Potentially
Significant
MM NOI-1: Construction Equipment Noise. Prior to issuance of any Demolition or Grading Permit, the Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that require all power construction equipment (including combustion engines), fixed or mobile to be: 1) equipped with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices (consistent with manufactures’ standards); and 2) properly maintained to ensure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated.
MM NOI-2: Construction Noise. A temporary and impermeable sound barrier shall be provided along the Project northern, southern, and western property line. The temporary sound barrier shall be minimum 10-foot high and provide minimum 12 dBA noise reduction, and shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of STC-25, such as, acoustical barrier blanket (with STC-25 rating) or 3/4" thick exterior grade plywood.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Impact 4.9-2: Would the Project
result in the generation of
excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
MM NOI-3: Construction Vibration Impacts. The use of large construction equipment (e.g., large bulldozer greater than 400 horsepower and/or loaded trucks) shall be a minimum of 45 feet away from the off-site residence adjacent to the Project site (receptor R1) (16964 Brighton Avenue).
Less Than
Significant
Section 4.10: Population and Housing
Impact 4.10-1: Would the
Project induce substantial
unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-17 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Section 4.11: Public Services
Impact 4.11-1: Would the
Project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of
new or physically altered fire
protection facilities, need for
new or physically altered fire
protection facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for fire
protection?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.11-2: Would the
Project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of
new or physically altered police
protection facilities, need for
new or physically altered police
protection facilities, the
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-18 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for
police protection?
Impact 4.11-3: Would the
Project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of
new or physically altered school
facilities, need for new or
physically altered school
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for
schools?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.11-4: Would the
Project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of
new or physically altered library
facilities, need for new or
physically altered library
facilities, the construction of
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-19 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for
library facilities?
Section 4.12: Recreation
Impact 4.12-1: Would the
Project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of
new or physically altered
governmental park facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental park
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for
parks?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.12-2: Would the
Project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
Potentially
significant
See MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, COA HAZ-1, COA HAZ-2, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3.
Less Than
Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-20 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Would the Project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Section 4.13: Transportation
Impact 4.13-1: 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 No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.13-2: Would the
Project conflict or be
inconsistent with State CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.13-3: Would the
Project substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-21 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.13-4: Would the
Project result in inadequate
emergency access?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.14-1: Would the
Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code § 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) 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
§ 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
Potentially
Significant
MM TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to
Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities.
A. The Applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject Project at all Project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the Project description/definition and/or required in connection with the Project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of grounddisturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and Less Than
Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-22 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code § 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American
tribe?
historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the
Applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation to the monitor from a designated point of contact for the Applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve grounddisturbing activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the monitor to the Applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the Project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.
E. Upon discovery of any TCRs or archaeological resources, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the monitor and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983).
• If the resources are Native American in origin, the Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-23 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
• If the archaeologist determines that the resource contains a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation shall be made available. The treatment plan shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code § 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological
resources. If not left in place, any historic or archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society for educational purposes.
MM TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
Associated Funerary Objects.
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code § 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
B. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the Project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease within 200 feet of the discovery. Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-24 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code § 5097.98 shall be followed.
C. Human remains and grave/burial goods found with such remains shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code § 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the Project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the monitor determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the Project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f).)
E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
MM TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains. This mitigation measure shall only apply if the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation is designated the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”) by the NAHC:
A. The Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-25 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the Project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the Applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the Project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-26 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
footprint of the Project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the Project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
G. The Tribe will work closely with the Project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically, and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
Section 4.15: Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.15-1: Would the
Project require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water
facilities, the construction or
Potentially
Significant
See MM GEO-1, MM CUL-1, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM NOI-1,
MM NOI-2, MM NOI-3, MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3.
Less Than
Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-27 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental
effects?
Impact 4.15-2: Would the
Project require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded wastewater
conveyance/ wastewater
treatment facilities, the
construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Potentially
Significant
See MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, COA HAZ-1, COA HAZ-2, MM HAZ-1
MM HAZ-2, MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3.
Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.15-3: 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?
Potentially
Significant
See MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, COA HAZ-1, COA HAZ-2, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3.
Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.15-4: 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 No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-28 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4-15.5: 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 No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.15-6: 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’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.15-7: 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?
Impact 4.15-8: Would the
Project comply with federal,
state, and local management
and reduction statutes and
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Page ES-29 December 2023
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts, Proposed Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Condition(s) of Approval Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
regulations related to solid
waste?
Section 4.16: Aesthetics
Impact 4.16-1: If an urbanized
area, would the Project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.16-2: Would the
Project create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
Kimley>>>Horn
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. specifies that before a public agency decides to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about the Project’s potential environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment.
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Gardena (herein referred to as the “City”) in compliance with CEQA. This EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with planning, constructing, and operating the proposed Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project (hereafter, the “Project” or “proposed Project”). The Project would develop up to 403 dwelling units (DUs) and adopt the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (herein referred to as “Specific Plan”). The State CEQA Guidelines are included within California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §§15000-15387, while the CEQA Statute is codified as Public Resources Code §§21000-21189.57.
This EIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial environmental impacts resulting from Project implementation. Section 2.0: Project Description details the Project’s location, environmental setting, background and history, characteristics, discretionary actions, goals/objectives, construction schedule/phasing, agreements, and required permits and approvals. Section 3.0: Basis of Cumulative Analysis outlines both the geographic context and list of cumulative projects which will be analyzed for cumulative analysis in Section 4.0:
Environmental Impact Analysis. Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis discusses the Project’s affected environment, regulatory framework, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures. Following public review of the Draft EIR, a Final EIR will be prepared, in which the City will respond to public comments on the Draft EIR.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR
According to State CEQA Guidelines §15121, an EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project. This EIR’s purpose is to inform decision-makers and the public of the proposed Project’s environmental effects, provide environmental information sufficient to evaluate the proposed Project and its potential to cause significant environmental effects, examine methods of reducing adverse environmental effects, and consider alternatives to the proposed Project, which would eliminate or reduce the significant effects. The potential impacts include temporary construction-related effects and long-term operational effects. This EIR addresses the Project’s potential environmental impacts using available plans, technical studies, and related information available. This EIR will be used by the City as the lead agency, other responsible and trustee agencies, interested parties, and the general public to evaluate the Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
Project’s potential environmental impacts; see Section 2.6: Agreements, Permits, and Approvals, for a list of anticipated agreements and required responsible agency permits and approvals.
1.2 COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
According to the State CEQA Guidelines §15064(f)(1), preparation of an EIR is required whenever a project may result in one or more significant effects on the environment. Public agencies are required to consider the information presented in the EIR when determining whether to approve a project. CEQA requires that state and local government agencies consider the environmental effects of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects.
This EIR analyzes the Project’s environmental effects to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by State CEQA Guidelines §15146. The analysis considers the Project activities to determine the short-term and long-term effects associated with their implementation. This EIR discusses both direct and indirect Project impacts, as well as cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
Based on significance criteria, the Project’s effects have been categorized as either “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant with mitigation incorporated,” or “significant unavoidable impact;” see Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis. Mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or lessen potentially significant impacts. If the Project would result in significant unavoidable impacts, despite implementation of feasible mitigation, the decisionmakers may approve the Project based on a “Statement of Overriding Considerations.” This determination would require the decision-makers to balance the Project’s benefits to determine if they outweigh the identified significant unavoidable impacts. State CEQA Guidelines §15093 provides in part the following:
That the decision-makers balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reason to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information on the record.
If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
In addition to making findings under State CEQA Guidelines §15093, when there is an unavoidable adverse environmental impact, the decision-makers must also make findings under State CEQA Guidelines §15091 relating to mitigation measures and alternatives. Findings under both sections must be supported by substantial evidence.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.3.1 INITIAL STUDY
As lead agency, the City undertook preparation of an “Initial Study,” which is a preliminary analysis intended to determine whether there may be a significant environmental impact (State CEQA Guidelines §§15063, 15365; Public Resources Code §§21080.1, 21080.3); see Appendix 1.0-1: Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, and Comment Letters. The key purpose of the Initial Study is for the lead agency to determine whether to prepare a:
Negative Declaration (ND): If a project would result in no impact or less than significant impacts; or
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND): If a project would result significant impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level; or
Environmental Impact Report (EIR): If a project would result in one or more significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Other purposes of the Initial Study are to facilitate environmental review early in a project’s design, enable a project applicant to modify the project to mitigate impacts, and to identify potentially significant issues, and to assist with EIR preparation (scope, analysis, and type).
1.3.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION
In compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has provided opportunities for responsible agencies, interested parties, and the general public to participate in the environmental review process. During Draft EIR preparation, efforts were made to contact various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the scope of review in this document. This included the distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) to various responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15082, the City distributed the NOP directly to public agencies, special districts, and the public who had requested such notice. Additionally, the City mailed the NOP to owners and occupants of properties within a 300-foot radius of the Project site. The NOP was filed with the County of Los Angeles Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and State Clearinghouse (SCH) within the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The NOP was distributed on May 9, 2023, with a 30-day public review period ending on June 8, 2023.
Table 1.3-1: Summary of Comments on Notice of Preparation summarizes the comments received from agencies/persons during the NOP process and provides a reference, as applicable, Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
to the section(s) of this EIR where the issues are addressed. The NOP and NOP comment letters are provided in Appendix 1.0-1.
Table 1.3-1: Summary of Comments on Notice of Preparation Commenter Summary of Comment and Where Addressed
Written Comments Received on the NOP
Margaret Carnright,
Email Correspondence
(received May 16, 2023)
• Concerned about increased demands placed on public services (e.g., police and fire protection).
• Apartment building would look out of place.
• Traffic is already bad.
• Perry Middle School and Gardena High School are also on Normandie Avenue. Concerned that the Project would increase the number of vehicles in the area, increasing traffic accidents and causing danger to kids walking home.
• There are already other housing projects under construction on Normandie Avenue.
See Section 4.11: Public Services, Section 4.16: Aesthetics, Section 7.0:
Effects Found Not To Be Significant, Section 4.13 Transportation, and Section 4.10: Population and Housing, respectively.
Susan Prieto
Email Correspondence
(received May 16, 2023)
• Traffic is already bad.
• Concerned that City infrastructure would not be able to handle the increased population.
See Section 4.13: Transportation, Section 4.11: Public Services and Section 4.15: Utilities and Service Systems, respectively.
Mitchell M. Tsai
Email Correspondence
(received June 2, 2023)
• Requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices issued under CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law. No other comments provided related to the EIR’s scope.
Brandon Smith
Email Correspondence
(received June 6, 2023)
• Providing additional housing in the County of Los Angeles is critical. • Traffic concerns would be minimized because the project beautifies the area and shifts people towards movement outside of their car such as biking, walking, and more utilization of public transportation (GTrans).
See Section 4.10: Population and Housing, Section 4.16: Aesthetics, and Section 4.13: Transportation, respectively.
Martha Bjerke
Email Correspondence
(received June 7, 2023)
• Concerned that Project construction, specifically demolition and operations would add additional vehicles to the area and cause toxic air quality.
• Concerned that the proposed apartment building would cast great shadows over the existing houses on Brighton Avenue, especially in the winter, due to the height of the proposed apartment building. • Concerned the Project would cause constant noise.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
Commenter Summary of Comment and Where Addressed
• Concerned that existing houses and properties on Brighton Avenue would lose all privacy in their backyards.
See Section 4.1: Air Quality, Section 4.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials regarding construction impacts, and Section 4.9: Noise regarding noise. There are no State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds concerning shadows or privacy.
Mitchell M. Tsai
Email Correspondence
(received June 9, 2023)
• Recommend local hire provisions to reduce environmental impacts (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and transportation) and improve positive economic impact of the Project.
• Recommend considerations of CEQA mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks related to COVID-19 from the Project’s construction.
See Section 4.1: Air Quality, Section 4.5: Greenhouse Gas, and Section 4.13: Transportation, respectively.
Walter Kronberger
Email Correspondence
(received June 9, 2023)
• Concerned that building an apartment complex close to the railroad right-of-way may be dangerous in the case of chemical spills, hazardous gas releases, fire, or explosions.
• Concerned about increased demands placed on public services (e.g., police and fire protection).
• The schools in Gardena are already overcrowded.
• The project is surrounded by small side streets. The project increases the number of vehicles in the area and the surrounding streets would not be able to support this increase.
• Traffic is already bad and he is concerned that the Project would increase the number of vehicles in the area, increasing traffic accidents and causing danger to pedestrians.
• Concerned the electric power grid in Gardena would not be sufficient.
See Section 4.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.11: Public Services, Section 4.13: Transportation, and Section 4.15: Utilities and Service systems, respectively.
Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts
Letter (dated June 7, 2023,
received June 9, 2023)
• Wastewater would be discharged to a local sewer line, not maintained by the districts, for conveyance to the District’s Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer located in Normandie Avenue, north of Artesia Boulevard.
• Wastewater would be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in the City of Carson.
• Connection fees would be charged.
• Wastewater treatment facilities’ capacity is based on regional growth forecast adopted by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
See Section 4.15: Utilities and Service Systems.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
Commenter Summary of Comment and Where Addressed
California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) –
District 7
Letter (dated June 7, 2023,
received June 9, 2023)
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) should be used as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for development projects. • The EIR should ensure that planning and development activities consider reducing single occupancy vehicle trips, ensuring safety, reducing vehicle miles traveled, supporting accessibility, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Caltrans encourages Lead Agencies to evaluate the potential of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications, and transit service and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity improvements. • Caltrans recommends the Lead Agency include queuing analysis with signal timing for existing conditions and existing plus project traffic conditions for:
o I-405 off-ramps to Normandie Ave/190th Street
o I-110 off-ramps to Redondo Beach Blvd.
o Turning pockets at I-405 on/off ramps and Normandie Avenue, SR-91 and Vermont Avenue, and I-110 on/off ramps and Redondo Beach Boulevard
• Caltrans recommends the Lead Agency include a Multi-Modal Conflict Analysis and address Complete Street Access (ADA Curb Ramps, Sidewalks, Bike Lane, High Visibility Crosswalks, APS, etc.) for:
o SR-91 (Artesia Boulevard) and Vermont Avenue
o I-405 on/off ramps and 190th Street/Normandie Avenue
intersections
o I-110 on/off ramps and Redondo Beach Boulevard intersections As to system operations comments, these are not CEQA matters, thus, are addressed in the Project’s Local Transportation Assessment.1 As to other transportation matters, see Section 4.13: Transportation.
Brandon Smith
Letter (dated June 6, 2023,
received June 14, 2023)
• Expresses support for the Project.
• Discusses need of active/alternative modes of transportation.
See Section 4.13: Transportation
Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts
Letter (dated and received
June 22, 2023)
• An addendum to the previous comment letter notes that direct connections to the trunk sewer would require sufficient justification for approval and a trunk Sewer Connection Permit issued by Districts.
See Section 4.15: Utilities and Service Systems
County of Los Angeles Fire
Department
Letter (dated June 15, 2023,
• Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) requests evaluation of the site’s potential vapor intrusion of gaseous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) following CalEPA’s Final Draft “Supplemental 1 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Local Transportation Assessment (“Local Transportation Assessment”) (Fehr & Peers, July 2023); see Appendix 4.13-2: Local Transportation Assessment.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
Commenter Summary of Comment and Where Addressed
received June 29, 2023) Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion” as portions of the final guidance may become law.
• HHMD also requests to review the DEIR and previous Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments before issuing clearance.
See Section 7.5: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Native American Heritage
Commission
Letter (dated May 15, 2023,
received July 12, 2023)
• Outlines AB 52 (Tribal Consultation) requirements concerning the tribal consultation process during environmental review.
See Section 4.14: Cultural Resources
Verbal Comments Received at the May 18, 2023 Public Scoping Meeting Walter Kronberger • Traffic is already bad on Normandie Avenue around the schools. • Concerned that the development would add more students to schools.
See Section 4.13: Transportation and Section 4.11: Public Services, respectively.
Kevin Collier • Concerned with traffic and wants the noise study to look at West 170th Street and West 169th Street.
• Wants the traffic study to address vehicles accessing Normandie Avenue northbound.
See Section 4.13: Transportation.
Christine Brean • Would the Project have an effect on well-water? • Would it impact residents’ access to water?
See Section 4.15: Utilities and Service Systems.
1.3.3 SCOPING MEETING
Pursuant to CEQA Statute §21083.9, the lead agency is required to conduct at least one scoping meeting for all projects of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. A scoping meeting is for jurisdictional agencies and interested persons or groups to provide comments regarding, but not limited to, the range of actions, alternatives, and environmental effects to be analyzed in the EIR.
The City held a public scoping meeting on May 18, 2023 at 7:00 PM at the City of Gardena City Council Chambers, 1700 West 162nd Street, Gardena, California 90247. Three public comments were provided during the scoping meeting and are detailed above in Table 1.3-1.
1.3.4 SCOPE AND FOCUS OF EIR
This Draft EIR addresses the Project’s potential environmental effects and was prepared following input from the public and the responsible and affected agencies, through the EIR scoping process, as discussed previously. The contents of this Draft EIR were established based on the Initial Study findings and public and agency input received through the NOP process. Based on the Initial Study Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
findings, a determination was made that an EIR was required to address the Project’s potentially significant environmental effects concerning the following topical issues:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils (Paleontological
Resources)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
The Initial Study/NOP also noted that cumulative and growth-inducing impacts would be analyzed in the EIR and that alternatives would be considered.
Where the Initial Study determined that the Project would have “no impact” or a “less than significant impact” on environmental topics or specific threshold questions, these topics and thresholds are not addressed in the EIR. Based on the Initial Study findings, the following environmental topical issues are not addressed in the EIR. Substantiation for the “no impact” or “less than significant impact” findings is provided in Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Wildfire
Additionally, certain issues associated with aesthetics, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, and population and housing are also included in Section 7.0 based on the Initial Study findings.
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW – COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
1.4.1 PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR
The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR has been provided to agencies, organizations, and interested groups and persons for comment during a 45-day review period in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15087 and §15105. The Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR has also been distributed as required by CEQA. The Draft EIR is available to the public for review at the City of Gardena website, as follows:
https://www.cityofgardena.org/community-development/planning-projects/ Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
If you cannot retrieve a copy from the website, please contact Amanda Acuna at the contact information below to obtain the document in an alternate way.
The public is invited to comment in writing on the information contained in this document.
Responsible agencies, interested parties, and the public are invited to provide written comments on the Draft EIR. All comments should be submitted in writing to:
Amanda Acuna, Senior Planner
City of Gardena Community Development Department
1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247-3732
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (310) 217-6110
1.4.2 FINAL EIR
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15088 and upon completion of the 45-day Draft EIR public review period, the City will evaluate all written comments and prepare written responses to comments received during the public review period concerning significant environmental issues.
As set forth in State CEQA Guidelines §15132, the Final EIR will be prepared and will include:
The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft;
Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary;
A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; and The lead agency’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
Additionally, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15088, after the Final EIR is completed, the City will provide a written proposed response to each public agency on comments made by that public agency at least ten days prior to certifying the EIR.
1.4.3 CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR
The Final EIR will be considered by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council (the recommending and decision-making bodies for the Project) for certification, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15090, which states:
Prior to approving a project, the lead agency shall certify that:
The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and
The Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
Regarding the EIR’s adequacy, according to State CEQA Guidelines §15151, “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.”
1.4.4 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
After Final EIR certification, the City may consider approval of the proposed Project. A decision to approve the Project would be accompanied by specific, written findings, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15091 and, if necessary, a specific, written Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15093.
1.5 FORMAT OF THE EIR
This EIR’s purpose is to enable the City and other responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties to evaluate the Project’s environmental impacts.
This EIR is organized into the following sections:
Section ES: Executive Summary, provides a Project summary and summary of environmental impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures and alternatives.
Section 1.0: Introduction, provides CEQA compliance information.
Section 2.0: Project Description, details the Project’s location, environmental setting, background and history, characteristics, discretionary actions, goals/objectives, construction schedule/ phasing, agreements, and required permits and approvals.
Section 3.0: Basis of Cumulative Analysis, describes the cumulative analysis’ proposed approach and methodology.
Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis, discusses the existing conditions for each environmental issue area. This analysis also describes methodologies for significance determinations, identifies the Project’s short-term and long-term environmental impacts, recommends mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the significance of environmental impacts, and identifies any areas of potentially significant Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
unavoidable impacts. This section also discusses cumulative impactsthat could arise as a result of Project implementation of the proposed Project.
Section 5.0: Other CEQA Considerations, summarizes unavoidable significant impacts, and discusses significant irreversible environmental changes, and growth-inducing impacts.
Section 6.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project, describes potential Project alternatives, including alternatives considered but rejected from further consideration, the No Project Alternative, various Project Alternatives, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to Be Significant, describes potential impacts that have been determined through the CEQA process not to be significant.
Section 8.0: List of Preparers identifies the lead agency and EIR preparation team, as well as summarizes the EIR consultation process.
Section 9.0: Appendices, contains the NOP, notification documents, and technical studies, which are available at the City’s website, as follows:
https://www.cityofgardena.org/community-development/planning-projects/ The City can also provide copies on a thumb drive.
1.6 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
1.6.1 LEAD AGENCY
The City of Gardena is the lead agency under CEQA. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Policies and Procedures for Implementing CEQA. CEQA requires lead agencies to consider potential environmental effects that may occur with implementation of a project and to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects to the environment when feasible. When a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency with primary responsibility for carrying out or approving the project (the lead agency) is required to prepare an EIR.
1.6.2 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
Other federal, state, and local agencies engage in the Project’s review and approval, including trustee and responsible agencies under CEQA. Under CEQA, a trustee agency is a state agency that has jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. A responsible agency is an agency other than the lead agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Responsible and trustee agencies are consulted by the CEQA lead agency to ensure the opportunity for input and also review and comment on the Draft EIR. Responsible agencies also use the CEQA document in their decisionKimley>>>Horn Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
making. Several agencies other than the City may require permits, approvals, and/or consultation in order to implement various Project elements; see Section 2.6: Agreements, Permits, and Approvals.
1.7 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
All or portions of another document, which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public, may be incorporated by reference. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the document’s text.
The references outlined below, which were utilized during preparation of this EIR, are available for review on the City of Gardena Website, at https://cityofgardena.org/planning-andzoning/and by request at the Community Development Department – please see above contact information.
Gardena General Plan 2006. The City adopted the comprehensive Gardena General Plan 2006 (GGP) in 2006 and various elements and plans have been amended since that time as noted below. The GGP constitutes the City’s overall plans, goals, and objectives for land use within the City’s jurisdiction. The GGP is based upon the following core visions for the City: City of Opportunity; Safe and attractive place to live, work and play; Community that values ethnic and cultural diversity; Strong and diverse economic base. It evaluates the existing conditions and provides long-term goals and policies necessary to guide growth and development in the direction that the community desires. Through its Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs, the GGP serves as a decision-making tool to guide future growth and development decisions.
The GGP consists of the following elements and plans:
Community Development Element
o Land Use Plan (updated in June 2012, March 2013, and February 2023) o Economic Development Plan
o Community Design Plan
o Circulation Plan (updated in July 2020)
Community Resources Element
o Open Space Plan
o Conservation Plan
Community Safety Element
o Public Safety Plan (updated February 2022)
o Noise Plan
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
Housing Element (updated in February 2023; see below) Environmental Justice Element (adopted in February 2022) Implementation
o Implementation Program (updated in February 2022)
The GGP was used throughout this EIR as a source of baseline data.
City of Gardena General Plan 2006 Final Environmental Impact Report (GRC Associates, Inc., April 2006) (SCH #2005021125). The GGP Final Environmental Impact Report (GGP FEIR) analyzed the potential environmental impacts that would result from the GGP implementation. At the time of the GGP FEIR’s writing, the City was 98.5 percent developed and approximately 45 acres of vacant land existed. GGP FEIR Tables 2 and 3 present the forecast capacity at the City’s buildout as 22,329 DU, a population of 63,799 persons, and approximately 18.9 million SF of nonresidential land uses. Buildout was estimated to occur over 20 years. The GGP FEIR concluded significant and unavoidable impacts concerning Transportation (GGP FEIR page 138).
In February 2023, the City updated its Land Use Plan and changed the zoning for the Inventory Sites identified in the Housing Element. As the City also intends to update its Land Use Plan and change the zoning for Non-inventory Sites to provide a more coherent zoning pattern, the City is currently preparing an EIR to examine the environmental impacts of all of the proposed changes.
The GGP FEIR was used throughout this EIR as a source of land use, policy, and baseline data.
Revised 2021-2029 Housing Element 6th Cycle. The City of Gardena’s 2021-2029 Housing Element (HE) was adopted in January 2022, and then readopted on February 15, 2023, with additional revisions. The HE analyzes the City’s housing needs for all income levels and develops strategies to provide for those housing needs. It is a key part of the City's General Plan. This HE is an eightyear program extending from 2021 through 2029. The HE identifies strategies and programs that focus on the following: 1) conserving and improving existing affordable housing; 2) providing adequate sites for residential development; 3) assisting in the provision of affordable housing; 4) removing governmental and other constraints on housing development; and 5) affirmatively furthering fair housing. The HE identified 122 candidate sites (468 parcels consolidated) that are considered viable for housing development and will receive a housing overlay designation. HE Appendix C: Sites Inventory provides detailed parcel data for sites receiving the overlay designation. The northern portion of the Project site (i.e., APNs 6106-030-011, 6106-030-015, and 6106-030-017), where the Project proposes an apartment building, is identified as candidate housing site #91. The HE was used throughout this EIR as a source of baseline data for the northern portion of Project site. As noted, preparation of an EIR for the update of the City’s Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map is currently underway (Land Use/Zoning Project). A Notice of Preparation for the Land Use/Zoning Project EIR was issued on April 13, 2023 and the actions are anticipated to be complete in early 2024.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
Gardena Municipal Code. The Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) regulates municipal affairs within the City’s jurisdiction including, without limitation, zoning regulations (codified in GMC Title 18).
GMC Title 18 is the primary tool for implementing the GGP’s Goals, Objectives, and Policies.
The GMC is referenced throughout this EIR to establish the Project’s regulatory requirements according to the City’s regulatory framework.
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report INTRODUCTION
This page intentionally left blank.
Kimley>>>Horn
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT LOCATION
The Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (“Project”) site is in the County of Los Angeles, approximately 12 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles, in the southeast portion of the City of Gardena (“City”), at 16829, 16835, and 16907 South Normandie Avenue; see Exhibit 2-1:
Regional Vicinity Map.
The approximately 5.25-acre Project site is comprised of four parcels (APN: 6106-030-011, 6106- 030-015, 6106-030-016, 6106-030-017) generally bound by West 169th and West 170th Streets on the north and south, and South Normandie Avenue and Brighton Way on the east and west; see Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map.
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City encompasses approximately 6.0 square miles in the County’s South Bay region. Gardena is bordered by the City of Hawthorne and unincorporated County lands to the north, the cities of Los Angeles and Torrance to the south, the City of Los Angeles to the east, and unincorporated County lands and the cities of Hawthorne and Torrance to the west. Gardena is an urbanized city with a mix of residential densities, although low-density residential uses predominate. The City also contains a mix of retail, commercial, office, and industrial uses.
Regional access to the Project site is provided via four major freeways: I-105 to the north; I-405 to the south and east; and I-110 and SR-91 (becomes West Artesia Boulevard) to the east. From I-105, access to the Project site is provided via Vermont Avenue, from I-405, access is provided via South Normandie Avenue, from I-110, access is provided via Artesia Boulevard at the City’s northern portion, which intersects with Normandie Avenue, and from SR-91, access is provided via Artesia Boulevard in the City’s southern portion, which intersects with Normandie Avenue.
The existing conditions and Circulation Plan classifications 1 for surrounding roadways are summarized below:
Normandie Avenue, which is oriented north-south on the Project site’s eastern boundary, contains four divided vehicle lanes with left-turn lanes provided at major intersections, pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of the right of way (ROW), and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) railroad tracks along the road's western boundary. The railroad tracks cross onto the roadway’s eastern side along the Project's frontage. Normandie Avenue is classified as a Major Collector (four lanes, undivided with parking and Class II bike lane). Normandie Avenue is designated as a truck route within the City.
1 City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022. 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 April, 2023.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Brighton Way, which is oriented north-south and forms the Project site’s western boundary, is an alleyway. Brighton Way is classified as a Local Street (two lanes undivided with parking). On-street parking is not provided.
West 169th and West 170th Streets, are oriented east-west and form the Project site’s northern and southern boundaries, respectively. West 169th and West 170th Streets are two-lane, undivided with parking. These roadways are classified as Local Streets (two lanes undivided with parking). West 170th Street dead ends at the railroad right-of-way and does not connect to Normandie Avenue or the segment east of it.
The Project site is located less than one mile walking distance from five different bus routes and the Harbor Gateway Transit Center, which are discussed further in Section 4.13: Transportation.
Pedestrian access to the Project site is provided by sidewalks, which are present on West 169th Street, West 170th Street, and Normandie Avenue surrounding the Project site, except along the south side of 169th Street, between Brighton Way and the alley just west of Brighton Avenue.
ONSITE LAND USES
The Project site is relatively level, sloping from the northeast corner to the southwest corner, with an elevation difference of approximately 7.0 feet across the site. As depicted in Exhibit 2-2, the Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and minimal landscaping. Table 2-1: Existing Onsite Structure Summary summarizes the existing onsite land uses by APN and address, and indicates approximately 115,424 square feet (SF) of industrial floor area) is present on the Project site. One of the buildings on Parcel 4 contains approximately 9,324 SF of industrial floor area that is in a dilapidated condition and is therefore not occupiable or currently being used. Additionally, the Project site includes a railroad spur from the adjacent UPRR northern track. The spur is associated with former onsite industrial operations but is no longer in use.
Table 2-1: Existing Onsite Structure Summary
Parcel
ID1
Assessor’s Parcel
Number2
Parcel
Size
(Acres)2
Address2 Number of
Buildings Year Built2 Building (SF)2
1 6106-030-011 0.55 16829 South Normandie Avenue 2 1963, 1976 10,880 2 6106-030-015 0.47 16835 South Normandie Avenue 1 1956/1957 9,600 3 6106-030-016 0.30 No Address 0 - -
4 6106-030-017 3.93 16907 South Normandie Avenue 3 1952 94,9443 Total 5.25 6 115,424 3
Notes:
1. The Parcel ID (Identification Number) correlates with labels on Exhibit 2-2.
2. ParcelQuest. (January 2021). Assessor Data. Retrieved from: https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home.
3. This total includes 9,324 square feet of building that is unoccupied and dilapidated.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Table 2-2: Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning identifies the Gardena General Plan (GGP) land use designations and zoning for the Project site. As indicated in Table 2-2, the GGP designates the Project site as Industrial, which provides for a wide range of industries, technology-related uses and supporting facilities, and business parks. 2 Additionally, the GGP assigns a High Density 30 Overlay to the Project site’s northern approximately 1.32 acres (i.e., Parcels 1, 2, and 3).
The Zoning Map classifies the Project site’s northern approximately 1.32 acres (i.e., Parcels 1, 2, and 3) as Industrial Zone (M-1) and the southern approximately 3.93 acres (Parcel 4) as General Industrial Zone (M-2); see Table 2-2. 3 Commercial, manufacturing, and industrial uses are permitted in the M-1 and M-2 zones.4 Additionally, Parcels 1, 2, and 3 are zoned Housing Overlay 4 (HO-4), which allows a density of 21-30 dwelling unit per acre (DU/AC).
Table 2-2: Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning
Parcel
ID1
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number2
Size
(Acres)2 Address2 Existing General Plan Land Use3 Existing Zoning4 1 6106-030-011 0.55 16829 South
Normandie Avenue
Industrial,
High Density 30
Overlay
Industrial Zone (M-1),
Housing Overlay 4
(HO-4)5
2 6106-030-015 0.47 16835 South
Normandie Avenue
Industrial,
High Density 30
Overlay
Industrial Zone (M-1),
Housing Overlay 4
(HO-4)5
3 6106-030-016 0.30 No Address
Industrial,
High Density 30
Overlay
Industrial Zone (M-1),
Housing Overlay 4
(HO-4)5
4 6106-030-017 3.93 16907 South
Normandie Avenue Industrial General IndustrialZone (M-2)6 Total 5.25
Notes:
1. The Parcel ID (Identification Number) correlates with labels on Exhibit 2-2 and Exhibit 2-3.
2. ParcelQuest. (January 2021). Assessor Data. Retrieved from: https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home.
3. City of Gardena. (2006, Updated February 2013). Gardena General Plan 2006, Updated 2022. 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 April, 2023.
4. City of Gardena. (2020). Zoning. Available at https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Gardena_Zonning_2020.pdf.
Accessed April, 2023.
5. See GMC §18.36.060: Property Development Standards and Ordinance 1847.
6. See GMC §18.38.010: General Industrial Zone (M-2).
2 City of Gardena. (2006, Updated February 2023). Gardena General Plan 2006, Updated 2023. page LU-19. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena.
Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Land-use-Plan-2023-Update-FINAL.pdf, accessed April, 2023. 3 City of Gardena. (2020). City of Gardena Zoning 2020. Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/Gardena_Zonning_2020.pdf. accessed April, 2023. 4 Gardena Municipal Code §18.36.020: Uses Permitted and §18.38.010: General Industrial Zone (M-2).
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The Project site is generally surrounded by single- and multi-family residential uses. There are two immediately adjacent parcels that are outside the Specific Plan area, but are where entitlement actions are proposed; see Section 2.3: Project Characteristics. The parcel immediately adjacent to the Project site’s southwest corner, at 16964 West 179th Street, is occupied by a single-family residential (SFR) DU. The parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site is occupied by UPRR tracks. Both of these parcels are currently designated Industrial and zoned M-2. The surrounding land uses and zoning are summarized in Table 2-3: Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning (see Exhibit 2-3).
Table 2-3: Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Direction Existing On-the-Ground Land Uses Zoning1
North
North: West 169th Street, with a 63-unit
single-room occupancy multi-family
development across the street, at 16819
South Normandie Avenue.
Northwest: Single-family residential uses are
west of South Normandie Avenue.
North: Industrial Zone (M-1)2
Northwest: Low-Density Multi-Family
Residential Zone (R-2)3
South
South: West 170th Street, with single-family
residential uses across the street.
Southwest: One single-family residential
dwelling unit is immediately adjacent, at
16964 West 179th Street.
South: Single-Family Residential Zone (R-1)4
Southwest: General Industrial Zone (M-2)5
East
East: South Normandie Avenue and an
existing UPRR track (north/south
orientation) are immediately adjacent and to
the east.
Northeast/Southeast: Multi- and singlefamily residential uses are across South Normandie Avenue, respectively.
East: General Industrial Zone (M-2)5
Northeast: Normandie Estates Specific Plan6
/ Southeast: Single-Family Residential Zone
(R-1)4
West
Brighton Way (an alleyway) is to the west,
with single-family and duplex residential
uses across the alley.
Low-Density Multiple Family Residential
Zone (R-2)3
Notes:
1. City of Gardena. (2020). Zoning. Available at https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Gardena_Zonning_2020.pdf.
2. GMC Chapter 18.36: Industrial Zone (M-1). See GMC §18.36.040: Performance Standards, for property development standards.
3. GMC Chapter 18.14: Low-Density Multi-Family Residential Zone (R-2). See GMC §18.14.050: Property Development Standards, for property development standards.
4. GMC Chapter 18.12: Single-Family Residential Zone (R-1). See GMC §18.12.050: Property Development Standards, for property development standards.
5. GMC Chapter 18.38: General Industrial Zone (M-2). M-1 Zone performance standards apply; see GMC §18.36.040.
6. Normandie Estates Specific Plan single-family detached residential.
7. GMC §18.14.050: Property Development Standards.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Applicant seeks approval of the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (NCSP)(SP #1-21) Project.
The Project proposes to establish a maximum allowable development within the approximately
5.25-acre NCSP area of up to 403 DU. Because the City does not have any zone which would accommodate the proposed development, the Applicant is proposing the NCSP, which would establish the site-specific zoning regulations and development standards for this area. The NCSP includes the statutorily required elements, including a land use plan, a circulation plan, a description of existing and proposed utilities and infrastructure, design guidelines, development standards, and administrative provisions. In addition to requiring a Specific Plan, the Project requires various other approvals, including a Development Agreement; see Section 2.6:
Agreements, Permits, and Approvals below. The approvals are collectively referred to as the “Project.”
For analysis purposes, it is assumed all existing approximately 115,424 SF of industrial uses would be removed and replaced with the proposed residential development. However, because 9,324 SF of one of the existing industrial buildings are in a dilapidated condition and therefore are not occupiable, this analysis will evaluate the loss of 106,100 SF of industrial uses.
The Project proposes offsite sidewalk and railroad improvements at the locations depicted on Exhibit 2-2. The offsite sidewalk improvements are proposed along the south side of 169th Street, west of the Project site, between Brighton Way and the alley just west of Brighton Avenue. The offsite track and other railroad improvements are proposed on South Normandie Avenue along the Project site’s eastern boundary, pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) standards and UPRR guidelines.
Additionally, the Project proposes to redesignate and rezone two parcels that are adjacent to the site and outside the proposed Specific Plan area to be consistent with existing uses, as depicted on Exhibit 2-2. These areas include the residential parcel at 16964 West 179th Street and the UPRR parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site.
The proposed Project components are further described below.
LAND USE PLAN
The Specific Plan proposes a 403-DU multi-family residential development divided into two Subareas as depicted in Exhibit 2-4: Conceptual Site Plan. Subarea A, which is at the Project site’s northern portion, is proposed to contain 328 apartment units within one building and associated open space and amenities; and Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Subarea B, which is at the Project site’s southern portion, is proposed to contain 75 townhome-style units within nine buildings and associated open space and amenities.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Overall, the Project site would be developed at a density of approximately 77 DU/AC.
Additionally, the Project proposes approximately 50,493 total SF of open space, comprised of approximately 20,150 SF of private open space and approximately 30,343 SF of common open space.
Table 2-4: Land Use Summary - Proposed Project, summarizes the proposed development according to land use type.
Table 2-4: Land Use Summary - Proposed Project
Description Industrial
(Square Feet)1
Residential1
(Square Feet) (Dwelling Units)
Industrial (to be removed) -115,424 - -
Industrial (to be removed, but
excluded from Project impact offsets) 9,324
Apartment Building - 308,308 328
Townhome-Style Residential - 120,673 75
Project Total -106,100 +428,981 +403
Notes:
1. See Table 2-1.
2. Urban Architecture Lab (2022). 16911 Normandie Apartments and Townhomes Entitlement Set, Sheet No. G0.01: Project Information.
Apartments (Subarea A)
The Project proposes an approximately 308,308-SF apartment building with 328 DU at a density of approximately 155 DU/AC. The building would be seven stories at a maximum height of approximately 90 feet. Table 2-5: Land Use Summary – Proposed Apartment Building summarizes the apartment building’s proposed floor areas. The various proposed apartment product types are 68 studio, 194 one-bedroom, and 66 two-bedroom units.
Each Subarea A unit would be provided a minimum of 50 SF of private open space. The common open space amenities proposed in Subarea A total approximately 22,698 SF and include: roof deck with BBQs and seating areas; swimming pool with BBQ and seating areas; a dog park fitness room; club houses; and a courtyard with seating area.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Table 2-5: Land Use Summary – Proposed Apartment Building 1 Level Description Floor Area2
(Square Feet)
Dwelling
Units
L1 Lobby 2,800
Amenity I: Fitness Room 2,682
L2 - L7 Apartments 241,109
328 (68 Studio, 194
1-Bedroom,
66 2- Bedroom)
Balconies (Covered)4 6,991
L3 Amenity II: Courtyard 1,446
Amenity III: Pool Court 1,500
L4 Amenity IV: BBQ Covered Dining Area 795
Other Other3 50,985
Total 308,308
Notes:
1. Urban Architecture. (2022). 16911 Normandie Apartments & Townhomes Entitlement Set.
2. “Floor Area,” as defined in GMC Chapter 18:04: Definitions.
3. Other = Circulation, stairs, elevator shafts, trash vestibules, and trash rooms.
4. Only covered portions of balconies are included in the floor area calculation.
Onsite vehicle parking (approximately 399 spaces) and bicycle parking (173 spaces) are proposed in the building’s first two levels, as follows:
Level 1:
o Bicycle Parking, 173 Spaces: 16 short-term and 157 long-term. o Vehicle Parking, 195 Spaces: 135 Standard, 20 electric vehicle charging (one of which is a van electric vehicle charging), and 8 accessible.
Level 2:
o Vehicle Parking, 204 Spaces: 150 Standard and 20 electric vehicle charging.
The vehicle parking spaces would be unbundled from the rental of the apartment units to encourage alternate modes of transportation. Up to 90 spaces could be tandem; tandem spaces could only be rented as a pair to a single unit.
Townhomes (Subarea B)
The Project proposes 75 townhome-style units in nine buildings (totaling approximately 120,673 SF), at a density of approximately 24 DU/AC. The townhome buildings would be threestory at a maximum height of approximately 40 feet. Table 2-6: Land Use Summary – Proposed Townhomes summarizes the townhome proposed floor areas. The various proposed townhome product types are 30 two-bedroom, 35 three-bedroom, and 10 four-bedroom units.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Table 2-6: Land Use Summary – Proposed Townhomes
Level Description Floor Area1 (Square Feet) Dwelling Units L1-L3
Townhouses 115,982
30 two-bedroom
35 three-bedroom
10 four-bedroom
Balconies (Covered)2 3,916
L1 Amenity V 775
Subtotal 120,673
Source: Urban Architecture. (2022). 16911 Normandie Apartments & Townhomes Entitlement Set.
Notes:
1. “Floor Area,” as defined in GMC Chapter 18:04: Definitions.
2. Only covered portions of balconies are included in the floor area calculation.
Each Subarea B unit would be provided 50 SF of private open space (i.e., balconies and roof decks). The common open space amenities proposed in Subarea B total approximately 7,645 SF and include the following: swimming pool with BBQ and seating areas; dog park; club house; and paseos with seating areas.
Approximately 160 vehicle parking spaces (150 spaces in attached garages and 10 guest spaces) are proposed in Subarea B.
UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
NCSP Chapter 4, Section V: Public Facilities and Utilities Plan addresses the NCSP’s public facilities and utilities. The NCSP includes the distribution, location, extent of major components of public and private utilities and infrastructure, and other essential facilities within the NCSP area that are needed to support the proposed development. The utilities and infrastructure proposed in the NCSP area include a domestic, fire and irrigation water line connection, sewer line connection, onsite stormwater drainage and management design, electrical power line connection, natural gas line connection, and solid waste collection areas.
The Project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11) for electric vehicle (EV) charging design (Project Design Feature (PDF) AQ-2/PDF GHG-1. Electrical Vehicle Charging Design). Compliance would provide 10% of parking stalls to be EV capable, 25% of parking stalls to be EV ready with Level 2 EV charging receptacles, and 5% of parking stalls to be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. The final design may vary from this in compliance with the CALGreen Code. Additionally, the Project would be all electric- there would be no natural gas use by any of the Project land uses (PDF AQ-3/PDF GHG-2. All Electric).
NCSP Chapter 4, Section III: Transportation and Circulation Plan specifies the proposed transportation and circulation plan. Vehicular access to the NCSP would be provided by the following four driveways:
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Driveway 1 would serve Subarea A and provide access to the apartment building’s parking garage from 169th Street west of South Normandie Avenue. Driveway 2 would serve Subarea A and provide a right-in/right-out only driveway that would also serve the apartment building’s parking garage from southbound South Normandie Avenue.
Driveway 3 would serve Subarea B and provide access to the townhomes from 170th Street. This driveway would also serve as fire truck access for both Subareas A and B. Driveway 4 would serve Subarea B and provide access to the townhomes from 169th Street. This driveway would also serve as fire truck access for both Subareas A and B. For onsite pedestrian access, the Project proposes sidewalk improvements along the Project frontages (i.e., West 169th and West 170th Streets, South Normandie Avenue, and Brighton Way).
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
NCSP Chapter 5, Section I: Development Standards provides the specific regulations and requirements for development in the NCSP. The NCSP specifies the standards to which development in the NCSP area would be subject. These regulations (which would replace the existing zoning regulations) address various aspects of development, as follows:
Permitted and Prohibited Uses: A project in the NCSP area would only be occupied by land uses identified in the NCSP and would be subject to the applicable City approval process.
Development Standards: A project in the NCSP area would be subject to the NCSP’s density and development capacity, maximum building height, floor area ratio, dwelling unit size, and setback requirements.
Design Standards: A project in the NCSP area would be subject to the NCSP’s design requirements concerning siding materials, colors, landscaping, lighting, and sustainability. Recreation and Open Space Standards
Parking and Loading Standards
Requirements related to Nonconforming Uses and Structures Maintenance Standards
Standards for Accessory Structures, Additions, Walls, Fences, and Other Changes Sign Program Requirements
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
IMPLEMENTATION
NCSP Chapter 7: Implementation presents the program necessary to implement the NCSP’s land use plan, utilities/infrastructure, and development standards described above, which address the framework, review authority, substantial conformance, and NCSP modifications.
OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS AND ENTITLEMENTS
The Project proposes offsite sidewalk and railroad improvements, and land use and zoning entitlements, as described below.
Sidewalk Improvements
The Project proposes to construct approximately 266 linear feet of offsite sidewalk improvements along the south side of 169th Street, just west of the Project site, between Brighton Way and the alley just west of Brighton Avenue. The sidewalk improvements would be constructed pursuant to GMC §17.08.170: Improvements and designed to be consistent with the GGP Circulation Element requirements for a Local Street.
South Normandie Avenue Railroad Improvements
The Project proposes various railroad track and roadway improvements along South Normandie Avenue pursuant to current CPUC standards and UPRR guidelines, as follows:
Removing approximately 170 linear feet of railroad spur track, which enters the Project site and formerly served the southernmost industrial building (i.e., 16911 South Normandie Avenue).
Removing approximately 830 linear feet of railroad spur track, which enters the Project site and formerly served the central industrial building (16907 South Normandie Avenue). Constructing a new median both north and south of the track alignment. Installing new warning devices and tactile warning strips on the South Normandie Avenue east and west sidewalks.
Refreshing (i.e., adding a slurry seal) the railroad crossing pavement markings immediately north and south of the track alignment.
Residential Parcel at 16964 West 179th Street
Concerning the SFR parcel immediately adjacent to the Project site’s southwest corner (not a part of the Specific Plan area) at 16964 West 179th Street, the Project proposes to redesignate the parcel from Industrial to Single Family Residential, and rezone from General Industrial Zone (M-2) to Single Family Residential Zone (R-1) consistent with the existing residential land use.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Union Pacific Railroad Parcel
Concerning the parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site that is currently occupied by UPRR tracks, the Project proposes to redesignate the property from Industrial to Public/Institutional, and rezone from General Industrial Zone (M-2) to Official (O) consistent with the existing railroad land use.
2.4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND
PHASING
Project construction is conservatively analyzed to occur in a single phase. Phased occupancy of the proposed Project would be permitted, provided all occupiable areas are deemed safe for fire and life safety purposes. For purposes of the environmental analysis, opening year is assumed to be 2027.
Project construction is scheduled to occur over approximately 3.5 years, beginning June 2024 and ending September 2027. Project construction is proposed to occur in the following sequence:
Demolition (2 months);
Site preparation (1 month);
Grading (2 months);
Building Construction (24 months); and
Architectural Coating and Paving (10 months).
Grading for the proposed improvements would require approximately 10,000 cubic yards of cut and fill and approximately 10,000 cubic yards of export. The Project site would be graded to mimic the existing grading and drainage patterns. The overall site grading and drainage pattern would be southeasterly towards Normandie Avenue.
The Project would utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment which would meet, at a minimum, the Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines promulgated by the USEPA for equipment greater than 50 horsepower (PDF AQ-1. Nonroad Diesel Engines). Additionally, prior to the start of construction, a Construction Traffic Management Plan would be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval (PDF TR-1. Construction Traffic Management Plan). The Construction Traffic Management Plan would minimize the potential conflicts between construction activities, street traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Furthermore, the Construction Traffic Management Plan would include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
Identified routes for vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians around traffic lane, parking lane, and/or sidewalk closures, as they are required; Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Provisions to ensure that access remains unobstructed for land uses near the Project site during construction;
Provisions to accommodate parking for construction workers either on-site or at off-site, off-street locations. Parking would be prohibited on streets in the Project site vicinity; and Prior to the start of construction, the Applicant would coordinate with the City and emergency service providers to ensure adequate access is maintained to the Project site and neighboring businesses and residences.
2.5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15124(b), the EIR project description must include “[a] statement of objectives sought by the proposed project…The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the Project.”
The Project objectives, as referenced in the Draft Normandie Crossing Specific Plan, are:
1. Diversify the City of Gardena’s existing housing options, by providing a range of housing types and sizes, to serve the region’s growing and evolving technology and creative sectors and aid in recruiting and retaining talent for local companies.
2. Support the expanding technology and creative sector with newly constructed, highquality housing opportunities, enabling local employees to live close to where they work.
3. Cluster urban residential development near technology firms, other large employment centers, and commercial corridors providing City residents with the opportunity to live, work, and shop with less reliance on automobiles.
4. Establish housing development that meets high standards of design and pursues environmental sustainability.
5. Redevelop a blighted site, increase tax revenues to the City, provide affordable housing to support the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals, and create a catalyst for future development in this part of Gardena.
2.6 AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
The City, as Lead Agency for the Project, has discretionary authority over the Project. To implement the Project, the Applicant would need to obtain, at a minimum, the following discretionary permits/approvals:
General Plan/General Plan Map Amendment (GPA #3-21):
o Concerning the NCSP area, a General Plan amendment to: (i) change the land use designation on the General Plan Land Use Map from “Industrial” and “Industrial, High Density 30 Overlay” to “Specific Plan” and (ii) amend the Land Use Plan text and Land Use Plan Table LU-3 to allow the mix of uses and densities specified in the NCSP; Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
o Concerning the residential parcel at 16964 West 179th Street, a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation on the General Plan Land Use Map from Industrial to Single-Family Residential; and rezone from General Industrial Zone (M2) to Single Family Residential Zone (R-1) consistent with existing residential land use.
o Concerning the Union Pacific Railroad parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site, a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation on the General Plan Land Use Map from Industrial to Public/Institutional. Zone Change and Zone Map Amendment (ZC #4-21):
o Concerning the NCSP area, a zoning map amendment to change the zones on the Zoning Map from Industrial (M-1) Zone with a High Density 30 Overlay and General Industrial (M-2) Zone to Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Zone; o Concerning the residential parcel at 16964 West 179th Street, a zoning map amendment to change the zone on the Zoning Map from General Industrial (M-2) Zone to Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zone; and
o Concerning the Union Pacific Railroad parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site, a zoning map amendment to change the zone on the Zoning Map from General Industrial (M-2) Zone to Official (O).
Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA #6-21): A GMC zoning text amendment to add Normandie Crossing Specific Plan;
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (NCSP) (SP #1-21);
Site Plan Review (SPR #11-21): Review of the development’s physical design; Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM #4-21): A vesting TTM to combine four lots into two and create one parcel for the apartment building and one parcel for the townhome-style buildings with the ability to create condominiums on the 75 townhome-style units; Development Agreement (DA #2-21): The development agreement would guarantee that the Specific Plan’s terms would not be amended for a set period of years without the Developer’s consent and would include the benefits to the City including affordable housing and sidewalk improvements along 169th Street, outside the Project boundaries; Affordable Housing Agreement to guarantee five (5) percent affordable housing for a period of 55 years; and
Environmental Assessment (EA #20-21).
In addition to the above City approvals, the Project also requires that the Applicant, in collaboration with the City and UPRR, request from the CPUC authorization to modify the rail crossing pursuant to CPUC General Order 88-B requirements.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
3.0 BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Basis of Cumulative Analysis
3.0 BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
A project’s cumulative impact is “an impact to which that project contributes and to which other projects contribute as well. The Project must make some contribution to the impact; otherwise, it cannot be characterized as a cumulative impact of that project.”1 Under CEQA’s cumulative impact analysis requirements, the pertinent question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact but whether the effects of an individual project are cumulatively considerable.
Thus, the analysis must assess whether the additional amount of impact resulting from the proposed Project should be considered significant in the context of the existing cumulative effect.
Importantly, this does not mean that any contribution to a cumulative impact should be considered cumulatively considerable.
State CEQA Guidelines §15355 provides the following definition of cumulative impacts:
“Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
State CEQA Guidelines §15130(a) further addresses the discussion of cumulative impacts, as follows:
(1) As defined in §15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.
(2) When the combined cumulative impact associated with the project’s incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR shall briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. A lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency’s conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.
1 Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation Dist. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 690, 700. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Basis of Cumulative Analysis
(3) An EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project’s contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15130(b), the discussion of cumulative impacts shall be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should include the following elements:
(1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projects may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. (2) When utilizing a list, as suggested in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), factors to consider when determining whether to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource being examined, the location of the project and its type. Location may be important, for example, when water quality impacts are at issue since projects outside the watershed would probably not contribute to a cumulative effect. Project type may be important, for example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of traffic.
(3) Lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. (4) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available. (5) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects, including examination of reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects.”
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Basis of Cumulative Analysis
3.2 CUMULATIVE PROJECT LIST
The cumulative study area varies from one environmental topic to another depending upon the nature of impacts related to the topic. For example, cumulative aesthetic considerations encompass only the surrounding areas with direct views of the Project site, while air quality is a regional issue that is analyzed on a broader scale. To determine the Project’s potential cumulative impacts, this EIR includes the use of a list of past, present, and future projects obtained from the City of Gardena; see Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects and Exhibit 3-1: Cumulative Project Locations. As indicated in Table 3-1, the related projects collectively include 1,132 DU and approximately 654,538 SF of non-residential land uses. The cumulative development, inclusive of the proposed Project, includes 1,535 DU and approximately 654,538 SF of non-residential land uses.
The cumulative impacts analyses are provided in Sections 4.1: Air Quality through
4.16: Aesthetics. These analyses describe the potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur as a result of the Project together with the cumulative projects listed in Table 3-1. Not all related projects would contribute to significant cumulative impacts for each topical area. For example, not all cumulative projects would have noise impacts. The cumulative impact analyses in each topical area provides an evaluation of the cumulative projects and how these would contribute to cumulative impacts. Some of the impacts are very sitespecific and would not compound the impacts associated with the Project. In other cases, shortterm impacts would not contribute to cumulative impacts because the construction of the cumulative Project and the development of the Project would not occur in the same time period or be near to each other; Table 3-2: Geographic Context for Cumulative Analysis presents the geographic context for each environmental issue area.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Basis of Cumulative Analysis
Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects
ID Type
Location
(Project Name)1 Description
Distance
to Project
Site
(miles)
NonResidential
(SF)
Residential
(DU)
City of Gardena
1 Commercial 15106 South Western
Avenue
Commercial
(Restaurant) &
Drive-thru
1.17 3,720 -
2 MFR2 1333 West 168th Street Condominiums 0.143 - 3
3 Residential
1348 West 168th Street
(Normandie Courtyard
Project)
Small Lot
Subdivision,
3-Story
0.084 - 9
4 Residential 13919 Normandie Avenue Single-Room
Occupancy 1.91 - 20
5 MFR
12850 Crenshaw
Boulevard
(GTOD SP Project)
Apartments 2.95 - 265
6 MFR 1938 West 146th Street Townhomes 1.60 - 6
7 Residential 13126 South Western
Avenue
Single-Room
Occupancy,
7 DU Affordable
2.50 - 121
8 MFR 2545 Marine Avenue Townhomes,
2 DU Affordable 1.70 - 22
9 MFR 1031 Magnolia Avenue Townhomes 0.88 - 6
10 MFR 2800 Rosecrans Avenue Townhomes,
4 DU Live-Work 2.20 - 20
11 Industrial 1600 West 135th Street Warehouse 2.10 190,860 - 12 Industrial 1450 West Artesia
Boulevard
Self-Storage/
Warehouse 0.30 268,000 -
13 Commercial 14206 Van Ness Avenue
Self-Storage/
Warehouse 2.00 177,573 -
Office 2.00 8,000
14 Mixed-Use 14600 Western Avenue
Apartments &
Commercial
(Retail)
1.50 3,000 196
15 MFR
1515 West 178th Street
(Melia 178th Street
Project)
Townhomes 0.50 - 114
16 Mixed-Use 1341 West Gardena
Boulevard
Apartments &
Commercial
(Retail/Office)
0.30 3,385 14
17 MFR 1621 West 147th Street Townhomes,
3-Story 1.40 - 6
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Basis of Cumulative Analysis
ID Type Location
(Project Name)1 Description
Distance
to Project
Site
(miles)
NonResidential
(SF)
Residential
(DU)
18 MFR 1335 West 141st Street Townhomes,
3-Story 1.80 - 50
19 Mixed-Use 2129 West Rosecrans
Avenue
Townhomes,
3-Story,
15 DU Live-Work
2.00 - 113
20 MFR 13615 South Vermont
Avenue
Townhomes,
2 DU Affordable 2.10 - 84
21 MFR 2500-2508 Rosecrans
Avenue
Townhomes,
3 DU Live-Work 2.00 - 53
22 MFR 15717 & 15725
Normandie Avenue
Townhomes,
3 DU Affordable 0.70 - 30
23 MFR 1610 Artesia Boulevard5 Multi-Family
Apartments 0.60 - 300
Total Related Projects 654,538 1,432
- MFR
Proposed Project
16911 South Normandie
Avenue
Apartments - - 328
Townhomes - - 75
Total Proposed Project 0 403
Total Cumulative Project 654,538 1,835
Notes:
1. Color Legend:
a. Green fill – project is approved and not constructed; b. Gold fill – project is approved and under construction; and c. Blue fill – project is not approved and application in review.
2. MFR = Multi-Family Residential
3. This related project is approximately 720 feet northeast of Project site. This is second nearest related project to proposed Project site. No recent action from Applicant. Plan Check Review anticipated expiration November 2023. Construction start date unknown.(A. Acuna, City of Gardena, Personal Email Communication, June 12, 2023)
4. This related project is approximately 400 feet northeast of Project site. Nearest related project to proposed Projectsite. No recent action from Applicant. Plan Check Review has expired. Construction start date unknown. (A. Acuna, City of Gardena, Personal Email Communication, June 12, 2023).
5. Pre Application received, however, formal application is anticipated. (A. Acuna, City of Gardena, Personal Email Communication, June 12, 2023)
Source: A. Acuna, City of Gardena, Personal Email Communications, March 13, 2023, and June 15, 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Basis of Cumulative Analysis
Table 3-2: Geographic Context for Cumulative Analysis
Environmental Topic Area Description
Air Quality South Coast Air Basin
Cultural Resources Historic Resources: 500-Foot Radius of Project site Archaeological Resources: 0.5-Mile Radius of Project site Energy County of Los Angeles
Geology and Soils
(Paleontological Resources) City of Gardena
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Global
Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1.0-mile Radius of Project site Hydrology and Water Quality Dominguez Watershed
Land Use and Planning City of Gardena
Noise 2,3 1,000-foot Radius of Project site
Population and Housing City of Gardena, County of Los Angeles, and SCAG Planning Region
Public Services
Fire Protection: Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Service Area
Police Protection: City of Gardena (i.e., Gardena Police Department Service Area)
Schools: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Libraries: Los Angeles County Library service area
Recreation City of Gardena
Transportation
Transit Facilities: GTrans Service Area, Torrance Transit Service Area, and Metro Service Area
Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities: City of Gardena Vehicle Miles Traveled: City of Gardena
Tribal Cultural Resources 0.5-Mile Radius of Project site Utilities and Service Systems
Water: Golden State Water Company (GSWC) Service Area
Sewer: Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD)
Electric Power: Southern California Edison (SCE) Service Area Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) Service Area
Solid Waste: County of Los Angeles
2 City of Los Angeles. (2006). L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide. Retrieved from:
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/A07.pdf , accessed June 2023. 3 The City of Gardena currently does not have construction noise screening criteria, thus, the City of Los Angeles CEQA Threshold Guide screening criteria was used to determine the geographic context for noise; see Section 4.9: Noise for additional information regarding the geographic context.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Basis of Cumulative Analysis
e .
EXHIBIT 3-1: CUMULATIVE PROJECT LOCATIONS
Normandie Crossing Specific Pla n Project
Kimley>>>Horn
City Boundary
Project Site
Cumulative Project
G Kimley>>>Horn
1 mi I
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Basis of Cumulative Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
- =========
Kimley>>>Horn
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following EIR subsections describe the existing environmental and regulatory settings, evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts (including direct and indirect, short-term, long-term, and cumulative), recommend mitigation measures, and identify unavoidable significant impacts, if any. Sections 4.1: Air Quality through 4.16: Aesthetics analyze those environmental resource areas where potentially significant impacts could occur, based on Initial Study findings, as stated in the Notice of Preparation; see Appendix 1.0-1: Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, and Comment Letters.
This EIR examines environmental factors outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form, for the following issue areas:
4.1 Air Quality
4.2 Cultural Resources
4.3 Energy
4.4 Geology and Soils (Paleontological
Resources)
4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.8 Land Use and Planning
4.9 Noise
4.10 Population and Housing
4.11 Public Services
4.12 Recreation
4.13 Transportation
4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.15 Utilities and Service Systems
4.16 Aesthetics
As set forth in the Initial Study, the environmental issues related to agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, mineral resources, and wildfire were found to result in no impacts or less than significant impacts; see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant.
Additionally, certain issues associated with aesthetics, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, and population and housing are also included in Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant. based on Initial Study findings.
Each potentially significant environmental issue area is addressed in a separate EIR section and is organized into the following subsections, as follows:
“Introduction” briefly introduces the section’s purpose, environmental issues that would be addressed, and key source documentation used to prepare the analysis. “Existing Setting” describes the physical conditions in the Project’s vicinity that exist at the time the Notice of Preparation was published (May 9, 2023) and that may influence or affect the issue under investigation.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis
“Regulatory Setting” discusses the laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards applicable to the Project.
“Significance Criteria and Thresholds” provides the thresholds that are the basis of conclusions of significance, which are primarily the criteria in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000-15387).
Primary sources used in identifying the criteria include the State CEQA Guidelines; local, state, federal, or other standards applicable to an impact category; and officially established significance thresholds. “. . . An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of any activity may vary with the setting” (State CEQA Guidelines §15064(b)). Principally, “. . . a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance” constitutes a significant impact (State CEQA Guidelines §15382). “Impacts and Mitigation Measures” describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur if the Project is implemented. Evidence, based on factual and scientific data, is presented to show the cause-and-effect relationship between the Project and the potential environmental changes. The exact magnitude, duration, extent, frequency, range, or other parameters of a potential impact are ascertained, to the extent possible, to determine whether impacts may be significant; all of the potential direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects are considered. “Mitigation Measures are measures that would be required of the Project to avoid a significant adverse impact; to minimize a significant adverse impact; to rectify a significant adverse impact by restoration; to reduce or eliminate a significant adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; or to compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environment. “Cumulative Impacts” describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur as a result of the Project together with all other reasonably foreseeable, planned, and approved future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; see also Section 3.0: Basis for Cumulative Analysis. “Significant Unavoidable Impacts” describes impacts that would be significant and cannot be feasibly mitigated to less than significant, and thus would be unavoidable. To approve a project with unavoidable significant impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In adopting such a statement, the lead agency is required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. If a project’s benefits are found to outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines §15093(a)).
“References” identifies the sources used in and throughout the subsection. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
4.1 AIR QUALITY
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
4.1 AIR QUALITY
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing air quality-related environmental and regulatory settings and evaluate the Project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the existing regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Information in thissection is based primarily on air quality data provided in the following sources:
Air Quality Technical Report, Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project (“Air Quality Report") (Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc., July 2023); Appendix 4.1-1: Air Quality Technical Report.
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project, Construction Health Risk Assessment (“Health Risk Assessment") (Air Quality Dynamics, July 2023); Appendix 4.1-2: Health Risk Assessment.
It is noted that Kimley-Horn conducted a third-party review on behalf of the City of Gardena (“City”) of the Project’s Air Quality Report and Health Risk Assessment; see Appendix 4.1-1 and Appendix 4.1-2. The third-party review concluded the analysis meets the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
4.1.1 EXISTING SETTING
Climate and Meteorology
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the state into 15 air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin). The Air Basin is an approximately 6,745-square-mile area bordered by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, Santa Margarita Peak to the south, the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west.1 The Air Basin consists of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. Air quality in this area is determined by natural factors such as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions.
The Air Basin lies in the eastern Pacific Ocean’ssemi-permanent high-pressure zone. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted by periods of hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2016). Air Quality Management Plan. page 1-4. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
winds. The extent and severity of criteria pollutant concentrations in the Air Basin is a function of the area’s natural physical characteristics (weather and topography) and man-made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and dispersion of pollutants throughout the Air Basin, making it an area of high pollution potential. The Air Basin’s meteorological conditions, in combination with regional topography, are particularly conducive to the formation and retention of ozone (O3), which is a secondary pollutant that forms through photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Therefore, the greatest air pollution impacts throughout the Air Basin typically occur from June through September. This condition is generally attributed to the Air Basin’s emissions, light winds, and shallow vertical atmospheric mixing. These factors reduce the potential for pollutant dispersion causing elevated air pollutant levels. The Air Basin’s pollutant concentrations vary with location, season, and time of day. O3 concentrations, for example, tend to be lower along the coast, higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Air Basin and adjacent desert.
Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” (“CAPs") and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant O3 is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants.
Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table
4.1-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.
Table 4.1-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources1 Human Health Effects2 Particulate
Matter (PM10
and PM2.5)
Can be emitted directly from a source,
such as construction sites, unpaved roads,
fields, smokestacks, or fires. Although,
most particles form in the atmosphere as a
result of complex reactions of chemicals
such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides,
which are emitted from power plants,
industries and automobiles.
Short-term: increase in mortality rates;
increase in respiratory infections; increase
in number and severity of asthma attacks;
COPD exacerbation; increase in combined
respiratory-diseases and number of
hospital admissions; increased mortality
due to cardiovascular or respiratory
diseases; increase in hospital admissions
for acute respiratory conditions; increase
in school absences; increase in lost
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Table 4.1-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources1 Human Health Effects2 workdays; decrease in respiratory function
in children; increase medication use in
children and adults with asthma.
Long-term: reduced lung function growth
in children; changes in lung development;
development of asthma in children;
increased risk of cardiovascular diseases;
increased total mortality from lung cancer;
increased risk of premature death.
Possible link to metabolic, nervoussystem,
and reproductive and developmental
effects for short-term and long-term
exposure to PM2.5.
Ozone (O3) Created by chemical reactions between
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC)
1. This happens
when pollutants emitted by cars, power
plants, industrial boilers, refineries,
chemical plants, and other sources
chemically react in the presence of
sunlight.
Pulmonary function decrements and
localized lung injury in humans and
animals; asthma exacerbation; chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
exacerbation; respiratory infection;
increased school absences, and hospital
admissions and emergency department
(ED) visits for combined respiratory
diseases; increased mortality; possible
metabolic effects.
Vegetation damage; property damage.
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
The largest source of SO2 in the
atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels by
power plants and other industrial facilities.
Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include
industrial processes such as extracting
metal from ore; natural sources such as
volcanoes; and locomotives, ships and
other vehicles and heavy equipment that
burn fuel with a high sulfur content. SO2
emissions that lead to high concentrations
of SO2 in the air generally also lead to the
formation of other sulfur oxides (SOx). SOx
can react with other compounds in the
atmosphere to form small particles. These
particles contribute to PM pollution.
Respiratory symptoms (bronchoconstriction, possible wheezing or shortness of breath) during exercise or physical activity
in persons with asthma.
Possible allergic sensitization, airway
inflammation, asthma development.
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
A colorless, odorless gas that is released
when something is burned. The greatest
sources of CO to outdoor air are cars,
trucks and other vehicles or machinery
that burn fossil fuels. A variety of
Visibility reduction. Aggravation of angina
pectoris and other aspects of coronary
heart disease; decreased exercise
tolerance in persons with peripheral
vascular disease and lung disease; possible
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Table 4.1-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources1 Human Health Effects2 household items such as unvented
kerosene and gas space heaters, leaking
chimneys and furnaces, and gas stoves
also release CO and can affect air quality
indoors.
impairment of central nervous system
functions; possible increased risk to
fetuses; possible increased risk of
pulmonary disease; possible emergency
department visits for respiratory diseases
overall and visits for asthma.
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
NO2 is primarily emitted in the air from the
burning of fuel from cars, trucks and
buses, power plants, and off-road
equipment. NO2 can react with other
chemicals in the air to form both PM and
ozone.
Short-term: asthma exacerbations
(“asthma attacks”)
Long-term: asthma development; higher
risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and
respiratory mortality.
Both short and long term NO2 exposure is
also associated with chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) risk.
Potential impacts on cardiovascular health,
mortality and cancer, aggravate chronic
respiratory disease.
Contribution to atmospheric discoloration.
Lead (Pb) Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. Two major sources of lead in the
air are metals and ore processing and
piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded
aviation fuel. Other sources are waste
incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery
manufacturers. Today the highest air
concentrations of lead are usually found
near lead smelters as a result of EPA's
regulatory efforts in the removal of lead
from motor vehicle gasoline.
Learning disabilities; impairment of blood
formation and nerve function;
cardiovascular effects, including coronary
heart disease and hypertension.
Possible male reproductive system effects.
Notes:
1. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).
2. List of health and welfare effects is not comprehensive; detailed health effects information can be found in the U.S. EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) documentation at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs.
Source:
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Criteria Air Pollutants, Accessed May 15, 2023.
2. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2022; California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards and Key Health and Welfare Effects, December 2, 2022.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long‐ term (i.e., chronic, carcinogenic or cancer-causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from various common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust.
The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavyduty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs.
Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.
Ambient air quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the state.
Within the Air Basin, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) maintains the air quality stations to measure ambient pollutant concentrations. The monitoring station most representative of the Project site is the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles County Monitoring Station. Criteria pollutants monitored at this station include PM2.5, O3, PM10, and CO.
The next most representative station is the South Central Los Angeles County Monitoring Station.
Criteria pollutants monitored at this station include CO, O3, NO2, PM2.5, and lead.
Existing Site Emissions
Table 2.2-1: Existing Onsite Structure Summary summarizes the existing onsite land uses by address and indicates approximately 115,424 square feet (SF) of industrial floor area is present on the Project site. However, approximately 9,324 SF of industrial floor area is in a dilapidated condition, thus, is not being used or occupiable. Therefore, approximately 106,100 SF of the existing industrial land uses are currently operating. The estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the existing 106,100 SF of active industrial land uses were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and are identified in Table 4.1-2: Maximum Daily Net Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates For Existing Conditions.
Sensitive Receptors and Locations
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors that are near localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The sensitive receptors nearest the Project site are the residential uses located north of West 169th Street, south of West 170th Street, east of South Normandie Avenue, and west of Brighton Way.
Table 4.1-2: Maximum Daily Net Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates For Existing Conditions
Emission Source Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions 1,3 (lb/day)
VOC2, 3 NOX CO SOX PM104 PM2.54
Existing Conditions4
Area 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile 0.70 1.00 8.00 0.02 1.65 0.45
Total 3.10 1.10 8.10 0.02 1.66 0.46
Notes:
1 Numbers are rounded for reporting purposes. The sum of the emissions may not add up due to rounding. 2 For purposes of this analysis VOC emissions are assumed to be equal to ROG. 3 CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model; CAP = criteria air pollutant; CO = carbon monoxide; EMFAC = Emission Factors model; lb = pounds; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gases; South Coast AQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOx = oxides of sulfur; VOC = volatile organic compounds
4 PM emissions for mobile sources are estimated as a sum of exhaust emissions, tire wear, brake wear, and entrained road dust. 5 Emissions for existing conditions were estimated using CalEEMod. See Appendix 4.1-1 for CalEEMod outputs. 6 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.
Source: Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). See Appendix 4.1-1.
4.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) of 1963 was the first federal legislation regarding air pollution control and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years, with the most recent amendments occurring in 1990. At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is responsible for implementation of certain portions of the Clean Air Act including mobile source requirements. Other portions of the Clean Air Act, such as stationary source requirements, are implemented by state and local agencies.
The Clean Air Act establishes federal air quality standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. The Clean Air Act also mandates that the state submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS. These amendments require both a - ======
I I I
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporation of additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones.
In addition to criteria pollutants, Title I of the Act also includes air toxics provisions which require the U.S. EPA to develop and enforce regulations to protect the public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health. In accordance with Section 112, the U.S. EPA establishes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or air toxics, includes specific compounds that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects.
Title II requirements pertain to mobile sources, such as cars, trucks, buses, and planes.
Reformulated gasoline, automobile pollution control devices, and vapor recovery nozzles on gas pumps are a few of the mechanisms the U.S. EPA uses to regulate mobile air emission sources.
The provisions of Title II have resulted in tailpipe emission standards for vehicles which have strengthened in recent years to improve air quality. For example, the standards for NOX emissions have been lowered substantially, and the specification requirements for cleaner-burning gasoline are more stringent.
State
California Clean Air Act
CARB administers air quality policies for the state of California. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the earliest practical date. The AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the SIP for meeting NAAQS for the state. Like the U.S. EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. The CAAQS apply to the same criteria pollutants as the FCAA but also include stateidentified criteria pollutants. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc., are not considered violations of a state standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment. The CAAQS are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
identifies the CAAQS and NAAQS. The Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the states O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the federal 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The Air Basin is designated as in attainment or unclassified for the remaining CAAQS and NAAQS.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Table 4.1-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2 Ozone (O3)
2, 5, 7
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 100 ppb11
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) NA
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 75 ppb
Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10) 1, 3, 6
24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
3, 4, 6, 9
24-Hour NA 35 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (0.15 µg/m3) NA
Hydrogen Sulfide (H₂S) 10 1 Hour 0.03 ppm NA
ppm = parts per million; - parts per billion by volume (0.01 ppm = 10 ppb); µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available. 1 State standards are values that are not to be exceeded. These standards are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1- hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead, PM10, PM2.5, and NO₂ annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. 2 Federal standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. Federal standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. 3 Except for the Federal particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The Federal annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.
NAAQS are set by the U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4 On October 1, 2015, the Federal 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than
0.070 ppm. U.S. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the O3 level in the area. 5 The Federal 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. 6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. 8 On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 9 The PM2.5 standards currently in effect are the 2006 24-hour standard of 35 µg/m³, and the 2013 annual standard of 12 µg/m³. The U.S.
EPA last reviewed the PM2.5 and ozone standards in 2020 and decided to retain them at their current levels. However, the present administration is re-evaluating the 2020 review and expects to finalize that re-evaluation within the next few years. 10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined. 11 Federal lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2022; California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards and Key Health and Welfare Effects, December 2, 2022. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast AQMD is responsible for air quality planning in the Air Basin and developing rules and regulations to bring the area into attainment of the ambient air quality standards. This is accomplished through air quality monitoring, evaluation, education, implementation of control measures to reduce emissions from stationary sources, permitting and inspection of pollution sources, enforcement of air quality regulations, and by supporting and implementing measures to reduce emissions from motor vehicles. All projects are subjectto South Coast AQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.
The South Coast AQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources. SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies, provides the control element for mobile sources.
The South Coast AQMD Governing Board adopted the most recent AQMP on December 2, 2022. The 2022 AQMP addresses the 1997 8-hour and 2008 8-hour ozone standards, as well as PM2.5 standards. This document focuses on attaining the 2015 8-hour ozone standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb). The AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) (2020-2045 RTP/SCS) and updated emissions inventory methodologies for various source categories. As part of its air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS was determined to conform to the federally mandated SIP for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS has been incorporated into the 2022 AQMP. Both the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with county and city general plans.
The South Coast AQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the South Coast AQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Localized Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The South Coast AQMD guidance helps local government agencies and consultants develop environmental documents required by CEQA and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operations.
With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how existing and proposed projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The South Coast AQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the Handbook on their website. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
4.1.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning air quality. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as significance criteria in this section. The Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (see Impact
4.1-1)
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 (see Impact 4.1-2)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (see Impact 4.1-3) Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people (see Impact 4.1-4)
South Coast AQMD Thresholds. The significance criteria established by South Coast AQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations. According to the South Coast AQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The South Coast AQMD has established thresholds of significance for a land use development project’s air quality during construction- and operational-related activities, as shown in Table 4.1-4: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds.
Table 4.1-4: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Construction-Related (lbs/day)
Operational-Related
(lbs/day)
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)/Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Lead 3 3
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2023.
Localized Carbon Monoxide. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, the Project would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed through an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the Project site are above the state and federal CO standards (the more stringent - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
state standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as in attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.
4.1.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following Project design features (PDF) were incorporated into the analysis:
PDF AQ-1. Nonroad Diesel Engines: The Project would utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment which would meet, at a minimum, the Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines promulgated by the USEPA for equipment greater than 50 horsepower.2
PDF AQ-2/PDF GHG-1. Electrical Vehicle Charging Design: The Project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11) for electric vehicle (EV) charging design. Compliance would provide 10% of parking stalls to be EV capable, 25% of parking stalls to be EV ready with Level 2 EV charging receptacles, and 5% of parking stalls to be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. The final design may vary from this in compliance with the CALGreen Code.3 PDF AQ-3/PDF GHG-2. All-Electric: There would be no natural gas use by any of the Project land uses.4
4.1.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.1-1:
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
As previously discussed, as part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the NAAQS. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under state law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the CAAQS and NAAQS. South Coast AQMD’s AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving CAAQS and NAAQS. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:
2 The Project construction emissions inventory quantified this measure. 3 The Project operational emissions inventory did not quantify this measure, but it has been included here qualitatively. 4 The Project operational emissions inventory quantified this measure. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Consistency Criterion No. 1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Consistency Criterion No. 2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions noted in the AQMP or increments based on the years of the project buildout phase.
According to the South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding (Criterion No. 1 and Criterion No. 2) is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As identified in Table 4.1-5: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions, and Table 4.1-6: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions, the Project would not exceed construction or operational emission standards, respectively. The Project would comply with CARB requirements to minimize short-term emissions from on-road and off-road diesel equipment. The Project would also comply with South Coast AQMD regulations for controlling fugitive dust pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 403. Compliance with these requirements is consistent with and meets or exceeds the AQMP requirements for control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The 2022 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, reduce pollutant levels within the areas under the jurisdiction of South Coast AQMD, return clean air to the region, and minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections used in the AQMP’s formulation.
Table 4-8.2: Existing General Plan Land Use Designationssummarizes the Project site’s existing land use designations and maximum allowable development capacity by APN and address. As indicated in Table 4.8-2: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, the Project site’s maximum development capacity, based on the existing land use designations (i.e., Industrial, with a High Density 30 Overlay over the northern portion), is 40 DU (on the northerly portion) and/or approximately 228,690 SF of industrial floor area. However, because the City only recently (i.e., February 2023) adopted this overlay, Connect SoCal and the AQMP do not account for residential uses or associated population on the Project site.
As discussed in Section 4.8: Land Use and Planning, the Project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the General Plan Land Use Map from “Industrial, with a High Density 30 Overlay” over the northern portion, to “Specific Plan” to allow - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
for the proposed residential uses. As such, excluding the previously planned 40 DU, the Project would result in a forecast population growth of approximately 1,088 persons, or approximately
1.7 percent of the General Plan’s forecast population of 63,799 persons at buildout, and approximately 1.6 percent over Connect SoCal’s forecast 2045 population of 65,700 persons by 2045. Although the Project would include a General Plan Amendment, the forecast population growth resulting from the land use change would be nominal and is not considered substantial concerning Connect SoCal’s forecasted growth; see Section 4.11: Population and Housing. Also, the Project site’s existing non-residential (i.e., industrial) development capacity of approximately 228,690 SF, which is accounted for in Connect SoCal and the AQMP, would be removed with the Project’s proposed General Plan amendment. Further, the Project would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the second criterion.
Because the Project is consistent with the South Coast AQMD consistency finding criteria, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.1-2:
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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Construction Emissions
Project construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern in the Project area are O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the South Coast AQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from demolition, site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne PM are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.
The duration of the Project’s construction activities is estimated to be approximately 3.5 years, beginning June 2024 and ending September 2027. The Project’s construction-related emissions - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects (see Appendix 4.1-1 for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis). The Project’s construction-related maximum daily emissions are identified in Table 4.1-5. The Project would be subject to compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust, which is incorporated into this analysis. As shown in Table 4.1-5, the Project’s construction-related CAP emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s mass daily significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s construction activities would result in a less than significant air quality impact.
Table 4.1-5: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Year
Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions 1,2.3
(lb/day)
VOC5 NOx CO SOx PM106 PM2.56
2024 1.2 5.7 24.9 0.1 8.8 4.7
2025 1.4 4.0 27.3 0.1 3.6 1.0
2026 10.8 3.9 28.2 0.1 3.6 1.0
2027 10.8 2.6 27.7 0.1 3.5 1.0
Maximum Unmitigated7 11 6 28 0 9 5
SCAQMD Significance
Threshold8 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1. Numbers are rounded for reporting purposes. The sum of the emissions may not add up due to rounding.
2. Emissions shown here are based on Project-specific construction schedule and hauling material. CalEEMod defaults were used for on-site construction equipment mix and on-road vehicle trips. Emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. See Appendix 4.1-1 for detailed CalEEMod outputs. Analysis assumes on-site fugitive dust control [watering three times daily during construction].
3. Project construction assumes the use of USEPA Tier 4 for construction equipment greater than 50 hp.
4. Numbers are rounded for reporting purposes.
5. For purposes of this analysis the VOC emissions are assumed to be equal to ROG.
6. PM emissions are estimated as a sum of exhaust, tire wear, brake wear, and fugitive dust emissions. PM fugitive dust emissions during construction include a 55% reduction (for watering at least two times daily to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403).
7. The maximum emissions reported for each pollutant may occur on different days. The sum of the emissions may not add up due to rounding.
8. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model; CO = carbon monoxide; lb = pounds; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM = particulate matter; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = oxides of sulfur; VOC = volatile organic compounds Source: Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). See Appendix 4.1-1.
Operational emissions
The Project’s operational maximum daily emissions are summarized in Table 4.1-6. For CAPs, the emissions associated with the existing uses that would be removed are subtracted from the - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Project’s mass emissions, to get the net mass emissions, which are then compared to the South Coast AQMD mass daily significance thresholds. The estimated emissions include on-site emissions from stationary sources and offsite emissions from on-road sources. The primary source of the operational CAP emissions (except VO) is traffic-related mobile sources. As shown in Table 4.1-6: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions, the Project’s operational CAP emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s mass daily significance thresholds. Therefore, Project operations would result in a less than significant air quality impact.
Table 4.1-6: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions
Emission Source Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions 1 (lb/day) VOC2 NOX CO SOX PM103 PM2.53
Project4
Area 8.8 0.4 33.3 0.0 0.18 0.18
Energy5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile 5.4 5.6 53.8 0.12 14.10 3.81
Total 14.2 6.0 87.1 0.1 14.3 4.0
Existing Conditions4
Area 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile 0.7 1.0 8.0 0.02 1.65 0.45
Total 3.1 1.1 8.1 0.0 1.7 0.5
Project Minus Existing Conditions (Net Change)6
Total Net Emissions 11 5 79 0 13 4
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds6 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1. Numbers are rounded for reporting purposes. The sum of the emissions may not add up due to rounding.
2. For purposes of this analysis VOC emissions are assumed to be equal to ROG.
3. PM emissions for mobile sources are estimated as a sum of exhaust emissions, tire wear, brake wear, and entrained road dust.
4. Emissions for Project and existing conditions were estimated using CalEEMod. See Appendix 4.1-1 for CalEEMod outputs.
5. There are zero energy criteria air pollutant emissions for Full Buildout Operations as there is no natural gas usage.
6. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.
7. CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model; CAP = criteria air pollutant; CO = carbon monoxide; EMFAC = Emission Factorsmodel; lb = pounds; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOx = oxides of sulfur; VOC = volatile organic compounds
Source: Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). See Appendix 4.1-1.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Impact 4.1-3:
Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Sensitive land uses are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residential uses located north of West 169th Street, south of West 170th Street, east of South Normandie Avenue, and west of Brighton Way.
Construction
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) are used to evaluate the Project’s construction-related emissions relative to the SCAQMD ambient air quality standard significance thresholds. The onsite construction and operational emissions for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are compared to their respective thresholds provided in Appendix C of SCAQMD’s LST Methodology. The Source Receptor Area (SRA) applicable to the Project is SRA Number 3, Southwest Coastal Los Angeles County, based on the Project’s location. As a conservative approach, the thresholds chosen are for a 5.0-acre Project area since there is no published threshold specifically for the 5.25-acre Project site. Per guidance in SCAQMD’s LST Methodology, the receptor distance was chosen based on the lowest (i.e., 25 meters), and thus most conservative, threshold for each pollutant for the “5.0-acre” LST. While the exact construction schedule and equipment mix may vary from the current analysis, the maximum daily emissions are not expected to be higher than that estimated given the conservative assumptions included in this analysis. As shown in Table 4.1-7:
Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, the Project’s maximum daily on-site construction-related emissions would be less than the SCAQMD mass-rate LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The construction emissions are based on conservative assumptions to represent the maximum level of construction activity that could occur on the Project site on any given day.
Since the screening analysis shows that Project construction emissions would be below the massrate LSTs, the Project’s contribution to the localized air concentrations of these pollutants would be less than significant.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Table 4.1-7: Localized Significance Of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Emission Type Maximum Daily On-Site Construction Emissions (lb/day) 1 CO NOX 1-Hour NOX 2 PM103 PM2.53
Onsite Construction Emissions4 23.3 2.6 2.6 8.5 4.6
SCAQMD Localized Significance
Thresholds5 1,796 197 109 15 8
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No
Notes:
1. Emissions represent the change in on-site emissions due to the proposed land uses relative to emissions from the existing conditions.
2. An approximated LST was estimated to evaluate the federal 1-hour NO₂ standard, as the SCAQMD LST has not been updated to reflect this standard. This value was estimated by scaling the SCAQMD LST that represents the state 1-hr NO₂ standard with the ratio of the federal to state 1-hr NO₂ standard (0.10 ppm/0.18 ppm).
3. PM fugitive dust emissions during unmitigated construction include a 55% reduction (for watering at least two times daily to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 403).
4. Construction and Project Total emissions presented are on-site emissions.
5. LSTs based on a 5-acre project site SRA 3 (Southwest Coastal LA County) for a 25-m receptor distance. LSTs were obtained from the 2008 SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C, Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysishandbook/localized-significance-thresholds. Accessed: November 2022.
CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model; CO - carbon monoxide; lb – pounds; LST - Localized Significance Threshold; NO2 - nitrogen dioxide; NOx - nitrogen oxides; PM10 - coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 - fine particulate matter; South Coast AQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District
Source: Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). See Appendix 4.1-1.
Diesel Particulate Matter
Project construction activities would generate Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions from the use of required off-road diesel equipment. The amount to which the nearest sensitive receptors would be exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted using the American Meteorological Society (AMS)/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), seeAppendix 4.1-2. AERMOD is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s guideline model for the assessment of near-field pollutant dispersion. The SCAQMD provides guidance on the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to public agencies conducting environmental review of projects located within its jurisdiction with the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Refined air dispersion models require meteorological information to account for local atmospheric conditions. Due to their sensitivity to individual meteorological parameters such as wind speed and direction, the U.S. EPA recommends that meteorological data used as input into dispersion models be selected based on relative spatial and temporal conditions that exist in the area of concern. In response to this recommendation, meteorological data from the SCAQMD Hawthorne Airport monitoring station, located approximately 3.62 miles northwest of the Project site, was used to represent local weather conditions and prevailing winds.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
The Project’s construction-related activities would generate DPM emissions from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); building construction; paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary TAC of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction site to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the construction site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.
To assess localized impacts, construction phase, calendar year, and number of days associated with on-site construction activity were identified to produce an average daily DPM emission rate.
Construction activities are estimated to occur for 994 days over a 1,160-day construction period based upon a 6-day per week construction schedule, which accounts for concurrent phase activities during paving and architectural coating operations. See Appendix 4.1-2 for a summary of estimated average daily particulate emissions associated with various construction activities.
Carcinogenic compounds are not considered to have threshold levels (i.e., dose levels below which there are no risks). Any exposure, therefore, would have some associated risk. As a result, the SCAQMD has established a maximum incremental cancer risk which meets or exceeds a threshold of 10 in one million (10E-06) for projects prepared under CEQA. This threshold is also consistent with the State of California as a level posing no significant risk for exposures to carcinogens regulated under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65).
Health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic compounds can be defined in terms of the probability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a chemical at a given concentration.
Under a deterministic approach (i.e., point estimate methodology), the cancer risk probability is determined by multiplying the chemical’s annual concentration by its unit risk factor (URF). The URF is a measure of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical when a dose is received through the inhalation pathway. It represents an upper-bound estimate of the probability of contracting cancer as a result of continuous exposure to an ambient concentration of one microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) over a 70-year lifetime.
Error! Reference source not found. presents the carcinogenic risk estimate for the maximum exposed residential receptor. The HRA determined that the off-site construction health risk would result in a maximum cancer risk of 6.6 in ten million, which would not meet or exceed the South Coast AQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, based upon the predicted carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard estimates for the residential exposure scenario, the HRA demonstrates that Project construction activities would not result in unacceptable localized impacts from DPM exposure.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality