Gardena City Council
January 14, 2025

Table 4.1-8: Maximum Residential Receptor and Carcinogenic Risk Age Group Exposure Scenario
Third Trimester 2.8E-08
0 to 2 years 4.9E-07
2 to 9 years 1.5E-07
Total 6.6E-07
Source: Appendix 4.1-2.

An evaluation of the potential noncancer effects of DPM exposure were also evaluated in the HRA. Under the point estimate approach, adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the pollutant concentration with the appropriate Reference Exposure Level (REL). There are no available acute/8-hour reference exposure levels for DPM. To quantify noncarcinogenic impacts, the hazard index approach was used. The hazard index assumes that subthreshold exposures adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (i.e., toxicological endpoint). To calculate the hazard index, the pollutant concentration or dose is divided by its toxicity value. Should the total equal or exceed one (i.e., unity), a health hazard is presumed to exist. No exposure frequency or duration adjustments are considered for noncarcinogenic exposures. The HRA determined that for chronic noncarcinogenic effects, the Project’s hazard index for the respiratory endpoint totalled approximately 0.0041 for the maximum exposed residential receptor, which would not meet or exceed the South Coast AQMD hazard index threshold of one. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Refer to Appendix 4.1-2 for analysis methodology, results, and model data.

Operations
Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts
A Carbon Monoxide (CO) hot spot is an area of localized carbon monoxide pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. The purpose of the analysis is to verify that the Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard at intersections for which a significant impact would occur. It is noted that the Air Basin is designated as an attainment area for state and federal CO standards; and that there has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on urban and rural roads have increased. The SCAQMD studied the Air Basin’s four most congested intersections in 2003 in order to support their CO “attainment” demonstration to the U.S. EPA. The modeled intersections experienced more than 100,000 average daily trips, and SCAQMD found that even these highly congested intersections would not cause a CO hot spot to result. Therefore, given the Project’s estimated 1,713 average daily trips, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hot spots would not be experienced at any intersections. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

Diesel Particulate Matter
Pursuant to California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, Case No. S213478, agencies are not required to analyze the CEQA impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents, unless the proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist.

Therefore, operational-related DPM is not included as a part of this analysis.

Conclusion
Since the above analysis shows that the Project’s construction and operations emissions would not exceed any significance thresholds for pollutants and therefore would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

Impact 4.1-4:

Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents. South Coast AQMD Rule 1113 limits the allowable amount of VOCs from architectural coatings and solvents. Since compliance with South Coast AQMD Rules governing these compounds is mandatory, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would create objectionable odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Therefore, no significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

The South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the South Coast AQMD as odor sources. Waste collection areas and disposal for the Project would be covered and situated away from the property line and sensitive offsite uses. Therefore, potential odor impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

4.1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the air quality impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development within Gardena, according to the related projects; see Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects. The geographic context for cumulative analysis of air quality is the SCAB; see also Table 3-2: Geographic Context for Cumulative Analysis.

Cumulative Construction Emissions
As previously concluded above, the Project would not conflictwith the applicable air quality plans (Threshold 4.1.1). Similarly, all related projects would be required to demonstrate no conflict would occur with the applicable air quality plans. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact concerning a conflict with the applicable air quality plan.

The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for state standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific South Coast AQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The mass-based regional significance thresholds published by the South Coast AQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the Air Basin. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. Because project construction- and operations-related emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, Project construction and operations would result in a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, Project construction and operations would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

As concluded above, the Project would not 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, nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The South Coast AQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act mandates. The analysis assumes fugitive dust controls would be used during construction, including frequent water applications. Compliance with South Coast AQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the Project construction-related impacts. Cumulative projects would also be subject to project-level review and project-specific measures would be required, as needed, to reduce significant impacts. Cumulative projects would also be required to comply with South Coast AQMD rules and regulations. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality significantly given compliance with the established regulatory framework would be required.

Consequently, the Project combined with other cumulative development would not result in a - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

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.

Project construction activities would generate temporary DPM emissions from the use of offroad diesel equipment. Considering the relatively short duration of DPM-emitting construction activity at any one location, and the highly dispersive properties of DPM, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions.

Similarly, cumulative project construction activities would generate temporary DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment. Given that the amount to which sensitive receptors near cumulative project construction sites would be exposed would be a function of proximity, concentration, and duration of exposure. As such, cumulative project’s potential to result in the exposure of DPM would be determined on a site-by-site basis. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in a cumulative impact concerning DPM. As concluded above, the Project would not generate odors. Therefore, no cumulative impact concerning odors would occur.

4.1.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning air quality have been identified.

4.1.8 REFERENCES
Air Quality Dynamics. (2023). 16911 South Normandie – Construction Health Risk Assessment; Appendix 4.1-2: Health Risk Assessment.

Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). Air Quality Technical Report; Appendix 4.1-1: Air Quality Technical Report.

Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). Air Quality Technical Report - Air Quality Table Set.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2022). Air Quality Management Plan, 2022; California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards and Key Health and Welfare Effects.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2016). Air Quality Management Plan. Pages 1-4.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Criteria Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. Accessed May 15, 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn

4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to cultural resources, and to evaluate the Project’s potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource, or to disturb any human remains. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the existing regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or lessen the Project’s potentially significant impacts.

Information in this section is based primarily on the following sources:
 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Development at 16911 South Normandie Avenue Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, California (Archeological Assessment); see Appendix 4.2-1: Archaeological Resources Assessment.  Historical Resources Assessment Report, 16911 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, Los Angeles County, California (Historical Resources Assessment); see Appendix 4.2-2:

Historical Resources Assessment).

BCR Consulting LLC (BCR) conducted a third-party review on behalf of the City of Gardena (“City”) of the Archaeological Assessment and Historical Resources Assessment; see Appendix 4.2-1 and Appendix 4.2-2, respectively. The third-party review concluded the reports meet the applicable provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines. The Tribal Resources Assessment is addressed as a part of Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources of this EIR.

4.2.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS
Key terms and concepts used in this section to describe and assess the potential cultural resource impacts are defined below:

Archeological Site. An archeological site is defined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains. Archeological remains usually take the form of artifacts (e.g., fragments of tools, vestiges of utilitarian or non-utilitarian objects), features (e.g., remnants of walls, cooking hearths, or midden deposits), and ecological evidence (e.g., pollen remaining from plants that were in the area when the activates occurred). Prehistoric archaeological sites generally represent the material remains of Native American groups and their activities dating to the period before European contact. In some cases, prehistoric sites may contain evidence of trade contact with Europeans. Ethnohistoric archaeological sites are defined as Native American settlements occupied after the arrival of European settlers in California.

Historic archaeological sites reflect the activities of non-native populations during the Historic period.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

Artifact. An object that has been made, modified, or used by a human being.

Cultural Resource. A cultural resource is a location of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural resources include archaeological resources and built environment resources (sometimes known as historic architectural resources), and may include sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, works of art, architecture, and natural features that were important in past human events. They may consist of physical remains or areas where significant human events occurred, even though evidence of the events no longer remains. Cultural resources also include places that are of traditional, cultural, or religious importance to social or cultural groups.

Cultural Resources Study Area (“study area”). All areas of potential permanent and temporary impacts for a reasonable worst-case development within a project site and off-site impact areas, including a 15-foot buffer around construction areas.

Ethnographic. Relating to the study of human cultures. “Ethnographic resources” represent the heritage resource of an ethnic or cultural group, such as Native Americans or African, European, Latino, or Asian immigrants. They include traditional resource-collecting areas, ceremonial sites, value-imbued landscape features, cemeteries, shrines, or ethnic neighborhoods.

Historic Period.The period that begins with the arrival of the first non-native population and thus varies by area.

Historical Resource. This term is used for the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is defined in the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15064.5) as: (1) a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements which a lead agency determines to by historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Historical resources may also include tribal cultural resources including sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, objects, and/or archeological resources with value to a California Native American Tribe per PRC §21074.

Prehistoric Period. The period prior to 1772. The later part of the prehistoric period (post-1542) is also referring to as the protohistoric period in some areas, which marks a transitional period during which native populations began to be influenced by European presence resulting in gradual changes to their lifeways.

Tribal Cultural Resource. This term refers to a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, object, or archaeological resource with cultural value to a California Native American tribe - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

that is listed or eligible for listing in national, California, or local registers. A lead agency also has the discretion to determine that a resource is a tribal cultural resource if the determination is supported by substantial evidence. Tribal cultural resources are addressed in Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources.

Unique Archeological Resource. This term is used for the purposes of CEQA and is defined in PRC §21083.2(g) as an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it either contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available examples of its type; or, is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

4.2.2 EXISTING SETTING
Ethnographic, Archaeological, and Historic Contents
See Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources for the Ethnographic Setting.

Prehistoric Setting
The prehistoric chronology for the southern California coastal region that is applicable to nearcoastal and many inland areas is identified by the following prehistoric sequence: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. These horizons are described in detail in Appendix 4.2-1.

Historic Setting
Between 1769 and 1822, the Spanish colonized California and established missions, presidios, and pueblos. After winning its independence from Spain, Mexico worked to lessen the wealth and power held by these missions. In 1833, in accordance with the Spanish-Mexican Grant Act of 1851, the missions and their lands were given to the Mexican governor, who redistributed them in the form of grants to private owners, who set up ranchos.

On April 4, 1850, five months prior to California’s achieving statehood, Los Angeles became an American city. Los Angeles County was established on February 18, 1850, one of 27 counties established in the months prior to California’s statehood. When California was granted statehood in 1850, the United States promised to honor rancho land grants. However, the process of defining land boundaries and proving legal ownership was often costly and time consuming. In combination with environmental factors detrimental to the cattle industry, many ranchos incurred debt and went into bankruptcy. This resulted in ranchos being divided up and sold inexpensively into agricultural parcels or towns.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

City of Gardena
The City was part of the 43,000-acre Spanish land grant known as Rancho San Pedro. Gardena’s path to incorporation began during the 1880’s real estate boom.

The City was incorporated on September 11, 1930, nearly 50 years after the first settlers moved to the area, consolidating the surrounding communities of Gardena, Strawberry Park, and Moneta. At that time, the City was a farming community of approximately 20,000 people.

In 1890, the railroad extended along Western Avenue. Another key development in the 1890s was the selection of San Pedro as the official port for the City of Los Angeles. The impact of this designation reverberated through the South Bay Region in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The siting of the port in San Pedro influenced development and settlement patterns through the south bay, since connecting cities and communities became important transit stops and centers as well as locations for industrial and manufacturing plants which attracted new residents.

Since its earliest years, Gardena has owed its growth and development to its proximity to evolving transportation corridors and lines. Before the advent of the automobile, transportation options included the Los Angeles and Redondo Railroad line, the 1903 California Pacific Railway line connecting San Pedro and Los Angeles via Gardena, and the Pacific Electric Railway Line (or the “Red Cars”) which were established through Gardena in 1912.

Through the first quarter of the 20th century, Gardena remained largely agricultural in nature.

The town became known as “Berryland,” Southern California’s berry-growing capital. There was a rapid influx of new settlers and new construction in the 1920s, which started Gardena’s shift from agriculture to new development, including new residential, commercial, and institutional expansion.

Historical Development of the Project Site
Until the 1950s, most of the Project site remained largely undeveloped. The establishment of the Southern Pacific Railroad in Gardena in the 1890s and the arrival of the Red Car system along Normandie Avenue in 1912 spurred residential, commercial, and manufacturing expansion in the City as well as near the Project site. Areas around the Project site were subdivided and developed into blocks with residential buildings. The Project site itself was primarily devoted to manufacturing/industrial uses, with some residential development in the pre-World War II era.

The post-World War II boom in construction and settlement brought the most significant, rapid changes to the Project site.

Existing Historic Resources
As depicted in Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map, situated on the property are six industrial buildings totaling approximately 115,424-SF. Because the Project site has buildings over 45 years old, a - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

Historical Resources Assessment (Appendix 4.2-2) was conducted for the existing structures.

Table 4.2-1: Onsite Land Use Characteristics details the existing onsite land uses by APN and address, as well of dates of initial construction and of any significant modifications as described in Appendix 4.2-2. The Historical Resources Assessment evaluated the six structures identified below, see Appendix 4.2-2 for images of the existing onsite structures. The buildings were characterized as being in poor, fair, good, or excellent conditions.

In summary, Building 4, constructed in 1952 as a canning plant/food manufacturer, is the earliest extant property in the Project site. This canning plant grew quickly and expanded in 1953 with the construction of Building 5. The parcel to the north was developed in 1957, with the construction of Building 3, for use as a general contracting company. The next additions in the Project site were Buildings 2 and 6, in the north and south portions of the Project site in 1963 and 1967, respectively. Building 1, the warehouse at the north of the Project site, was added in 1976. Additional changes and additions over the years have taken place, as well, with new construction as well as removal of ancillary buildings and structures.

Table 4.2-1: Onsite Land Use Characteristics
Parcel
ID1 APN2 Building Number2 Address2 Year Built2
Square
Feet
Latest Significant
Modification2
1 6106-030-
011
1 16829 South
Normandie
Avenue
1976 10,000
Interior remodel and window
replacement in 2016, and reroofing in 2018.
2 16829 South
Normandie
Avenue
1963 880 Possible re-roofing in 2018.
2 6106-030-
015 3
16835 South
Normandie
Avenue
1956/
1957 9,600
Re-roofing in 1991 and
interior remodels in 1977,
1983, and 2015.
3 6106-030-
016 None Parking lot − − −
4 6106-030-
017
4 16907 South
Normandie
Avenue
1952
94,9443
Minimal alterations in the
1950s. Demolition and
expansion in the 1960s. Major
structural repairs in 2019.
5 16911 South
Normandie
Avenue
1953
Remodeled in multiple times
between 1952 and 1967. In
1987, a new 20,825-SF
building was constructed.

Additional interior alterations
in the 1980s.
6 16911 South
Normandie
Avenue
1967
Notes:

1. The Parcel ID (Identification Number) correlates with labels on Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map.

2. See Appendix 4.2-2 for further information.

3. This total includes 9,324 square feet of building that is unoccupied and dilapidated. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

Building 1, located at the northern edge of the Project site, is a large-scale warehouse with limited ornamentation and wall openings constructed in 1976. High, vehicle-sized roll-up doors on the south and west elevations, along with the utilitarian, program-driven design of the building, reflect its industrial and manufacturing use. The building is capped with a flat roof with no roof eaves. Built on a concrete foundation, the building is made of concrete-block construction. Encircling the building is a series of simple, full-height pilasters. The principal elevation, which is located on the south, has nine pilasters; the shorter side elevations, on the east and west, have two pilasters. The building is in fair condition with few visible alterations.

Building 2, located at the northeast corner of the Project site, is a one-story building set on a concrete foundation and has a rectangular footprint. Constructed in 1963, the building has a flat roof with varying eaves depending on the elevation. The north elevation does not have roof eaves; the east elevation has moderately overhanging, closed eaves; and the south elevation has broadly overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. A narrow roof extension on the west side of the building connects Building 2 to Building 1 to create a short, covered walkway. Located on the south elevation, the primary entrance appears to be a solid wood or metal door. A similar door is located on the west elevation facing Building 1. A decorative stone-clad wall is located at the northeast corner of the building, and a short, concrete walkway extends from the east elevation to the sidewalk. It appears that a door opening was enclosed at this location. Fenestration consists of vinyl-sash picture and sliding windows. The building is in fair condition.

Building 3, located at the northeastern end of the Project site along South Normandie Avenue, is a one-story, masonry building set on a concrete foundation. Constructed in 1955/1957, it has a rectangular footprint that is divided for three storefronts. The perimeter of the building is edged with a small parapet. The east façade is clad with brick with three identical storefronts, each separated by a concrete block pilaster. Each storefront includes a centered door flanked by recessed, vinyl-frame storefront windows covered with security grilles. Black awnings are mounted on the façade to shelter the doors and windows. The north and south elevations appear to be painted concrete block; these elevations do not have fenestration. Painted signage reading “Miracle Water” is painted on the south elevation. The west elevation hasthree bays with garage doors and inset pedestrian doors. A shallow, paved parking lot on the east side of the building exits to Normandie Avenue. The building is in good condition with few visible alterations.

Building 4, located at the center of the Project site, is the oldest building on the Project site. In its entirety, Building 4 extends from Normandie Avenue to Brighton Way. The original L-shaped portion of the building was constructed in 1952 building (roughly the western half) and a large addition comprising the eastern half. A small addition was also built perpendicular to the building at its southwest corner. Both the original portion of the building and the addition have varied roof heights. Set on a concrete foundation, the building has a flat roof, areas of which have a parapet wall. The building’s exterior appears to be concrete or stucco. Facing Brighton Way, the building’s west elevation has a louvered window covered by a security grille, and a similarly sized window opening that has been enclosed. The north elevation has mechanical equipment and - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

conduits mounted on the walls; no fenestration was observed on this elevation. The small addition projecting from the southwest corner of the building is slightly taller with no fenestration on its west elevation. The south elevation has one door and what appears to be a window opening that has been enclosed. The east elevation is a large addition with a solid metal door accessed via a set of concrete steps lined with a metal pole railing. The south elevation appears to have a secondary entrance and several loading docks. The southeast corner of the addition has a lower roof height and large, two-light windows with fabric awnings, and a single door. Although a portion of this building is in dilapidated condition and not occupiable or currently being used, the overall building is in fair condition with various additions and alterations.

Building 5, is also located at the center of the Project site. Constructed in 1953, the building is on a concrete foundation and has a generally rectangular footprint. It is composed of a large domed volume, and one-story sections along the south side of the building, which have flat and shed roofs. The exterior walls include portions constructed with concrete block, and portions sheathed with stucco and corrugated metal panels. The east façade includes a large expanse of wall with no fenestration, and an area at the southeast corner that is framed to define the primary entrance, which consists of commercial metal-frame double doors with full-length glazing.

Adjacent to the entrance is a large area of glass block. There appears to be a second window near the north end of the façade. The west elevation does not have fenestration but has small signs mounted on the upper wall. The south elevation is the one-story, flat- and shed-roofed portions of the building and includes mechanical equipment and metal pole railings. The north elevation does not appear to contain windows but has a pedestrian entrance and a larger garage door sheltered by a roof. The building is in fair condition.

Building 6, located at the southern edge of the Project site, is a large warehouse with an irregular footprint – its eastern elevation is slanted to parallel Normandie Avenue. The building has a flat roof, and its exterior appears to be concrete or stucco. A one-story element is located at the northeast corner of the building. It has a flat roof supported by rods attached to the main warehouse and is clad with corrugated metal siding. The east elevation has three evenly spaced corrugated metal roll-up doors. The north elevation appears to include several loading bays with large roll-up doors, at least one of which is sheltered by a flat roof canopy. The south and west elevations do not have any fenestration. The building is in good condition with few visible alterations.

Existing Archaeological Resources
Previously Recorded Resources
For the Project Archaeological Assessment, a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search (within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site) was conducted at the SouthCentral Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. The CHRIS records search indicated that 13 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a 0.5-mile radius - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

of the Project site. The record search results for reports within 0.5 mile of the Project site are summarized in Appendix 4.2-2. The CHRIS records search identified seven previously recorded resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site. None of the resources were located at the site. Five resources identified within the 0.5-mile radius are historic resources and two are prehistoric sites.

Prehistoric artifacts and sites are more likely to be found near sources of water. Water features including perennial springs and small wetlands are known to have existed just southeast of the Project site. The site records indicate that both prehistoric resources were located near or adjacent to the Dominguez Slough. The slough is approximately 0.2 mile to the southeast of the Project site. A portion of the Dominguez Channel, located approximately 1.5 miles to the westnorthwest of the Project site, fed into the Laguna Dominguez river going southeast to the slough.

As the previously documented sites indicate, areas such as this would have been frequented by Native Americans.

Archival Research
Concurrent with the CHRIS records search, research on property-specific historical and ethnographic context was conducted to identify information relevant to the Project site.

Research focused on a variety of primary and secondary materials relating to the history and development of the Project site, including historical maps, aerial and ground photographs, ethnographic reports, and other environmental data. Review of Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, newspaper articles, and building permits failed to produce conclusive results for the site. This is likely because the area was undeveloped and may have been used primarily as an agricultural field until as late as the mid-20th century, when warehouses were constructed, see the Historical Development of the Project site discussion above for further analysis on construction of the Project site.

4.2.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Enacted in 1966 and amended in 2000, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) declared a national policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the Federal, State, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the NRHP, established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer and provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assisted Native American tribes to preserve their cultural heritage and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Additionally, the policies of the NHPA are implemented by the California Office of Historic Preservation, a division of the California - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

Department of Parks and Recreation. The Office of Historic Preservation is also tasked with carrying out the duties described in the Public Resources Code and maintaining the California Historic Resources Inventory and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

National Register of Historic Places
As codified in 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 60.2, the NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.” The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:
 Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
 Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past;  Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or
 Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, and properties that are primarily commemorative in nature, are not considered eligible for the NRHP, unless they satisfy certain conditions. In general, a resource must be 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance.

In addition to meeting these criteria, a property must retain historic integrity, which is defined in National Register Bulletin 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance.” 1 To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, which are defined in the following manner in National Register Bulletin 15:

1. Location – the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred;

2. Design – the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property;
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

3. Setting – the physical environment of a historic property;

4. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

5. Workmanship – the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory;

6. Feeling – a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time;

7. Association – the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

State
California Environmental Quality Act
California public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both “historical resources” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to PRC §21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §21083.2 additionally requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.” “Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning. Under state CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a), “historical resource” includes the following:

1. a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the state historical resources commission (SHRC), for listing in the CRHR (PRC §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, §4850 et seq.).

2. a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC §5020.1(k)or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the PRC §5024.1(g) requirements, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant.

Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

3. any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC, §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, §4852) including the following:
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

Criteria 1: If the resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Criteria 2: If the resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Criteria 3: If the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Criteria 4: If the resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

CEQA addresses significant impacts to historical resources. “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(1)). CEQA also requires agencies to consider whether projects will affect “unique archaeological resources.” PRC §21083.2(g) states that “‘unique archaeological resources’ means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized, important prehistoric or historic event or person.”
Public Resources Code (PRC §5024.1[a])
The evaluation criteria for inclusion in the CRHR are cited in PRC §5024.1(a). This section states that a resource may be listed as a historical resource in the California registrar if it meets any of the following national register of historic places criteria:

1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

2. The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work on an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Public Resources Code (PRC §5024.1[b])
This section states that any agency proposing a project that could potentially impact a resource listed on the CRHR mustfirst notify the state historic preservation officer and must work with the officer to ensure that the project incorporates “prudent and feasible measures that will eliminate or mitigate the adverse effects.”
Public Resources Code (PRC §5097.98)
See Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources.

Senate Bill 18
See Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources.

Assembly Bill 52
See Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources.

Local
City of Gardena General Plan
The Gardena 2006 General Plan (GGP) Community Resource Element provides a Conservation Plan with the following goals and policies for the treatment of historic and cultural resources:
 CN Goal 5: Protect the City’s cultural resources.
o Policy CN 5.3: Protect and preserve cultural resources of the Gabrielino Native American Tribe found or uncovered during construction.

The GGP Community Development Element provides a Land Use Plan with the following goals and policies for the treatment of historic and cultural resources:
 LU Goal 1: Preserve and protect existing single-family and low/medium-density residential neighborhoods while promoting the development of additional high quality housing types in the City.
o Policy LU 1.7: Preserve the City’s residential buildings of historic and cultural significance.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

 LU Goal 4: Provide the highest quality of public facilities possible to meet the needs of the City’s residents and businesses and promote the City’s image and cultural heritage. o Policy LU 4.5: Encourage the preservation of historical and cultural locations and monuments to preserve the heritage of the City.

The City does not have a local historic preservation ordinance with adopted criteria for designation. Therefore, this analysis considers Federal and State significance criteria.

4.2.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning cultural resources. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, the Project may create a significant environmental impact if it would:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to [State CEQA Guidelines] §15064.5 (see Impact 4.2-1);
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to [State CEQA Guidelines] §15064.5 (see Impact 4.2-2);  Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (see Impact 4.2-3).

4.2.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.2-1:

Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The Project site is developed with six commercial buildings. The conclusions of the historical assessment are provided below.

Buildings 1 and 2
Broad Patterns of History. Building 1 and 2 were previously occupied by a variety of companies over the years. The Bjerke-Nicholson Construction Company occupied the buildings from the 1950s until at least 1970. Based on available sources, research did not suggest or show that the Bjerke-Nicholson Construction Company has an association with significant patterns of development or events significant to the City, region, state, or nation.

From 1977 to 1990, the buildings were occupied by Owen Machine Company, which was established in 1972 by owner Frank W. Owen. In subsequent years, the building were occupied - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

by several companies, including the YMD Moving Company (as of 1990), Olympic Van Lines (as of 1990), Avenue Auto Body (as of 1995), and KS Custom Cabinets (as of 2001). Research did not suggest that any of these companies and businesses have an association with a significant pattern or development or event.

In addition, the buildings are among numerous industrial properties developed in the postwar period in Gardena, and do not uniquely reflect or embody a pattern of development significant to the City, region, state, or nation. In addition, research to date has not indicated any historically significant events have taken place at the buildings. Therefore, Buildings 1 and 2 do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A or for the CRHR under Criterion 1, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Significant Persons. Research has not revealed that Buildings 1 or 2 have an association with the lives of significant individuals in the history of the City, region, state, or nation, either in terms of design professionals, owners, or occupants associated with the buildings. Therefore, the buildings do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B or the CRHR under Criterion 2, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Architecture. The structures are highly utilitarian, purpose-built industrial/manufacturing and office buildings. They do not represent a distinctive or outstanding example of industrial or office building design, nor do they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, style, design, period, or method of construction. Building 1 exhibits the highly common (but not distinctive) characteristics of a warehouse, in an area of Gardena with numerous examples of buildings designed for industrial/manufacturing uses. Based on research conducted for this EIR, the buildings do not appear to be the work of a notable architect, builder, or designer, nor do they possess high artistic values. Therefore, Buildings 1 and 2 do not appear eligible under NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Important Prehistory and History. The structures on the subject property are constructed with common building materials and typical construction techniques that are widely understood and documented. The property itself has been thoroughly documented over time and it is not expected that additional significant information would be revealed. Therefore, Buildings 1 and 2 do not appear eligible under NRHP Criterion D or CRHR Criterion 4, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Therefore, Buildings 1 and 2 are not eligible for listing as a historic resource.

Building 3
Broad Patterns of History. Building 3 was occupied by a variety of companies over the years.

Following construction of the Building 3, the first listed occupant, in 1958, was Prescon Corporation. From the 1960s through the 1970s, other companies listed at the address include Fuji Cabinet Works (1964), Riviera Catering (1970), and Gardena Catering (1975 to 1976). The - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

Miracle Water Company of Southern California occupied the address from 1980 to 1995. Based on available sources, research did not suggest or show that any of the companies or businesses have an association with a significant pattern or development or event.

Building 3 is among numerous industrial properties developed in the postwar period in Gardena, and it does not uniquely reflect or embody a pattern of development significant to the City, region, state, or nation. Research does not indicate any historically significant events have taken place at the building. Building 3 does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A or for the CRHR under Criterion 1, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Significant Persons. Research conducted to date has not revealed Building 3 to have an association with the lives of significant individuals in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, either in terms of design professionals, owners, or occupants associated with the property. Therefore, Building 3 does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B or the CRHR under Criterion 2, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Architecture. Building 3 is a highly utilitarian, commercial/industrial building. It does not represent a distinctive or outstanding example of industrial or commercial design, nor does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, style, design, period, or method of construction.

Based on research conducted for this EIR, the structure does not appear to be the work of a notable architect, builder, or designer, nor does it possess high artistic values. Therefore, Building 3 does not appear eligible under NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Important Prehistory and History. The structures on the subject property are constructed with common building materials and typical construction techniques that are widely understood and documented. The property itself has been thoroughly documented over time and it is not expected that additional significant information would be revealed. Therefore, Building 3 does not appear eligible under NRHP Criterion D or CRHR Criterion 4, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Therefore, Building 3 is not eligible for listing as a historic resource.

Buildings 4, 5, and 6
Broad Patterns of History. Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were previously occupied by a variety of companies over the years. Research does not suggest or show that any of the companies have an association with significant patterns of development or events significant to the city, region, state, or nation. In addition, Buildings 4, 5 and 6 are among numerous industrial properties developed in the postwar period in Gardena, and they do not uniquely reflect or embody a pattern of development significant to the city, region, state, or nation. In addition, research to date has not indicated any historically significant events have taken place at the subject - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

properties. Buildings 4, 5, and 6 do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A or for the CRHR under Criterion 1, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Significant Persons. Buildings 4, 5, and 6 do not have an association with the lives of significant individuals in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, either in terms of design professionals, owners, or occupants associated with the properties. Therefore, Buildings 4, 5, and 6 do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B or the CRHR under Criterion 2, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Architecture. Buildings 4, 5, and 6 are highly utilitarian, purpose-built industrial/manufacturing and office buildings. They do not represent a distinctive or outstanding example of industrial or office building design, nor do they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, style, design, period, or method of construction. The structures do not appear to be the work of a notable architect, builder, or designer, nor do they possess high artistic values. Therefore, Buildings 4, 5, and 6 do not appear eligible under NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Important Prehistory and History. The structures on the subject property are constructed with common building materials and typical construction techniques that are widely understood and documented. The property itself has been thoroughly documented over time and it is not expected that additional significant information would be revealed. Therefore, Buildings 4, 5, and 6 do not appear eligible under NRHP Criterion D or CRHR Criterion 4, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district.

Therefore, Buildings 4, 5, and 6 are not eligible for listing as a historic resource.

None of the buildings evaluated, which are at least 45 years old, are eligible at either the federal, state, or local level of historic designation, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district. Further, no portion of the Project site is listed in the Los Angeles Historic Resources Inventory, NRHP or the CRHR, nor appears to be eligible under any of the NRHP Criteria. The City does not have a historic designation program or historic preservation ordinance.

Therefore, none of the subject properties are historical resources for purposes of CEQA and the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

Impact 4.2-2:

Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The CHRIS records search identified seven previously documented cultural resources within a

0.5-mile radius of the Project site. However, none of the seven resources are on the Project site and only two resources are prehistoric archaeological sites. While the CHRIS records search results did not identify any such archaeological resources within the Project site or its immediate vicinity, most of the site was not inspected for archaeological resources because of the developed nature of the site.

The depth of excavation for the Project is approximately 60 feet below the surface, which would likely require excavation of underlying alluvial sediments and removal of the overlying artificial fill. Ground-disturbing construction activities would involve grading, excavation, shoring tiebacks, and drilling of soldier piles conducted using loaders, excavators, compactors, hauling trucks, and a drill. The Project site is identified as having moderate sensitivity for prehistoric or historic Native American archaeological resources, see Section 4.14 – Tribal Cultural Resources for discussion of the Projects potential impacts to Native American tribal resources. Based on previous development of the Project site, the archaeological assessment determined the Project site has a moderate sensitivity for containing historic period (non–Native American) archaeological resources. Therefore, the Project has moderate potential to encounter archaeological resources during construction (i.e., ground disturbing activities).

A significant impact would occur if grading and construction activities would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource determined to be “historic” or “unique.” According to CEQA, if an archaeological resource is neither historic nor unique, the effects of a project on that resource would not be considered to have significant effects on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines §15064(C)(4)).

Conservatively, it is assumed that any as-yet unidentified archaeological resources atthe Project site would be impacted through grading and construction activities. However, the Project site consists of a comparatively small area within the greater region and has been subject to multiple episodes of ground disturbance. As a result, any archaeological material once located on the surface or in shallow deposits is unlikely to have been preserved within the Project site, though more deeply buried deposits could exist. The significance of any impacts would be based upon the criteria presented in the thresholds of significance (i.e., is the archaeological resource determined to be “historic” or “unique”).

Although such a discovery is unlikely, any previously unidentified archaeological resources, if present, have the potential to be significant under CEQA. Mitigation Measures (MM) CUL-1 and - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

MMs TCR-1 through TCR-3 (see Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources) are recommended to avoid or mitigate potential impacts to as yet undiscovered archaeological resources. Following compliance with MM CUL-1 and MMs TCR-1 through TCR-3, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. For further evaluation of tribal cultural resources, see Section 4.14.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Inadvertent discovery of an archaeological resource. Before ground disturbing activities are initiated on the Project site, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Pre-construction Worker Training on the types of unanticipated resources that could be encountered during construction, based on the site’s history. This archaeologist may also be retained to ensure prompt assessment in the event that unanticipated cultural resources are encountered during construction.

If archaeological resources are exposed during construction, work within 50 feet of the find must stop until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5[f]; PRC 21082), additional work such as testing, or data recovery may be warranted.

See Section 4.14 for the following measures:
 MM TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of GroundDisturbing Activities.  MM TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects.
 MM TCR-3: Procedures for burials and funerary remains: This mitigation measure shall only apply if the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation is designated the Most Likely Descendent (“MLD”) by the NAHC.

Impact 4.2-3:

Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of dedicated cemeteries?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated The archaeological records search and field survey did not reveal any resources known to contain human remains within or near the Project site. No dedicated cemeteries are on or near the Project site. Ground-disturbing construction activities would involve grading, excavation, shoring tie-backs, and drilling of soldier piles conducted using loaders, excavators, compactors, hauling - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

trucks, and a drill. The maximum anticipated depth of excavation below the existing surface grade is estimated at 60 feet.

If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§7050.5-7055 and PRC §5097.98 and §5097.99. HSC §§7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for treatment of human remains.

Specifically, HSC §7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. HSC §7050.5 also requires that all activities cease immediately, and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. As required by state law, the procedures set forth in PRC §5087.98 would be implemented, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC. The NAHC would then designate the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the unearthed human remains.

Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., HSC §§7050.5-7055 and PRC §§5097.98 and 5097.99), the Project’s impacts concerning potential to disturb human remains, would be a less than significant. Compliance with MM TCR-2 would further minimize potential to impact human remains.

Mitigation Measures
See Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources, for MM TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects.

4.2.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the cultural resources impact analysis, cumulative impacts for Historic Resources are considered for cumulative development within a 500-foot radius of the Project site and within a 0.5-mile radius for Archaeological Resources, according to the related projects; see Table 3-2:

Geographic Context for Cumulative Analysis. As indicated in Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects and depicted in Exhibit 3-1: Cumulative Project Locations, there are seven related projects within the geographic context for the cultural resources analysis: Related Project No. 21 (a multi-family condominium development approximately 0.14 mile to the northeast); Related Project No. 32 (a small lot subdivision with three-story dwelling units approximately 0.08 mile to the northeast); Related Project No. 9 (a townhome development approximately 0.88 mile to the northeast); Related Project No. 12 (a self-storage/warehouse development approximately 0.30 mile to the south); Related Project No. 15 (a townhome development approximately 0.50 mile to the south); Related Project No. 16 (a mixed use development, including apartments and commercial retail and office space, approximately 0.30 mile to the north); Related Project No. 22 (a multi-family townhome development with 3 affordable dwelling units approximately 0.70 mile 1 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) 2 This related project is approximately 400 feet northeast of Project site. Nearest related project to proposed Project site. 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).
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

to the north); and Related Project No. 23 (a multi-family apartment development approximately

0.60 mile to the north).

There is a potential for undiscovered archaeological resources to be adversely impacted during Project construction. With implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-3 the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources. Cumulative projects could involve actions that damage known or as-yet undiscovered archaeological and tribal cultural resources specific to those development sites. However, as with the Project, all cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to cultural resources.

This would include studies of historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources that are present or could be present within a development site. Additionally, cumulative development would be subject to compliance with the established federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning the protection of cultural resources on a project-by-project basis. Where significant or potentially significant impacts are identified, implementation of all feasible sitespecific mitigation would be required to avoid or reduce impacts. The Project’s cumulative impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant given compliance with the established regulatory framework and site-specific mitigation would be required.

As concluded above, previously undiscovered human remains could be encountered during Project construction activities; however, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard following compliance with the established state regulatory framework. Cumulative development could impact previously undiscovered human remains during construction. However, all cumulative development would undergo environmental review on a project-by-project basis to evaluate the site-specific archaeological sensitivity. Additionally, cumulative development would be subject to compliance with the established state regulatory framework concerning the discovery of human remains on a project-by-project basis. The Project’s cumulative impacts concerning the potential to disturb human remains would be less than significant given compliance with the established regulatory framework would be required.

4.2.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts to cultural resources have been identified.

4.2.8 REFERENCES
City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006: Community Resources Element, Conservation Plan. Retrieved from https://www.cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/generalplan7.pdf.

City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006: Community Development Element, Land Use Plan. Retrieved from 2021-Updated-Land-Use-Plan-04-21.pdf (cityofgardena.org). - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report C

SWCA. (2022). Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Development at 16911 South Normandie Avenue Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, California; see Appendix 4.2-1: Archaeological Resources Assessment.

SWCA. (2023). Historical Resources Assessment Report for the 16911 South Normandie Avenue Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, California; see Appendix 4.2-2: Historical Resources Assessment.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn

4.3 ENERGY

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

4.3 ENERGY
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to energy and evaluate the Project’s potential to result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and/or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the existing regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or lessen the Project’s potentially significant impact.

Information in this section is based primarily on energy data provided in the following sources:
 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project – Energy Assessment (“Energy Assessment”) (Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2023); Appendix 4.3-1: Energy Data.  Air Quality Technical Report – Normandie Apartments Project Gardena, California (“Air Quality Technical Report”) (Ramboll US Consulting, Inc, 2023); Appendix 4.1-1: Air Quality Technical Report.

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 Technical Report; see Appendix 4.1-1. The third-party review concluded the analysis meets the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines.

4.3.1 EXISTING SETTING
The Project site is in the County of Los Angeles (“County”), approximately 12 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles, in the City’s southeast portion, at 16829, 16835, and 16907 South Normandie Avenue; see Exhibit 2-1: Regional Vicinity Map. 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. As depicted on Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map, the approximately 5.25-acre Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and landscaping. Table 2-1: Existing Onsite Land Uses 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 in one of the buildings on Parcel 4 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.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical services to the City through state-regulated public utility contracts. Over the past 15 years, electricity generation in California has undergone a transition. Historically, California relied heavily on oil- and gas-fired plants to generate electricity. Spurred by regulatory measures and tax incentives, California’s electrical system become more reliant on renewable energy sources, including cogeneration, wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, biomass conversion, transformation plants, and small hydroelectric plants. Unlike petroleum production, electricity generation is not usually tied to the location of the fuel source and can be delivered great distances via the electrical grid. The generating capacity of a unit of electricity is expressed in megawatts (MW). Net generation refers to the gross amount of energy produced by a unit; minus the amount of energy the unit consumes.

Generation is typically measured in megawatt-hours (MWh), kilowatt-hours (kWh), or gigawatthours (GWh).

Natural Gas Services
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to the City and County.

Natural gas is a hydrocarbon fuel found in reservoirs beneath the Earth’s surface and is composed primarily of methane (CH4). It is used for space and water heating, process heating and electricity generation, and as transportation fuel. Use of natural gas to generate electricity is expected to increase in coming years because it is a relatively clean alternative to other fossil fuels (e.g., oil and coal). In California and throughout the western United States, many new electrical generation plants fired by natural gas are being brought online. Thus, there is great interest in importing liquefied natural gas from other parts of the world. California’s natural gas-fired electric generation accounted for 50.2 percent of in-state generation.

The City’s ongoing development review process includes a review and comment opportunity for privately owned utility companies to provide input on all development proposals. The input facilitates a detailed review of projects by service purveyors to assess the potential demands for utility services on a project-by-project basis. The ability for utility providers to provide services concurrently with each project is evaluated during the development review process. Utility companies are bound by contract to update energy systems to meet any additional demand.

Energy Usage
Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy usage in California was 6,922.8 trillion BTUs in 2020 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available). Of California’s total energy usage, the transportation sector consumes the most energy, see Table 4.3-1: California’s Total Energy Usage 2020. Electricity and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary uses such as residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

transportation-related energy use. In 2021, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California accounted for 13,060,407,775 gallons of gasoline.

Table 4.3-1: California’s Total Energy Usage 2020
Sector Percentage of Total Consumption
Transportation 34%
Industrial 24.6%
Commercial 19.6%
Residential 21.8%
Source: California Energy Commission. (2020). Electricity Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed January 2023.

The electricity consumption attributable to the County from 2011 to 2021 is shown in Table4.3-2:

Electricity Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011-2021. Electricity consumption in the County increased steadily between 2011 and 2014 with a slight decrease in 2013, and relatively decreased between 2015 and 2021.

The natural gas consumption attributable to the County from 2011 to 2021 is shown in Table 4.3-3: Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011-2021. Natural gas consumption in the County relatively decreased between 2011 and 2015 with an increase in 2013, increased between 2015 and 2019, and decreased between 2019 and 2021.

Automotive fuel consumption in the County from 2011 to 2021 is shown in Table 4.3-4:

Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011-2021. As shown in Table 4.3-4, onroad automotive fuel consumption in the County relatively increased from 2011 to 2016, decreased between 2018 and 2020, and increased in 2021. Heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption increased between 2012 and 2017, decreased between 2017 and 2020, and increased in 2021. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

Table 4.3-2: Electricity Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011-2021 Year Electricity Consumption
(in millions of kilowatt hours)
2011 68,180
2012 69,248
2013 68,342
2014 69,924
2015 69,503
2016 69,390
2017 68,632
2018 67,887
2019 66,805
2020 65,650
2021 65,375
Source: California Energy Commission. (2021). Electricity Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed January 2023.

Table 4.3-3: Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011-2021 Year Natural Gas Consumption
(in millions of therms)
2011 3,055
2012 2,985
2013 3,065
2014 2,794
2015 2,761
2016 2,878
2017 2,956
2018 2,922
2019 3,048
2020 2,937
2021 2,881
Source: California Energy Commission. (2021). Natural Gas Consumption by County http://www. ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed January 2023.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

Table 4.3-4: Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011-2021 Year On-Road Automotive Fuel
Consumption (gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel
Consumption
(Construction Equipment) (gallons)
2011 3,745,485,930 434,920,563
2012 3,714,743,617 430,477,995
2013 3,720,160,331 453,247,552
2014 3,754,124,477 457,345,104
2015 3,864,098,889 462,749,587
2016 3,990,292,164 489,895,770
2017 3,961,448,725 506,904,226
2018 3,914,668,171 494,484,395
2019 3,844,847,561 492,605,543
2020 3,381,588,164 491,579,947
2021 3,816,162,983 507,214,212
Source: California Air Resources Board. (2021). EMFAC2021.

4.3.2 REGULATORY SETTING
State
California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards Code) Title 24 California Code of Regulations Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, includes regulations for how buildings are designed and constructed. Title 24 is comprised of 12 "Parts." The Title 24 Parts relevant to energy efficiency are described below.

Title 24 Part 3 - California Electrical Code. The California Electrical Code (CEC) contains electrical design and construction standards.

Title 24 Part 6 - California Energy Code. The California Energy Code contains energy conservation standards applicable to all residential and non-residential buildings throughout California, including schools and community colleges. Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission [CEC]) in June 1977 and are updated every three years. Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017. On May 9, 2018, the CEC adopted the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020. The 2022 Standards went into effect January 1, 2023.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

The 2016 Standards improved upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of and additions and alterations to residential and nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards, residential buildings are 28 percent more energy efficient and nonresidential buildings are 5 percent more energy efficient than under the 2013 Standards. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the prior 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features.

The 2019 Standards improve upon the 2016 Standards. Under the 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings will be about 7 percent more energy efficient, and when the required rooftop solar is factored in for low-rise residential construction, residential buildings that meet 2019 Title 24 standards use approximately 53 percent less energy than those built to meet the 2016 standards.

The 2022 Standards went into effect January 1, 2023. The updated Standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards.

Title 24 Part 11 - California Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code contains standards applicable to residential and non-residential buildings throughout California, including schools and community colleges. The CALGreen Code is intended to improve public health, safety, and public welfare through sustainable construction practices. The CALGreen Code is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The state adopted the most recent update to the CALGreen Code in 2022 and it went into effect January 1, 2023.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan in 2011 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and a reduction in greenhouse gases. Assembly Bill 1109, adopted in 2007, also serves as a framework for lighting efficiency. AB 1109 required the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards as a means to reduce average Statewide electrical energy consumption by not less than 50 percent from the 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting and not less than 25 percent from the 2007 levels for indoor commercial and outdoor lighting by 2018. According to the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, lighting comprises approximately onefourth of California’s electricity use while non-residential sector exterior lighting (parking lot, - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

area, walkway, and security lighting) usage comprises 1.4 percent of California’s total electricity use, much of which occurs during limited occupancy periods.

Renewable Portfolio Standard
In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard program with the goal of increasing the annual percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix by the equivalent of at least 1 percent of sales, with an aggregate total of 20 percent by 2017. The California Public Utilities Commission subsequently accelerated that goal to 2010 for retail sellers of electricity (Public Utilities Code §399.15(b)(1)). Then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 in 2008, increasing the target to 33 percent renewable energy by 2020.

In September 2009, then‐Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S‐21‐09, which directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help the state meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In September 2010, CARB adopted its Renewable Electricity Standard regulations, which require all the state’s loadserving entities to meet this target. In October 2015, then-Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill 350, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. Signed in 2018, SB 100 revised the program’s goalsto achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Local
City of Gardena General Plan
The Gardena 2006 General Plan (“GGP”) Community Resource Element provides a Conservation Plan with the following goals and policies for the treatment of energy resources:
 CN Goal 4: Conserve energy resources through the use of technology and conservation methods
o Policy CN 4.1: Encourage innovative building designs that conserve and minimize energy consumption.
o Policy CN 4.2: Require compliance with Title 24 regulations to conserve energy.

City of Gardena Climate Action Plan
The City of Gardena adopted their Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December 2017 as a joint effort between Gardena and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments. The CAP is a guide to reduce GHG emissions by identifying strategies at the local level to help the state meet long-term GHG - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

emission reduction goals. These strategies are separated into five main categories including Land Use and Transportation, Energy Efficiency, Energy Generation, Solid Waste, and Urban Greening.

Goals and strategies applicable to the Project are as follows:
 Goal LUT: B – Encourage Ride Sharing
o Sub-strategy LUT: B1.2 Facilitate ride-hailing and ride-sharing.  Goal LUT: D – Adopt Active Transportation Initiatives o Sub-strategy LUT: D2.2 Require new developments to provide pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities.
o Sub-strategy LUT: D2.3 Require commercial and multi-family residential projects to provide permanent bicycle parking facilities.
 Goal LUT: E – Parking Strategies
o Sub-strategy LUT: E2.2 Encourage developers of new development to unbundle parking and eliminate the assignment of specific stalls.
 Goal LUT: G – Land Use Strategies
o Sub-strategy LUT: G1.1 Encourage higher density through general plan appropriately in targeted areas.
o Sub-strategy LUT: G1.2 Encourage higher density through zoning code appropriately in targeted areas.
o Sub-strategy LUT: G1.3 Increase housing density near transit.  Goal EE: B – Increase Energy Efficiency in New Residential Developments o Sub-strategy EE: B1.1 Educate City staff, developers, etc. on future Title 24 updates and the additional energy efficiency opportunities for new residential development.  Goal EE: E – Increase Energy Efficiency Through Water Efficiency o Sub-strategy EE: E1.2 Require low-irrigation landscaping.

4.3.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning energy. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as significance criteria in this section. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation (see Impact 4.3-1);
 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (see Impact 4.3-2).
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

Methodology and Assumptions
This section focuses on the three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project:
electricity; natural gas; and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the Project, as well as the fuel necessary for Project construction.

Construction-related electricity use would be associated with water use for dust control and electric vehicles projected to be in the on-road fleet. Construction-related consumption of natural gas would occur from natural gas fuel consumption from construction vehicles. The analysis of the Project’s construction fuel use is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which quantifies construction equipment activity. Fuel usage associated with off-road construction equipment and on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. Construction fuel consumption is calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. The CalEEMod emissions are specific to construction year and include fleet adjustments based on current regulations and equipment turnover.

Operational-related electricity use would occur from building energy and would consist of constant day-to-day building energy and water use. Operational-related consumption of natural gas would occur from space heating and cooling, cooking, fireplaces, and laundry. However, Title 24 standards requires all new residential construction to be all electric and not connect to natural gas supply. The electricity and natural gas use during Project operations is calculated using respective CalEEMod default rates based on building use type. The gasoline and diesel fuel consumption associated with on-road vehicular trips is calculated based on total annual operational VMT, CalEEMod default vehicle fleet mix informed by the EMFAC model, and average fuel economy derived from the United States Department of Transportation. The CalEEMod emissions and default rates are specific to the construction year and operational year and include fleet adjustments based on current regulations and equipment turnover. The results of CalEEMod and energy calculations are included in Appendix 4.3-1.

4.3.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following Project design features (PDF) were incorporated into the analysis:
 PDF AQ-2/PDF GHG-1: The Project would comply with the CALGreen Code 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.1
 PDF AQ-3/PDF GHG-2: There would be no natural gas use by any of the Project land uses.2 1 The Project operational emissions inventory did not quantify this measure, but it has been included here qualitatively. 2 The Project operational emissions inventory quantified this measure. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

4.3.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
As previously noted, the existing onsite industrial land uses total approximately 115,424 SF.

However, approximately 9,324 SF of industrial floor area is in a dilapidated condition, thus, is not being used or occupiable. The Project’s net energy consumption is summarized in Table 4.3-5:

Project and Countywide Energy Consumption.

Table 4.3-5: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy
Type
Existing Project
Site Energy
Consumption1
Proposed Project
Annual
Energy
Consumption
Net Annual
Energy
Consumption
Attributable to
Project
Los Angeles
County Annual
Energy
Consumption2,3
Percentage of
Countywide
Consumption
Project Construction
Diesel4 -- 138,115 gallons 138,115 gallons 507,214,212
gallons 0.0272%
Gasoline4 -- 111,682 gallons 111,682 gallons 3,816,162,983 gallons 0.0029%
Project Operations
Electricity 875,071 kWh 4,017,999 kWh 3,142,928 kWh 65,374,721,369 kWh 0.0048%
Natural
Gas 3,929 therms 0 therms -3,929 therms 2,880,994,891 therms -0.0001% Diesel4 3,055 gallons 25,314 gallons 22,259 gallons 507,214,212 gallons 0.0044%
Gasoline4 34,091 gallons 272,283 gallons 238,193 gallons 3,816,162,983 gallons 0.0062%
Notes:

1. Existing energy consumption based on estimated operational modeling provided in the Air Quality Technical Report prepared by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (December 2022).

2. The Project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared with the total consumption in Los Angeles County in 2021.

3. The Project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the countywide fuel consumption in 2021.

4. Countywide fuel consumption is from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2021 model.

5. Construction fuel consumption is based on equipment and load factors from California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2020.4.0) and the Air Quality Technical Report prepared by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (December 2022).

6. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the Project’s construction equipment list timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips provided in the Air Quality Technical Report prepared by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (December 2022).

Refer to Appendix 4.3-1 for assumptions used in this analysis. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

Construction-Related Energy
During Project construction, little to no electrical and natural gas consumption is anticipated since construction vehicles and equipment are generally diesel-powered. During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during demolition, grading, paving, and building construction. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with state requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption.

Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materials composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non-recycled materials. The incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials.

As indicated in Table 4.3-5, the Project’s construction-related diesel and gasoline fuel consumption would be approximately 138,115 gallons and approximately 111,682 gallons, respectively, which would result in a nominal increase in fuel use in the County. Constructionrelated off-road automotive fuel consumption would constitute approximately 0.0272 percent of the County’s diesel consumption and approximately 0.0029 percent of the County’s gasoline consumption. As such, Project construction would have a minimal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

Operational Energy
Electricity and Natural Gas
Project operations would require approximately 3,142,928 additional kWh of electricity per year and (compared to existing conditions). The Project would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. The electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 36 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures projects will not waste finite energy resources.

As indicated inTable 4.3-5, the Project’s net operational electricityconsumption would represent less than 0.01 percent of electricity consumption in the County. The Project would adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. As such, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of electric energy.

Pursuant to Title 24 standards, the Project would be all electric and would not connect to natural gas supply. Therefore, the Project’s net operational natural gas consumption would be a decrease of approximately -3,929 therms; see Table 4.3-5.

Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Table 4.3-5 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. As indicated in Table 4.3-5, Project operations are estimated to consume approximately 22,259 additional gallons of diesel fuel and 238,196 additional gallons of gasoline fuel per year (compared to existing conditions), which would result in less than approximately 0.01 percent increase in Countywide consumption, respectively. The Project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

Additionally, the Project’s proposed apartment building would provide 1.2 parking spaces per unit, including approximately 40 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, to encourage carpooling or other alternate modes of transportation. The Project would also include approximately 173 bicycle parking spaces and offsite sidewalk improvements along the south end of 169th Street to enhance access to public transit (GTrans, Torrance Transit, and Metro). Further, new residents who sign a 12-month lease would be offered one free monthly Metro pass. Incorporation of these Project features will further encourage reduction in the Projects automotive fuel energy consumption.

As shown in Table 4.3-5, the increase in electricity and automotive fuel consumption over existing conditions is minimal. For the reasons described above, the Project would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. Considering these requirements and design features including the elimination of natural gas consumption at the Project site, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of building energy. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.3-2:

Would the Project conflict with or obstruct state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Title 24 contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings based on a state mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 addresses various energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including energy impacts of building envelopes such as windows, doors, skylights, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs.

Additionally, the Project would comply with Title 24 Part 6, which specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. In accordance with Title 24 Part 6, the Project would have:
 Sensor-based lighting controls - for fixtures located near windows, the lighting would be adjusted by taking advantage of available natural light;  Electrical components providing electric-ready buildings (allowing for electric heating, cooking, and clothes drying); and
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

 Efficient equipment - improved technology offers significant savings through more efficient equipment and appliances.

Title 24, Part 11, contains voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under the California Green Building Standards Code. As discussed above, the Project would result in an increased demand for electricity and petroleum. In accordance with Title 24 Part 11 mandatory compliance, the Project would have:
 50 percent of its construction and demolition waste diverted from landfills;  Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency;  Low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards; and
 A 20 percent reduction in indoor water use.

Compliance with all these mandatory measures would decrease the consumption of electricity and petroleum.

As discussed in Section 4.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would be consistent with the primary goals and strategies in the City of Gardena CAP, which maintains the Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) previously adopted by the City. The Project is consistent with the CAP’s primary strategies that are related to land use development, including land use and transportation, energy efficiency, solid waste, and urban greening.

The Project would not conflict with any federal, state, or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because the Project would comply with Title 24 Parts 6 and 11 and with the City’s CAP measures, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur.

Therefore, the Project’s potential impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.3.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of this energy analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development within Gardena, according to the related projects; see Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects. The geographic context for cumulative analysis of energy is the County of Los Angeles.

As concluded previously, Project construction and operations would result in the consumption of fuel and energy, but it would not do so in a wasteful manner. The consumption of fuel and energy would not be substantial in comparison to Countywide electricity, gasoline, and diesel consumption; see Table 4.3-1 through Table 4.3-4. For the reasons described above, the Project - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. New capacity or supplies of energy resources would not be required. Additionally, the Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Project impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development in the site vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy consumption. Potential land use impacts are sitespecific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate.

As concluded previously, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on energy.

Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s potential impacts to energy would not be cumulatively considerable.

4.3.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning energy have been identified.

4.3.8 REFERENCES
CARB. (2021). EMFAC2021 Emissions Inventory.

California Energy Commission. (2021). Electricity Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed January 2023.

California Energy Commission. (2021). Natural Gas Consumption by County. http://www. ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed January 2023.

California Energy Commission. (2021) Total System Electric Generation, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricitydata/2020-total-system-electric-generation. Accessed January 5, 2023.

California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission (CPUC & CEC) (2008). 2008 Update, Energy Action Plan.

City of Gardena. (2017). Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from https://www.cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Gardena_Climate-ActionPlan-Final.pdf.

Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2023). Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project – Energy Assessment; see Appendix 4.3-1: Energy Data.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (2022). Air Quality Technical Report, Normandie Apartments Project, Gardena, California; see Appendix 4.1-1: Air Quality Technical Report.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table F33: Total energy consumption, price, and expenditure estimates. (2020).
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_te.html. Accessed January 2023.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2019). California State Profile and Energy Estimates, California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed January 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy

This page intentionally left blank.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn

4.4 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

4.4 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
This section describes the existing and regulatory conditions related to geology/soils and paleontological resources and analyzes the Project’s potential to cause a substantial adverse effect directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, paleontological site, site, or unique geologic feature. 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 impacts.

Information in this section is based primarily on the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and geology and soils data provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed

5.5-Acre Apartment and Townhome Development, 16831 & 16911 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California (“Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation”); see Appendix 4.4-1: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.

It is noted that, Iwasa Consulting conducted a third-party review of the Project’s analysis on behalf of the City; see Appendix 4.4-1. The third-party review concluded the analysis meets the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

The Project’s potential impacts concerning geology and soils are addressed in Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant.

4.4.1 EXISTING SETTING
Paleontological Setting
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. The potential for fossil occurrence depends on the rock type exposed at the surface in a given area.

The Project site is located in the Los Angeles Basin, a structural depression approximately 50.0 miles long and 20.0 miles wide in the northernmost Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province.1 The Los Angeles Basin developed as a result of tectonic forces and the San Andreas fault zone, with subsidence occurring 18 to 3 million years ago (MYA). While sediments dating back to the Cretaceous (66 MYA) are preserved in the basin, continuous sedimentation began in the middle Miocene (around 13 MYA). Since that time, sediments have been eroded into the basin from the surrounding highlands, resulting in thousands of feet of accumulation. Most of these sediments were marine, until sea level dropped in the Pleistocene, and began depositing of the alluvial 1 City of Gardena.(2006). Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022. Retrieved from:
https://cityofgardena.org/general-plan/, accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

sediments that compose the uppermost units in the Los Angeles Basin creating a coastal alluvial plain.

Within this extensive alluvial plain, the Project site is situated on an uplifted marine alluvium and terrace landform, with remnant alluvial fans and uplifted alluvium and estuarine deposits. Several major watercourses drain the Los Angeles Basin, including the Los Angeles, Rio Hondo, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers. The Project site is within a fully urbanized setting on an openaspect plain at an elevation of approximately 40 feet above mean sea level. An 1896 topographic map shows that before urbanization, the Project site was on a relatively level alluvial plain approximately 0.2 mile northwest of the Dominguez Slough.

The Project site is in the Qae unit for a characterization of the soil and geophysical setting.2 The sediments that form the Qae unit were deposited before approximately 12,500 years ago, during the late Pleistocene. Soils within the project site are described as unconsolidated to weakly consolidated alluvial sediments, characterized by alluvial gravel, sand, and clay. The soils are further characterized as Windfetch loam with overly uplifted alluvium and terraces, varying from 8 centimeters to 2 meters (3–78 inches) deep and consisting of pale brown to dark brown, friable, moderate to blocky-textured clay loam.

Ice Age sediments, such as those found on site and described above, have a rich fossil history in Southern California, including the Los Angeles Basin. The most common Pleistocene terrestrial mammal fossils include the bones of mammoth, bison, deer, and small mammals, but other taxa, including horse, lion, cheetah, wolf, camel, antelope, peccary, mastodon, capybara, and giant ground sloth, have been reported, as well as reptiles such as frogs, salamanders, and snakes. In addition to illuminating the differences between Southern California in the Pleistocene and today, this abundant fossil record has been vital in studies of extinction, ecology, and climate change. There are numerous fossil localities in Pleistocene-aged alluvium throughout the Los Angeles Basin, the closest of which is approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the Project site.

Therefore, these sediments are assigned high paleontological potential.

4.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2002 codified the generally accepted practice of limiting collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils on public (federal) land. Because the Project site is not on federal lands, the provisions of this Act do not apply to the Project.
2 Appendix 4.4-1, Figure 2.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) recognizes the continuing responsibility of the federal government to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage…” (§1010 42 USC §4321; No. 382). With the Passage of the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, paleontological resources are considered a significant resource, and it is therefore now standard practice to include paleontological resources in NEPA studies in all instances where there is a possible impact. As the Project area is not on federal lands, the provisions of this Act do not apply to the Project.

State
Public Resources Code §5097.5
Requirements for paleontological resource management are included in Public Resources Code (PRC) Division 5, Chapter 1.7, §5097.5 which states in part:
“(a) A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.”
Subsection (c) makes violation of the section a misdemeanor.

Additionally, PRC §30244 requires reasonable mitigation measures where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer.

Local agencies are required to comply with these provisions for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.

Local
Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) §18.42.210.C – Post Permit Requirements, Paleontological Resources
This section establishes the following procedures to protect any paleontological resources which may potentially be discovered during any ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction.

1. Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities a qualified vertebrate paleontologist (as defined by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology) shall develop worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) training for construction personnel. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

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.

2. If fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within a twenty-five-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.

4.4.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning geology, soils, and paleontological resources. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, the Project may create a significant environmental impact if it would:
 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? See Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides
(see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant)
 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant).
 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant).
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (see Section 7.0:

Effects Found Not to be Significant).
 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant).  Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (see Impact 4.5-1).

4.4.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.4-1:

Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The potential for fossil occurrence depends on the rock type exposed at the surface in a given area and potential effects to paleontological resources would primarily be associated with ground disturbing activities. Paleontological resources are found in geologic deposits of sedimentary rock (i.e., sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, claystone, or shale). As previously noted, the Project site’s surface area consists of weakly consolidated alluvial sediments dating back to the late Pleistocene, which are of an age to preserve fossil resources and have high paleontological potential. The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County has records of numerous fossil localities from the same geologic units as exist in the Project area.

As depicted on Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map, the Project site is fully developed with industrial land uses. The Project proposes to remove the existing land uses and, in their place, construct a new 403-dwelling unit residential development. Previous construction-related excavation on the Project site has disturbed sediments beyond depths at which buried prehistoric cultural resources are likely. Notwithstanding, the potential exists for accidental discovery of paleontological resources during ground-disturbing activities. Should fossil resources be present in the Project site’s subsurface, ground-disturbing activities associated with excavations could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource.

To address potential impacts to paleontological resources that may be discovered during grounddisturbing activities, the Project would be subject to compliance with GMC §18.42.210, included as Condition of Approval (COA) GEO-1 and GEO-2, which require a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop and implement training for construction personnel, and which details the appropriate steps should paleontological resources be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Additionally, the Project would require Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1, which pertains to retaining a Project Paleontologist and preparation of a monitoring plan. Following - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

compliance with COA GEO-1 and COA GEO-2, and with MM GEO-1 incorporated, the Project’s potential impacts concerning directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic featurewould be less than significant. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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 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.

MITIGATION MEASURES
MM GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Monitor. Monitoring shall be conducted by a Paleontological Resources Monitor, defined as one who meets the SVP standards for a Paleontological Resources Monitor. The Paleontological Resources Monitor shall be under the supervision of the Project Paleontologist. A Project Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

Mitigation Plan (PRMMP). As defined in the PRMMP, Paleontological monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments that occur in previously undisturbed sediment, which has been estimated as any portion of the Project site where excavation exceeds 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.

4.4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the paleontological resource impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development within Gardena; see Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects. The geographical context of the cumulative analysis for paleontological resources is the City of Gardena.

Should fossil resources be present in the Project site’s subsurface, ground-disturbing activities associated with excavations could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. With implementation of the COAs and MMs, the Project’s potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Cumulative projects could involve excavations that destroy known or as-yet undiscovered paleontological resources specific to those development sites. However, as with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to paleontological resources. On a project-by-project basis, all development would be subject to compliance with the established federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning protection of paleontological resources, which would include compliance with GMC §18.42.210. Where significant or potentially significant impacts are identified, implementation of all feasible site-specific mitigation would be required to avoid or reduce impacts. The Project’s cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant given compliance with the established regulatory framework, COA, and site-specific MM requirements.

4.4.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts to paleontological resources have been identified.

4.4.7 REFERENCES
City of Gardena.(2006). Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022. Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/general-plan/, accessed May 2023.

Hamilton & Associates, Inc. (2023). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation; see Appendix 4.4-1:

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

This page intentionally left blank.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn

4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and analyze the Project’s potential to generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment and/or to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. 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 this section is based primarily on the Greenhouse Gas Technical Report – Normandie Apartments Project – Gardena, California (“GHG Technical Report”) (Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc., 2023); see Appendix 4.5-1: GHG Technical Report.

Kimley-Horn conducted a third-party review on behalf of the City of Gardena (“City”) of the GHG Technical Report; see Appendix 4.5-1. The third-party review concluded the analysis meets the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines.

4.5.1 EXISTING SETTING
Regional Setting
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solarradiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as lowfrequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lowerfrequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere.1 Table 4.5-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.

Table 4.5-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential [GWP] of 1) for determining GWPs for other GHGs.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management.

Primary human-related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years. The GWP of N2O is 298.

Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills.

Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume.

Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, nonwetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the GWP is 25.

Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse Gas Description
increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year GWP of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to 14,800 for HFC-23.

Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. GWPs range from 6,500 to 9,200.

Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987.

GWPs for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.

Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The GWP of SF6 is 23,900.

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year GWPs of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.

Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code §38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high GWP of 17,200.

Sources:

1. U.S. EPA. (2023). Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.goMaiv/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases.

2. U.S. EPA. (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021.

3. U.S. EPA. (2010). Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources.

4.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
 Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.  Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
 Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the U.S. EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the U.S. EPA’s regulatory actions.

Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order 13432 was issued in 2007 directing the U.S. EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.

In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, U.S. EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet- - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On January 12, 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA is currently proposing to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 mpg), canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026).

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavyduty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.

In August 2016, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program applies to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.2
On September 27, 2019, the U.S. EPA and the NHTSA published the “Safer Affordable FuelEfficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program” (84 Fed. Reg. 51,310 (Sept. 27, 2019).3 The SAFE Rule (Part One) revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates in California. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA finalized rulemaking for SAFE Part Two sets CO2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, covering model years 2021-2026. The current U.S. EPA administration has repealed SAFE Rule Part One, effective January 28, 2022, and is reconsidering Part Two.

In December 2021, the U.S. EPA finalized federal GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for Model Years 2023 through 2026. These standards are the strongest vehicle emissions standards ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector and are based on sound 2 U.S. EPA and NHTSA. (2016). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2. Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf. Accessed June 2023. 3 U.S. EPA and NHTSA. (2019). Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 188, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program, September 27, 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-09-27/pdf/2019-20672.pdf. Accessed June 2023.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

science and grounded in a rigorous assessment of current and future technologies. The updated standards will result in avoiding more than three billion tons of GHG emissions through 2050.4 State
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 459 gross million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2013. The transportation sector is the State’s largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.

The State’s legislature enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the legislation’s major provisions.

Assembly Bill 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directs CARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.

California Air Resource Board (CARB) Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve AB 32 goals. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business-as-usual”).3 5 The Scoping Plan evaluates 4 U.S. EPA. (2021). Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions.

Accessed June 2023. 5 CARB defines business-as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both CARB and the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap-and-trade program.6 Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include:
 Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
 Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020.  Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions (adopted in 2011).
 Establishing targets for transportation related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community strategies have been adopted).
 Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009).
 Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gases with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.  The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was developed in 2016 and provides a vision for California’s transition to a more efficient, more economically competitive, and less polluting freight transport system. This transition of California’s freight transport system is essential to supporting the State’s economic development in coming decades while reducing pollution.
 CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy demonstrates how the State can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next fifteen years.

The mobile Source Strategy includes increasing ZEV buses and trucks.

In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the 6 The Climate Action Team, led by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is a group of State agency secretaries and heads of agencies, boards, and departments. Team members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emissions reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

projected 2020 emissions from 596 MMTCO2e to 545 MMTCO2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions means that the revised business-as-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that incorporated state led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from business-as-usual needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is approximately 16 percent.

CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes the most recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. By 2016, California had reduced GHG emissions below 1990 levels, achieving AB 32’s 2020 goal four years ahead of schedule.

In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codified a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan.7 The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan and other federal actions.

Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.
7 California Air Resources Board. (2017). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed June 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan’s key elements focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.

Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new residential and mixed-use development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.8 These approaches are recommendations only and are not requirements. They do not supplant lead agencies’ discretion to develop their own evidencebased approaches for determining whether a project would have a potentially significant impact on GHG emissions.

Senate Bill 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and costeffective GHG reductions.

Senate Bill 375 - The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet AB 32’s GHG reduction goals. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

Assembly Bill 1493 - Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the U.S. EPA’s denial of an implementation 8 California Air Resources Board. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

waiver. The U.S. EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for passenger vehicle and light duty truck model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new passenger vehicles are anticipated to emit 34 percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.

Senate Bill 1368 - Emission Performance Standards
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant.

The law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.

Senate Bill 1078, Senate Bill 107, and Senate Bill X1-2 - Renewable Electricity Standards SB 1078 requires California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 (2006) changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolution 10-23. SBX1-2 codified the 33 percent by 2020 target.

Senate Bill 350 - Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements Executive Order B-30-15’s goals. The SB 350 objectives are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 45 percent by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Assembly Bill 398 - Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms
Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030. AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the state. It also designated CARB as the statewide regulatory body responsible for ensuring that California meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and authority to curb toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants from local sources that severely impact public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Cap-and-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.

Senate Bill 150 - Regional Transportation Plans
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with state targets (i.e., 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals.

The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.

Senate Bill 100 - California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Signed into law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

Assembly Bill 1346 - Air Pollution: Small Off-Road Engines Signed into law in October 2021, AB 1346 requires CARB to adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, consistent with federal law, by July 1, 2022. AB 1346 requires CARB to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.

Assembly Bill 1279 - The California Climate Crisis Act
AB 1279 establishes the policy of the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels.

The bill requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies.

Senate Bill 1020 - 100 Percent Clean Electric Grid
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 provides additional goals for the path to the 2045 goal of 100 percent clean electricity retail sales. It creates a target of 90 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2035 and 95 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2040.

Senate Bill 905 - Carbon Sequestration Program
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 905 establishes regulatory framework and policies that involve carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration. It also prohibits the injecting of concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class II injection well for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery.

Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders.

Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of State agencies.

Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
 By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
 By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
 By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S-01-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels.

CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.

Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency’s development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying, and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Order S-14-08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21-09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the state come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.

Executive Order S-21-09. Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020.

This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal that was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.

Executive Order B-30-15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO2e. The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order B-30-15 also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Executive Order B-55-18. Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.

Executive Order N-79-20. Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zeroemission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.

California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, §§1601-1608) include standards for new appliances. 23 categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost-effective measures, to promote the use of energyand water-efficient appliances.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.

On August 11, 2021, the California Energy Commission adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December 2021, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. Among other updates like strengthened ventilation standards for gas cooking appliances, the 2022 Energy Code includes updated standards such as new electric heat pump requirements for residential uses, schools, offices, banks, libraries, retail, and grocery stores; the promotion of electric-ready requirements for new homes including the addition of circuitry for electric appliances, battery storage panels, and dedicated infrastructure to allow for the conversion from natural gas to electricity; and the expansion of solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards to additional land uses including high-rise multi-family residences, hotels and motels, tenant spaces, offices (including medical offices and clinics), retail and grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and civic uses (including theaters auditoriums, and convention centers). Projects whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.

Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) (CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a Statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen Code standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The CALGreen Code also provides voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The CEC adopted the 2022 CALGreen Code in December 2021, went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 CALGreen code focuses on battery storage system controls, demand management, heat pump space and water heating, and building electrification.

Regional
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15. The 2020 RTP/SCS is a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals.

The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding.

The RTP/SCS accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. It is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and FCAA requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Local
City of Gardena 2006 General Plan
The Gardena 2006 General Plan (GGP) does not contain goals or policies concerning GHG emissions. However, GGP Community Development Element, Circulation Plan, includes the following goals and policies that address vehicle trips:
 CI Goal 1: Promote a safe and efficient circulation system that benefits residents and businesses and integrates with the greater Los Angeles/South Bay transportation system. o Policy CI 1.1: Prioritize long-term sustainability for the City of Gardena, in alignment with regional and state goals, by promoting infill development, reduced reliance on single-occupancy vehicle trips, and improved multi-modal transportation networks, with the goal of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, thereby improving the health and quality of life for residents.  CI Goal 3: Develop Complete Streets to promote alternative modes of transportation that are safe and efficient for commuters, and available to persons of all income levels and disabilities.
o Policy CI 3.3: Maintain and expand sidewalk installation and repair programs, particularly in areas where sidewalks link residential neighborhoods to local schools, parks, and shopping areas.
o Policy CI 3.4: Maintain a citywide bicycle route and maintenance plan that promotes efficient and safe bikeways integrated with the MTA’s regional bicycle system.

City of Gardena Climate Action Plan
The City of Gardena’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in December 2017 as a joint effort between the City of Gardena and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments. The CAP was developed as a guide to reduce GHG emissions by identifying strategies at the local level to help the State meet long-term GHG emission reduction goals. These strategies are separated into five main categories including Land Use and Transportation (LUT), Energy Efficiency (EE), Energy Generation (EG), Solid Waste (SW), and Urban Greening (UG).

The LUT category contains the following goals and policies that are applicable to the Project:

Policy LUT B Facilitate private and public mobility services (ride-hailing, ride-sharing, carsharing, bike-sharing).  Policy Action LUT B1.1: Facilitate car-sharing.
 Policy Action LUT D.2.3: Facilitate ride-hailing and ride-sharing.

Policy LUT D Improve design of development.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 Policy Action LUT D.2.2: Require new developments to provide pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities.
 Policy Action LUT D.2.3: Require commercial and multi-family residential projects to provide permanent bicycle parking facilities.

Policy LUT E2 Unbundle parking costs from property costs.  Policy Action LUT E.2.2: Encourage developers of new development to unbundle parking and eliminate the assignment of specific stalls.

Policy LUT G Increase density.
 Policy Action LUT G1.1: Encourage higher density through general plan appropriately in targeted areas.
 Policy Action LUT G1.2: Encourage higher density through zoning code appropriately in targeted areas.
 Policy Action LUT G1.3: Increase housing density near transit.

The EE category contains the following goals and policies that are applicable to the Project:

Policy E1 Promote or require water efficiency through SB X7-7.  Policy Action EE E1.2: Require low-irrigation landscaping.

Policy E2 Promoting water efficiency standards exceeding SB X7-7.  Policy Action EE E2.2: Allow recycled or grey water uses for nonmunicipal uses.

Gardena Municipal Code
The Gardena Municipal Code does not contain any standards concerning GHG emissions.

4.5.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning GHG emissions. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
 Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (see Impact 4.6-1)
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (see Impact 4.6-2)
Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions.9
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. The Threshold Working Group was formed to assist South Coast AQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the SCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. The Threshold Working Group proposed a tiered approach to evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where the South Coast AQMD is not the lead agency, wherein projects are evaluated sequentially through a series of “tiers” to determine whether the project is likely to result in a potentially significant impact due to GHG emissions.

With the tiered approach, a project is compared against the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold. The South Coast AQMD established a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year for industrial projects and a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold was proposed for non-industrial projects but it has not been adopted. The South Coast AQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, the South Coast AQMD initially outlined that a project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. However, the Threshold Working Group did not provide a recommendation for this approach. The Threshold Working Group folded the Tier 4 second option into the third option. Under the Tier 4 third option, a project would be excluded if it were below an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population per year. Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement offsite mitigation (GHG 9 Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Technical Report – Normandie Apartments Project, Gardena, CA. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level.

Tier 3 Screening (Project) Thresholds. This analysis assesses the significance of GHG impacts under a single threshold: Compliance with applicable statewide and local regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions consistent with AB 32 and SB 32, including CARB’s 2022 Updated Scoping Plan, the City of Gardena CAP, and the RTP/SCS’ growth assumptions.

To further demonstrate that the Project’s GHG emissions would not create significant impacts, the Project’s emissions inventory is compared to the SCAQMD unadopted, proposed draft screening threshold for residential projects. Because the SCAQMD proposed draft screening threshold is not adopted and relies on outdated statewide goals, this analysis does not rely on this comparison for significance determination and provides it for informational purposes only.

When the SCAQMD unadopted tiered approach is applied to a proposed project, and the project is found not to comply with Tier 1 or Tier 2, the project’s emissions are compared against a screening threshold, as described above, for Tier 3. The screening threshold formally adopted by South Coast AQMD is an “interim” screening threshold for stationary source industrial projects where the South Coast AQMD is the lead agency under CEQA. The threshold was termed “interim” because, at the time, South Coast AQMD anticipated that CARB would be adopting a statewide significance threshold that would inform and provide guidance to South Coast AQMD in its adoption of a final threshold. However, no Statewide threshold was ever adopted, and the interim threshold remains in effect.

For projects where South Coast AQMD is not a lead agency, no screening thresholds have been formally adopted. However, in 2008, the South Coast AQMD Threshold Working Group recommended a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects and 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial projects. The South Coast AQMD staff determined that these thresholds would “capture” 90 percent of GHG emissions from these sectors, “capture” meaning that 90 percent of total emissions from all new projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis (i.e., found potentially significant).10

4.5.4 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This section describes the methods used to develop the Project’s GHG emissions inventories, which include construction and operational emissions. Sub-categories of GHG operational emissions include the following: area sources, energy use, water and wastewater, solid waste, and mobile sources. These emissions are compared to applicable statewide and local regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions consistent with AB 32. Legislation and rules regarding climate change, as well as the scientific understanding of the extent to which different 10 South Coast AQMD. (2008). Staff Report: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans, Attachment E:
“Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Page 3-2. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

activities emit GHGs, continue to evolve; as such, the inventories in this report reflect the guidance and knowledge currently available.

Units of Measurement: Metric Tons of Co2 And Co2e
The term “GHGs” includes gases that contribute to the natural greenhouse effect, such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and water, as well as gases that are only manmade and that are emitted through the use of modern industrial products, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The most important greenhouse gas in human-induced global warming is CO2. While many gases have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for 80.1 percent of the GWP of all GHGs emitted by the United States.10 The effect each of these gases has on global warming is a combination of the volume of their emissions and their GWP. GWP indicates, on a pound for pound basis, how much a gas will contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2.
19 CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent than CO2, with GWPs of 25 and 298, respectively, see Table 4.5-1. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of mass of CO2e.

CO2e are calculated as the product of the mass of a given GHG and its specific GWP.

In many sections of this report, including the final summary sections, emissions are presented in units of CO2e either because the GWPs of CH4 and N2O were accounted for explicitly, or the CH4 and N2O are assumed to contribute a negligible amount of GWP when compared to the CO2 emissions from that particular emissions category.

In this report, emissions are presented as metric tons (1,000 kilograms). Additionally, exact totals presented in all tables and report sections may not equal the sum of components due to independent rounding of numbers.

Methodology Resources
CalEEMod®
The GHG Technical Report primarily utilized the California Emission Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod®)to assist in quantifying the GHG emissions in the inventories presented in this report for the Project. CalEEMod® is a statewide program designed to calculate both criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions from development projects in California. CalEEMod® provides a simple platform to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions for a land use project. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual GHG emissions. The model also provides default values for water and energy use.

Additionally, CalEEMod® contains default values and existing regulation methodologies to use in each specific local air district region. Appropriate statewide default values can be utilized if regional default values are not defined. The GHG Technical Report used default factors for the - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Los Angeles County area that is within the SCAQMD jurisdiction for the GHG emission inventory, unless otherwise noted in the methodology descriptions below. Details regarding the specific methodologies used by CalEEMod® can be found in the CalEEMod® User’s Guide and associated appendices. The CalEEMod® output files are provided for reference in Appendix 4.5-1 to this report.

Indirect GHG Emissions From Electricity Use
Project-related electricity use results in indirect emissions, due to electricity generation activities occurring at offsite power plant locations. For this Project, Southern California Edison (SCE)would supply electric power to the site.

One-Time Emissions
One-time emissions are those emissions that are not recurring over the Project’s life. This includes emissions associated with construction.

Construction Activities
This section describes the estimation of GHG emissions from construction activities at the Project site. The Project’s major construction phases included in this analysis are:
 Demolition: involves tearing down of the existing building on the Project site.  Site Preparation: involves clearing vegetation (grubbing and tree/stump removal) and stones prior to grading.
 Grading: involves the cut and fill of land to ensure the proper base and slope for the construction foundation.
 Building Construction: involves the construction of structures and buildings.  Architectural Coating: involves the application of coatings to both the interior and exterior of buildings or structures.
 Paving: involves the laying of concrete or asphalt such as in parking lots or roads.

Emissions from these construction phases are largely attributable to fuel use from construction equipment and worker commuting.

Project construction is scheduled to begin in 2024 and be completed in 2027. The construction schedule, grading volumes, demolition waste volumes, and construction trip information is provided in Appendix 4.5-1. Construction emissions are estimated assuming one shift working up to eight hours per day, for six days in a week.

Estimated Emissions from Construction Equipment. The construction equipment emission calculations are from off-road equipment engine use based on the equipment list and phase length. Since the majority of the off-road construction equipment used for construction projects - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

are diesel-fueled, CalEEMod® assumes all of the equipment operates on diesel fuel. The construction equipment calculations include the running exhaust emissions from off-road equipment. Since the equipment is assumed to be diesel, there are no starting or evaporative emissions associated with the equipment as these are de minimis for diesel-fueled equipment.

Estimated Emissions from On-Road Trips. Construction generates on-road vehicle exhaust (including evaporative emissions) from personal vehicles for worker/vendor commuting and trucks for soil/material hauling. These emissions are calculated using CalEEMod® methodology based on the number of trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) along with emission factors from EMFAC2017. The numbers of worker and vendor trips were based on project-specific data. The number of haul trips was estimated based on the volume of soil to be exported, the amount of building square footage demolished, and the CalEEMod® default assumption for haul truck capacity.

Regulatory Measures. The Project would be subject to compliance with the applicable regulations and programs concerning construction emissions. These include the CARB airborne toxic control measures (ATCM) to limit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling, and CARB in-use Off-Road and On-Road regulations.

Annual Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are emissions that would occur after Project build-out. This analysis identifies operational emissions for source categories including direct emissions from area and mobile sources and indirect emissions from energy use, water/wastewater, and solid waste management.

Area Sources
Area sources are those emission sources that are generally too small to be uniquely identified as point sources and are thus generally aggregated as a group. CalEEMod® estimates emissions for the following sources, which are included under the category of “area” sources: landscaping equipment (e.g., lawn mowers), consumer products, and architectural coatings. There are no GHG emissions from consumer product and architectural coating activities. The area source GHG emissions included in this analysis result from landscaping maintenance equipment related fuel combustion sources, such as lawn mowers. Based on CalEEMod® defaults, all operational days (i.e., 250 days per year) were assumed to be summer days, with no snow days.

Regulatory Measures. No applicable regulatory measures related to GHG emissions from landscape maintenance equipment were identified.

Energy Use
GHGs are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. Climate zone 8 was selected based on the Project location and CalEEMod® forecast climate zone map. The Project has no planned natural gas use.

Estimated Emissions from Swimming Pools. The Project proposestwo heated pools. This analysis conservatively incorporates the emissions from the electricity associated with heating the pools and the electricity used to power the filters and pumps for 365 days/year.

Estimates Emissions from Building Energy Use. As mentioned above, GHGs are emitted from buildings because of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources. As previously mentioned, combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building. Electricity and natural gas use in buildings is divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the construction of the building such as in plug-in appliances.

Regulatory Measures. In California, Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment, mechanical systems, and some types of fixed lighting.11 The 2022 Title 24 standards are the currently applicable building energy efficiency standards and became effective on January 1, 2023. The Project’s GHG emissions calculations reflect that the Project is meeting the 2019 Title 24 Part 6 Building Code for residential and non-residential construction. This is a conservative estimate of the Project’s energy use as the Project would meet the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 Building Code. Emission factors for electricity are dependent on statewide renewable energy generation targets. The RPS established a target of 33 percent energy from renewable sources for all electricity providers in California by 2020.

Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution
Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat, and distribute water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required to convey, treat, and distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water. Additional emissions from wastewater treatment include CH4 and N2O, which are emitted directly from the wastewater.

Regulatory Measures.While the Project is subject to compliance with the CALGreen Code, which requires that indoor potable water use be reduced by 20 percent through the use of water saving fixtures and/or flow restrictors, the analysis conservatively uses the CalEEMod default assumptions to estimate GHG emissions associated with the Project’s water usage. 11 Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Technical Report – Normandie Apartments Project, Gardena, CA. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Solid Waste
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the amount of material that is disposed of by land filling, recycling, or composting. CalEEMod® calculates the indirect GHG emissions associated with waste that is disposed of at a landfill. The program uses annual waste disposal rates from the CalRecycle data for individual land uses. CalEEMod® uses the overall California Waste Stream composition to generate the necessary types of different waste disposed into landfills. The program quantifies the GHG emissions associated with the decomposition of the waste, which generates methane based on the total amount of degradable organic carbon. The program quantifies the CO2 emissions associated with the combustion of methane, if applicable.

Regulatory Measures. While the Project is expected to comply with the state’s waste diversion goal of 75 percent waste diversion by 2020,12 this analysis conservatively uses the default CalEEMod® assumptions for estimates GHG emissions associated with waste disposal.

Mobile Source Emissions
The GHG emissions associated with on-road mobile sources are generated by employees and trucks visiting the Project. The emissions associated with on-road mobile sources includes running exhaust emissions, starting emissions and idling exhaust emissions. Running exhaust emissions are dependent on VMT. Starting emissions are associated with the number of starts or time between vehicle uses and the assumptions used in determining these values are described below. Idling exhaust emissions are based on the amount of time a vehicle spends idling.

Vehicle Trip Type. In CalEEMod®, the trip type breakdown describes the purpose of the trip generated at each land use. For example, the trip type breakdown indicates the percentage of trips generated at single-family home for work, for shopping, and for other purposes. CalEEMod® uses various sets of trip type breakdown, based on land use type (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.). The residential trips, as described below, are considered for the Project. 14  Residential Trips – These trips include home-work (H-W), home-shop (H-S), or homeother (H-O). An H-W trip represents the trip from the home to the workplace. An H-S trip represents the trip from the home to a land use were shopping takes place (generally retail). An H-O represents all other types of trips generated from the resident such as school, entertainment, etc.

Trip Rates. Trip rates are one of the parameters used to calculate Project mobile source emissions. CalEEMod® relies upon trip generation rates by land use types and associated average trip length by trip type to estimate the GHG (and air pollutant) emissions. 12 Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Technical Report – Normandie Apartments Project, Gardena, CA. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Trip Lengths. Trip lengths are another factor used to calculate Project mobile source emissions.

Annual VMT is estimated as a product of annual average trips and trip length for each vehicle type.

Vehicle Fleet Mix. Vehicle fleet mix is another parameter used to estimate mobile source emissions from Project operation. Each vehicle type has a different emission factor for each pollutant, so CalEEMod® relies upon vehicle fleet mixes by land use type to estimate the GHG emissions for each land use.

Regulatory Measures. AB 1493 required that CARB establish GHG emission standards for automobiles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state. In addition, the NHTSA and EPA have established corporate fuel economy standards and GHG emission standards, respectively, for automobiles, and light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. Implementation of these standards and fleet turnover (replacement of older vehicles with newer ones) would gradually reduce emissions from the proposed project’s motor vehicles.

4.5.5 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.13
 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.14  PDF AQ-3/PDF GHG-2. All-Electric: There would be no natural gas use by any of the Project land uses.15
13 The Project construction emissions inventory quantified this measure. 14 The Project operational emissions inventory did not quantify this measure, but it has been included here qualitatively. 15 The Project operational emissions inventory quantified this measure. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.5.6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Quantification of Emissions
Construction
The Project’s construction GHG emissions were calculated for each year of construction activity using CalEEMod. Results of the GHG emissions calculations are presented in Table 4.5-2:

Summary of Construction GHG Emissions. It is noted that the GHG emissions shown in Table 4.5-2 are based on construction equipment operating continuously throughout the workday. In reality, construction equipment tends to operate periodically or cyclically throughout the workday. Therefore, the calculated GHG emissions reflect a conservative estimate. A complete listing of the equipment by phase, emission factors, and calculation parameters used in this analysis is included within the emissions calculation worksheets that are provided in Appendix 4.5-1.

Although the Project’s construction related GHG emissions are considered one-time emissions, it is important to include them when assessing all of the Project’s long-term GHG emissions. Draft SCAQMD GHG analysis methodologies recommend that construction-related GHG emissions be amortized over a project’s 30-year lifetime, in order to include these emissions as part of a project’s annualized lifetime total emissions, so that GHG reduction measures would address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies.15 In accordance with this methodology, the Project’s estimated construction GHG emissions have been amortized over a 30-year period and are included in the annualized operational GHG emissions. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 4.5-2: Summary of Construction GHG Emissions
Calendar Year
Total Off-Road
Emissions
Total On-Road Emissions Total
Construction
Emissions1 Worker Vendor Hauling
(MT CO2e)
2021 234.36 39.86 23.61 52.25 350.09
2022 365.09 301.17 38.28 − 704.53
2023 364.32 375.53 56.40 − 796.25
Total 238.75 244.91 37.10 − 520.76
30-year Amortized 79

1. Construction emissions include on-site and off-site (worker/vendor/hauling) emissions, estimated using CalEEMod. CO2e includes CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions, weighted by their respective global warming potentials.

2. CalEEMod - California Emissions Estimator Model
CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents; GHG = greenhouse gases; MT = metric tons; N2O = nitrous oxide; yr = year
Source: Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Technical Report Table 7; see Appendix 4.5-1.

Due to the potential persistence of GHGs in the environment, Project impacts are based on annual emissions and, in accordance with draft SCAQMD methodology, construction-period impacts are not assessed for significance independent of operational-period impacts, which are discussed in the Operations section below.

Operations
The Project’s operational emissions are those that would occur after Project build-out. This analysis identifies operational emissions for source categories including direct emissions from area and mobile sources and indirect emissions from energy use, water/wastewater, and solid waste management. The Project’s maximum annual GHG emissions resulting from area sources, energy (i.e., electricity, natural gas), water conveyance and wastewater treatment, solid waste, and mobile/traffic were calculated for the expected opening year (2027).

The Project’s operational maximum opening year GHG emissions are included in Table 4.5-3: Summary of Operational GHG Emissions. Operational or long‐term emissions occur over the Project’s lifetime. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, onsite combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as offsite generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project site, the emissions associated with solid waste generated at the Project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 4.5-3: Summary of Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Average GHG Emissions1,2,3 (MTCO2e/year) Project Existing Conditions4
Area Sources 7 0.003
Energy Usage 577 131
Water 118 97
Solid Waste Disposed 98 50
Mobile/Traffic 1,901 282
Operational Subtotal 2,700 560
Construction Amortized5 79 --
Total 2,779 560
Net Project GHG Emissions (Project minus
Existing Conditions)6 2,219
Notes:

1. Operational emissions (from area sources, energy use, water use, waste disposed and mobile sources) and one-time emissions (from construction and vegetation) were calculated using CalEEMod®. Refer to Appendix 4.5-1 for further details.

2. Emissions are presented as CO2e, which include CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions, weighted by their respective GWP’s.

3. Energy emissions for Full Buildout Operations include pool electricity usage, see Appendix 4.5-1 for further details.

4. One-time emissions from construction were amortized over a 30-year period.

5. SCAQMD proposed draft screening threshold for residential projects. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significancethresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15- minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed: November 2022.

6. Sum of annualized one-time emissions and operational emissions may not add up due to rounding.

Source: Ramboll US Corporation. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Technical Report, included as Appendix 4.5-1. Table ES-1.

As shown in Table 4.5-3, the Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions (i.e., operation of the Project site with industrial uses). The Project’s net operational emissions would be approximately 2,219 MTCO2. Therefore, although the Project would generate emissions directly and indirectly, Project emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s bright line, unadopted screening-level threshold. This comparison is provided for informational purposes only.

Applicable GHG Reduction Plans and Policies
A significant impact would occur if the Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Plans and policies evaluated are AB 32, SB 32, the City of Gardena CAP, SCAG RTP/SCS (SB 375), and the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan Update.

AB 32 and SB 32 Regulatory Programs
The Project would not conflict with the applicable statewide and local regulatory programs. As discussed above, the Project would be subject to a number of regulatory programs intended to reduce GHG emissions consistent with AB 32 and SB 32.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The list below summarizes the regulations and regulatory programs related to the emission source categories:
 Energy Use:
 CCR Title 20 Standards
 CCR Title 24, Part 6 Standards (2022)
 CCR Title 24, Part 11 Standards
 California Renewable Portfolio Standard (SB X1 2)
 Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution:
 Executive Order B-29-15
 CCR Title 24, Part 11 Standards
 Senate Bill X7-7
 Solid Waste:
 California AB 341 (waste diversion)
 Mobile Sources:
 California AB 1493/Pavley Standards (through model year 2025)  California Advanced Clean Cars Standards (through model year 2025)  California Low Carbon Fuel Standard
 USEPA/NHTSA CAFE Standards (through model year 2018)
 Construction:
 CARB In-Use Off-Road Regulation
 CARB In-Use On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation As previously noted, the net Project emissions are approximately 2,219 MTCO2, which would not exceed the “bright-line” screening-level threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects. In addition, the Project’s compliance with the regulations and programs noted above would ensure no conflict with AB 32 and SB 32 would occur.

City of Gardena CAP
The City of Gardena’s CAP seeks to identify community-wide strategies to lower GHG emissions and integrates these efforts with the other priorities such as economic development, regional mobility and connectivity, and improving the local air and water quality. The Project would not conflict with the Gardena CAP’s primary goals and strategies. The Project would comply with California Code of Regulations California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 for EV charging design, which would in turn provide 10 percent of parking stalls to be EV capable, 25 - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

percent of parking stalls to be EV ready with Level 2 EV charging receptacles, and 5 percent of parking stalls to be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. Additionally, the Project would be built to meet the California Building Standards Code Title 24 and the California Green Building Code, which requires that indoor potable water use be reduced by 20 percent through the use of water saving fixtures and/or flow restrictors.

Table 4.5-4: City of Gardena Climate Action Plan Analysis evaluates the Project concerning the City of Gardena CAP. As indicated in Table 4.5-4, the Project would not conflict with the CAP’s applicable primary strategies concerning land use development, including land use and transportation, energy efficiency, solid waste, and urban greening. As such, the Project would not conflict with the Gardena CAP concerning goals adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.5-4: City of Gardena Climate Action Plan Analysis Strategy Goal Project Analysis
Land Use and
Transportation
(LUT)
A Accelerate the market
for EV vehicles
No Conflict. The Project would designate
approximately 40 percent of the 399 parking stalls
to be capable, ready, or equipped for EV Chargers.

More specifically, the Project would provide 10
percent of parking stalls to be EV capable, 25
percent of parking stalls to be EV ready with Level
2 EV charging receptacles, and 5percent of parking
stall to be equipped with Level 2 EV Chargers.

B Encourage ride-sharing
No Conflict. A designated loading area at the
apartment building along Normandie Avenue
would be signed and distinguished (e.g., with
paving and/or paint) such that it may be utilized as
a pick-up and drop-off zone for ride-sharing
services.

C Encourage transit
usage
No Conflict. Existing GTrans bus stops are located
less than 600 feet to the north of the Project site
along 166th Street. The Project includes ROW
improvements along 169th Street which would
create a continuous pedestrian path and allow
greater access to public transit opportunities.

Additional Torrance Transit and Metro services are
located approximately 0.25 mile south of the
Project site, at the Artesia Boulevard and South
Normandie Avenue intersection. The Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro) Harbor Gateway Transit Center is also
located approximately 0.9 mile to the south,
providing more access to public transit
opportunities. Per the NCSP, new residents who
sign a 12-month lease would be offered a one-time
free monthly Metro pass.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Strategy Goal Project Analysis
D
Adopt active
transportation
initiatives
No Conflict. The Project would provide 173 bicycle
parking spaces on the first level of the apartment
building (located in secured facilities accessible
only by apartment building residents). All bicycle
parking would be located in a safe, convenient
location, encouraging the use of bicycle
transportation by residents and guests.

E Parking strategies
No Conflict. The vehicle parking spaces would be
unbundled from the rental of the apartment units
to encourage alternate modes of transportation.

F Organizational
strategies
No Conflict. The proposed apartment amenities
include a multi-purpose office space to provide
workspace for residents that work from home.

Additionally, this amenity would encourage future
residents to telecommute work and therefore
reduce VMT.

G Land use strategies
No Conflict. The Project proposes 403 DU at a
density of 77 (DU/AC). The apartment building
would provide 155 DU/AC and the townhomes
would provide 24 DU/AC.

H Digital technology
strategies
No Conflict. The Project buildings would be capable
of connection to a future fiber network in order to
implement the South Bay Fiber-Optic Master
Plan. 16
Energy Efficiency
(EE)
A
Increase energy
efficiency in existing
residential units
Not Applicable. The Project does not involve
existing residential units.

B
Increase energy
efficiency in new
residential
developments
No Conflict. The Project would be built to meet the
California Green Building Code. Additionally, the
proposed pools would use electricity for filters,
pumps, and water heating rather than natural gas.

C
Increase energy
efficiency in existing
commercial units
Not Applicable. The Project site is currently
occupied by industrial uses.

D
Increase energy
efficiency in new
commercial
developments
Not Applicable. The Project includes only
residential uses.

E
Increase energy
efficiency through
water efficiency
No Conflict. The Project would be subject to
compliance with the California Green Building
Code, which requires that indoor potable water use
16 Magellan Advisors. (2017). Fiber-Optic Master Plan – Prepared for the South Bay Workforce Investment Board and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Strategy Goal Project Analysis
be reduced by 20 percent through the use of water
saving fixtures and/or flow restrictions.

F
Decrease energy
demand through
reducing urban heat
island effect
No Conflict. The Project would reduce the
impervious surface area by 13.8 percent, thereby
reducing the temperature of the site and
surrounding area. The Project would also provide
shade from providing 89 new trees.

G
Participate in
education, outreach,
and planning for
energy efficiency
Not Applicable. The Project is a new residential
development, and as such, would not directly be
involved in planning for energy efficiency.

H
Increase energy
efficiency in municipal
buildings
Not Applicable. The Project is a new residential
development.

I
Increase energy
efficiency in city
infrastructure
Not Applicable. The Project is a new residential
development, and as such, would not directly be
involved in planning for the City’s infrastructure
efficiency.

J
Reduce energy
consumption in the
long- term
No Conflict. New residential and non-residential
buildings would be subject to the 2022 Title 24 Part
6 Building Code.

Solid Waste
(SW)
A
Increase Diversion and
Reduction of
Residential Waste
No Conflict. The Project would be subject to
compliance with the state’s waste diversion goal of
75 percent waste diversion by 2020.

B
Increase Diversion and
Reduction of
Commercial Waste
Not Applicable. The Project is a new residential
development.

C Reduce and Divert
Municipal Waste
Not Applicable. The Project is a new residential
development.

Urban Greening
(UG)
A
Increase and maintain
urban greening in the
community
No Conflict. The Project includes an increase of
approximately 50,493 SF of open space and
proposed to plant 89 new trees.

B
Increase and maintain
urban greening in
municipal facilities
Not Applicable. The Project does not involve
municipal facilities.

Energy
Generation &
Storage
(EGS)
A
Support energy
generation and storage
in the community
Not Applicable. The Project is a new residential
development, which would be serviced by SCE.

Sources: Refer to Exhibit 2-4: Conceptual Site Plan and Appendix 4.5-1 for assumptions used in this analysis. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

SCAG RTP/SCS
The SCAG RTP is a long-range transportation plan that is developed and updated by SCAG every four years. The RTP provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the region. The SCS will integrate land use and transportation strategies that will achieve GHG emissions reduction targets that are forecasted to achieve reduction in GHG emissions to achieve the state’s 2035 and 2040 GHG reduction goals.

The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS projects an increase of 1.6 million households in the region and approximately 455,000 households in Los Angeles County from 2023 to 2045.17 For Gardena, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS projects an increase of 1,077 households between 2023 and 2045. 14 The
Project proposes 403 dwelling units (DU), which is approximately 0.03 percent of the projected household growth for the region, approximately 0.09 percent of the projected household growth for Los Angeles County, and approximately 37 percent of the projected household growth for Gardena; see Section 4.10: Population and Housing for analysis. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS and the SCAQMD 2020 AQMP.

The SCAG RTP also identifies ten goals related to housing, transportation technologies, equity and resilience in order to adequately reflect the increasing importance of these topics in the region. Table 4.5-5: RTP/SCS Goals Analysis evaluatesthe Project’s consistency with these goals.

As indicated in Table 4.5-5, the Project would not conflict with the RTP/SCS Goals adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As such, Project impacts concerning consistency with the RTP/SCS Goals would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.5-5: RTP/SCS Goals Analysis
Goal Project Analysis
Goal 1
Encourage regional economic
prosperity and global
competitiveness.

Not Applicable. The Project proposes residential
uses only.

Goal 2
Improve mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel safety for
people and goods.

No Conflict. The Project includes ROW
improvements along West 169th Street which would
create a continuous pedestrian path and allow
greater access to public transit opportunities. The
Project proposes to construct sidewalks along the
Project site frontage: on the south side of West 169th
Street (between Brighton Way and South
Normandie Avenue), on the north side of West 170th
Street (between Brighton Way and South
Normandie Avenue), on the west side of South
Normandie Avenue (between West 169th Street and
West 170th Street), and on the east side of Brighton
Way (between West 169th Street and West 170th
17 State of California, Department of Finance. (2023). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2011- 2023, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Goal Project Analysis
Street). Additionally, the Project proposes to
construct approximately 266 linear feet of offsite
sidewalk improvements along the south side of
West 169th Street, just west of the Project site,
between Brighton Way and the alley just west of
Brighton Avenue. Additionally, the Project includes
railroad improvements on Normandie Avenue. Both
ROW and Railroad improvements would upgrade
existing infrastructure and increase mobility,
reliability, and travel safety for people and goods.

Goal 3
Enhance the preservation, security,
and resilience of the regional
transportation system.

No Conflict. The Project includes railroad
improvements on Normandie Avenue. These
improvements would enhance the preservation,
security, and resilience of the regional
transportation system.

Goal 4
Increase person and goods
movement and travel choices within
the transportation system.

No Conflict. The Project includes sidewalk
improvements, as described in Goal 2 above. The
Project also proposes railroad track improvements
along South Normandie Avenue, which include the
following:
• Removing the spur track, which enters the
Project site.
• Removing approximately 830 linear feet of
railroad spur currently located along the Project
site’s eastern boundary.
• A new median both north and south of the track
alignment, and
• New warning devices and tactile warning strips
on the South Normandie Avenue east and west
sidewalks.
• Refreshing railroad crossing pavement markings
immediately north and south of the track
alignment.

Goal 5 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and improve air quality.

No Conflict. The Project site is in an urban area near
existing transit routes and freeways. The Project’s
location within an urbanized, walkable area would
reduce trip lengths, which would reduce GHG and
air quality emissions.

Goal 6 Support healthy and equitable
communities
No Conflict. The Project does not exceed South
Coast AQMD’s regional or localized thresholds.

Based on the Friant Ranch decision, projects that do
not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s localized
significance thresholds (LSTs) would not violate any
air quality standards or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation and
result in no criteria pollutant health impacts.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Goal Project Analysis
Goal 7
Adapt to a changing climate and
support an integrated regional
development pattern and
transportation network.

Not Applicable. This is not a project-specific goal.

Goal 8
Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven
solutions that result in more efficient
travel.

No Conflict. As mentioned previously, the Project
would designate approximately 40 percent of the
559 parking stalls to be capable, ready, or equipped
for EV Chargers. Each townhome unit would have
one EV ready space within each garage.

Additionally, a designated loading area at the
apartment building along Normandie Avenue would
be signed and distinguished (e.g., with paving
and/or paint) so that it may be used as a pick-up and
drop-off zone for ride-sharing services.

Goal 9
Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are
supported by multiple transportation
options.

No Conflict. The Project proposes various housing
types that would provide diverse housing options
and be served by public transit located within
approximately 0.25 mile of the Project site. Existing
GTrans bus stops are located less than 600 feet
north of the Project site along 166th Street.

Additional Torrance Transit and Metro services are
located approximately 0.25 mile south of the Project
site, at the Artesia Boulevard and South Normandie
Avenue intersection. The Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)
Harbor Gateway Transit Center is also located
approximately 0.9 mile south of the Project site,
providing more access to public transit
opportunities. The Project includes ROW
improvements along 169th Street, which would
create a continuous pedestrian path and allow
greater access to public transit opportunities.

Further, the Project would provide new residents
who sign a 12-month lease one free monthly Metro
pass.

Goal 10
Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of
habitats.

Not Applicable. The Project site is not located on
agricultural lands and does not contain native
habitat.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

The SCAG RTP also outlines seven guiding principles which take the goals outlined above in Table 4.5-4 and focuses them, creating a specific direction for plan investments. Table 4.5-6:

RTP/SCS Guiding Principles Analysis evaluates the Project’s consistency with these guiding principles. As indicated in Table 4.5-6, the Project would not conflict with the RTP/SCS Guiding Principles adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As such, Project impacts - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

concerning consistency with the RTP/SCS Guiding Principles would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.5-6: RTP/SCS Guiding Principles Analysis
Guiding Principle Project Analysis
Guiding
Principle 1
Base transportation investments on
adopted regional performance
indicators and MAP-21/FAST Act
regional targets.

Not Applicable. The Project proposes residential
development.

Guiding
Principle 2
Place high priority for transportation
funding in the region on projects and
programs that improve mobility,
accessibility, reliability and safety, and
that preserve the existing
transportation system.

No Conflict. The Project does not involve
transportation funding. Notwithstanding, as
mentioned above, the Project includes ROW
improvements both offsite and along the Project
frontage which would create a continuous
pedestrian path and allow greater access to
public transit opportunities. Additionally, the
Project includes railroad improvements on
Normandie Avenue, which would upgrade and
preserve the existing rail line. For further
discussion on railroad improvements, see
Section4.14: Transportation. Both ROW and
Railroad improvements would improve mobility,
accessibility, reliability and safety, and preserve
the existing transportation system.

Guiding
Principle 3
Assure that land use and growth
strategies recognize local input,
promote sustainable transportation
options, and support equitable and
adaptable communities.

No Conflict. The Project assuresthat land use and
growth strategies recognize local input through
the CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP) process. As
outlined in Section 4: Environmental Analysis,
the Project received multiple public comments
which have been addressed in various sections of
this document. The Project would also promote
sustainable transportation options by
encouraging the use of existing public transit
through the following features:
 The Project site would be located where
multiple public transit opportunities are
located. Public transit services are provided
by GTrans, Torrance Transit and Metro
Further, the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro) Harbor Gateway Transit Center is
also located approximately 0.9 mile to the
south, providing more access to public transit
opportunities.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Guiding Principle Project Analysis
 The NCSP allows new residents who sign a 12-
month lease would be offered one free
monthly Metro pass.

Further, the Project would support equitable and
adaptable communities by offering various types
of housing options which include studio, 1- and 2-
bedroom apartments, townhomes, and
affordable housing units. The variety of housing
options would allow people of various incomes to
reside within the City.

Guiding
Principle 4
Encourage RTP/SCS investments and
strategies that collectively result in
reduced non-recurrent congestion and
demand for single occupancy vehicle
use, by leveraging new transportation
technologies and expanding travel
choices.

No Conflict. As mentioned above, the Project
would promote sustainable transportation
options by encouraging the use of existing public
transit through the following features:
 The Project site would be located where
multiple public transit opportunities are
located.
 The NCSP allows new residents who sign a 12-
month lease would be offered one free
monthly Metro pass.

Collectively, these features would result in
reduced non-recurrent congestion and demand
for single occupancy vehicle use, by leveraging
new transportation technologies and expanding
travel choices.

Guiding
Principle 5
Encourage transportation investments
that will result in improved air quality
and public health, and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions
Not Applicable. The Project proposes residential
development.

Guiding
Principle 6
Monitor progress on all aspects of the
Plan, including the timely
implementation of projects, programs,
and strategies.

Not Applicable. This guiding principle refers to a
SCAG responsibility and does not apply to the
proposed Project.

Guiding
Principle 7
Regionally, transportation investments
should reflect best-known science
regarding climate change vulnerability,
in order to design for long term
resilience.

No Conflict. Analysis of the Project was
conducted with the most currentinformation and
resources available at the time the NOP was
released as required per CCR §15125.1(a).

Source: Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

CARB Scoping Plan Consistency
Pursuant to AB 32 requirements, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008, which provides a range of GHG reduction actions. There were three previous Scoping - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Plans, which focused on specific GHG reduction targets for industrial, energy, and transportation sectors — first to meet 1990 levels by 2020, then to meet the more aggressive target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2022 Scoping Plan, addressing recent legislation and direction from Governor Newsom, extends and expands upon earlier plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These measures build upon those identified in the Scoping Plan’s first update in 2013.

Table 4.5-7: CARB Scoping Plan Analysisidentifies the key attributes for residential (and mixeduse) projects to qualitatively determine consistency with the Scoping Plan and evaluates the Project’s consistency with these attributes. As indicated in Table 4.5-7, the Project would be consistent with these key attributes, thus, would not conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan GHG reduction goals. As such, the Project would not conflict with the Scoping Plan. Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.5-7: CARB Scoping Plan Analysis
Priority Areas Key Project Attributes Project Analysis
Transportation
and
Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure that,
at minimum, meets the most ambitious
voluntary standard in the California Green
Building Standards Code at the time of
project approval.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
comply with the CALGreen Code for
electric vehicle (EV) charging design.

Compliance would provide 10 percent of
parking stalls to be EV capable, 25 percent
of parking stalls to be EV ready with Level
2 EV charging receptacles, and 5 percent
of parking stalls to be equipped with Level
2 EV chargers. The final design may vary
from this in compliance with the
CALGreen Code.

VMT Reduction Is located on infill sites that are
surrounded by existing urban uses and
reuses or redevelops previously
undeveloped or underutilized land that is
presently served by existing utilities and
essential public services (e.g., transit,
streets, water, sewer).

No Conflict. The Project is proposed on an
infill site that is entirely surrounded by
existing urban uses. The Project proposes
to redevelop an underutilized industrial
property that is presently served by
existing utilities and essential services; see
Section 4.15: Utility and Services Systems
and Section 4.11: Public Services,
respectively. As such, the Project would
limit urban sprawl.

Does not result in the loss or conversion of
natural and working lands.

No Conflict. The Project is proposed on a
site that is currently occupied by industrial
uses and devoid of natural or working
lands. Therefore, no loss or conversion of
such lands would occur.

Consists of transit-supportive densities
(minimum of 20 residential dwelling units
per acre) or is in proximity to existing
No Conflict. The Project proposes 403 DU
at a density of 77 DU/AC. The Project is
proposed on an infill site and is accessible
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Priority Areas Key Project Attributes Project Analysis
transit stops (within a half mile) orsatisfies
more detailed and stringent criteria
specified in the region’s SCS.
to public transit via bus service provided
within approximately 0.25 mile of the
Project site. Existing GTrans bus stops are
located less than 600 feet to the north of
the Project site along 166th Street.

Additional Torrance Transit and Metro
services are located approximately 0.25
mile to the south of the Project site, at the
Artesia Boulevard and South Normandie
Avenue intersection. The Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) Harbor Gateway Transit
Center is also located approximately 0.9
mile to the south, providing further access
to public transit opportunities. The Project
includes ROW improvements along 169th
Street which would create a continuous
pedestrian path and allow greater access
to public transit opportunities. Further,
the Project would provide new residents
who sign a 12-month lease one free
monthly Metro pass.

Reduces parking requirements by:
 Eliminating parking requirements or
including maximumallowable parking
ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces
to residential units or square feet); or
 Providing residential parking supply at
a ratio of less than one parking space
per dwelling unit; or
 For multifamily residential
development, requiring parking costs
to be unbundled from costs to rent or
own a residential unit.

No Conflict. The Project would include 1.2
parking spaces per apartment DU, which is
less than Gardena Municipal Code
requirements. Additionally, parking would
be provided unbundled from apartment
rents.

At least 20 percent of units included are
affordable to lower income residents.

Conflict. While the Project would not
include 20 percent of units as affordable
housing, the Project would include 5.0
percent (20DU) of units as affordable. This
conflict is considered a less than
significant impact given the Project
complies with the City’s development
standards and supports the goal of
providing affordable housing.

Results in no net loss of existing affordable
units.

No Conflict. There are no existing
affordable units on the Project site.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Priority Areas Key Project Attributes Project Analysis
Building
Decarbonization
Uses all-electric appliances without any
natural gas connections and does not use
propane or other fossil fuels for space
heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
meet the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 building
code and Title 24 Part 11 (CalGreen)
standards. In addition, the Project would
be all electric, requiring no natural gas.

Sources: Refer to Exhibit 2-4 and Appendix 4.5-1 for assumptions used in this analysis.

In summary, the Project would comply with GHG reduction policies, strategies, and regulations outlined in the AB 32 and SB 32 regulatory programs, the City of Gardena CAP, SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.5.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A single project’s emissions would not cause or exacerbate global climate change. Climate change is a global phenomenon and the significance of a project’s GHG emissions is inherently cumulative in nature. CEQA requires that lead agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs from even relatively small (on a global basis) increases in GHG emissions. Small contributions to this cumulative impact (from which significant effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time) may be potentially considerable and therefore significant. A cumulatively considerable impact is the impact of a project in addition to impacts of the related projects. However, in the case of global climate change, a project’s proximity to other GHGgenerating activities is not directly relevant to the determination of global GHG cumulative impacts.

As presented in Table 4.5-2, the Project would result in a slight increase in GHG emissions as compared to the GHG emissions associated with the existing on-site land use. Because GHG emissions are considered cumulative in nature, the Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact concerning GHG emissions.

The Project would not conflict with the state’s ability to achieve the AB 32 and SB 32 GHG reduction targets and would not conflict with the City’s CAP. In addition, the Project would not conflict with the applicable GHG emissions reduction strategies in SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

As discussed above, the Project would not result in significant GHG impacts. Thus, the Project when combined with cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact concerning GHG emissions.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.5.8 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning GHG emissions have been identified.

4.5.9 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. (2017). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

Accessed June 2023.

California Air Resources Board. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles.

In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Retrieved from: http://www.climatechange2013.org/
images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed June 2023.

Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Technical Report – Normandie Apartments Project – Gardena, California; see Appendix 4.5-1: GHG Technical Report.

Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

South Coast AQMD. (2008). Staff Report: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans, Attachment E: “Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Page 3-2.

State of California. California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.4a.

State of California, Department of Finance. (2023). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2011-2023, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Accessed May 2023.

U.S. EPA and NHTSA. (2016). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2. Retrieved from:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf. Accessed June 2023.

U.S. EPA and NHTSA. (2019). Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 188, The Safer Affordable FuelEfficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program, September 27, 2019. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Retrieved from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-09-27/pdf/2019- 20672.pdf. Accessed June 2023.

U.S. EPA. (2021). Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-reviseexisting-national-ghg-emissions. Accessed June 2023.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016. Retrieved from https://www.epa.goMaiv/ghgemissions/overviewgreenhouse-gases. Accessed June 2023.

U.S. EPA. (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021.

U.S. EPA. (2010). Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn

4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to hazards and hazardous materials, and wildfires, and evaluate potential impacts that could result from Project implementation. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the existing regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or lessen the Project’s potentially significant impact.

Information concerning the Project site’s southern portion (APN 6106-030-017) in this section is based primarily on data from the following resource:
 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Food & Beverage Processing Plant, 16911 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, January 7, 2021; see Appendix 4.6-2: South Phase I ESA.

Information concerning the Project site’s northern portion (APNs 6106-030-011, 6106-030-015, and 6106-030-016) in this section is based primarily on data from the following resources:
 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 16831 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, July 13, 2021; see Appendix 4.6-1:

North Phase I ESA.
 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., Assessment Report 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, November 4, 2021; see Appendix 4.6-3: Soil/Gas Phase II.  Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report 16829- 16839 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, July 26, 2021; see Appendix 4.6-4:

Soil/Groundwater Phase II.
 Hillman Consulting, Opinion Letter: Light Industrial Property 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, July 26, 2021; see Appendix 4.6-5: Opinion Letter.
 Hillman Consulting, Technical Memorandum Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, August 11, 2023; see Appendix 4.6-6:

VIRE.

It is noted, Kimley-Horn conducted third-party reviews on behalf of the City of Gardena (“City”), as listed below. The third-party reviews concluded the analyses meet the applicable provisions of Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.  Kimley-Horn and Associates, Hazardous Materials Data for Normandie Crossing Project Peer Review, Orange, California, March 15, 2023; see Appendix 4.6-1.  Kimley-Horn and Associates, Supplemental Hazardous Materials Data for Normandie Crossing Project Peer Review, Orange, California, March 15, 2023; see Appendix 4.6-3. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation for Normandie Crossing Project Peer Review, Orange, California, September 7, 2023; see Appendix 4.6-6.

Due to multiple phases of due diligence and acquisitions, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I ESAs) were completed separately for the Project site’s northern portion (16831 South Normandie Avenue; see Appendix 4.6-1) and southern portion (16907-16911 South Normandie Avenue; see Appendix 4.6-2).

The Phase I ESA for the Project site’s northern portion (see Appendix 4.6-1) identified the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and petroleum hydrocarbons, thus, a Phase II ESA was recommended and performed. The Phase II consisted of two parts: a July 2021 assessment of soil, gas, and groundwater samples (see Appendix 4.6-3); and a November 2021 supplemental investigation of VOCs (see Appendix 4.6-4).

4.6.1 EXISTING SETTING
Site Reconnaissance
Methodology and Limiting Conditions
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) conducted a Phase I ESA for the Project site’s northern and southern portions (see Appendix 4.6-1 and Appendix 4.6-2, respectively). The assessments were performed in conformance with the ASTM Practice E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments and included: 1) a property and adjacent site reconnaissance; 2) interviews with key personnel; 3) review of historical sources; 4) review of regulatory agency records; and 5) review of regulatory database report provided by a third-party vendor. Partner contacted local agencies, such as environmental health departments, fire departments, and building departments to determine any current and/or former hazardous substance usage, storage, and/or release of hazardous substances on the Project site.

Additionally, Partner researched information on the presence of activity and use limitations (AULs) at these agencies. Specific limitations and exceptions to the ESAs are described below:

Interviews with past owners, operators and occupants were not reasonably ascertained and thus constitute a data gap. Based on information obtained from other historical sources, this data gap is not expected to alter the findings of this assessment.

Partner requested information relative to deed restrictions and environmental liens, a title search, and completion of the AAI User Questionnaire from the Report User. This information was not provided at the time of the assessment. Based on information obtained from other historical sources, this data gap is not expected to alter the findings of this assessment.

Partner was unable to determine the property use at five-year intervals, which constitutes a data gap. Except for property tax files and recorded land title records, which were not considered to - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

be sufficiently useful, Partner reviewed all standard historical sources and conducted appropriate interviews.

Partner submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health for information pertaining to hazardous substances, underground storage tanks, releases, inspection records, etc. for the property and/or adjacent properties. As of January 7, 2021, this agency has not responded to Partner’s request. Based on information obtained from other historical sources, this limitation is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment.

Current Use
The Project site is currently developed as an industrial park that encompasses land south of 169th Street and north of 170th Street. The Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings:
three light industrial buildings at the northern portion (APNs 6106-030-011, 6106-030-015, and 6106-030-016); and three industrial/office buildings atthe southern portion (APN 6106-030-017).

In addition to the buildings, the Project site is also improved with asphalt-paved and unpaved parking areas.

The Project site’s southern portion contains a vacant production building (16907 South Normandie Avenue), a vacant office building (16911 South Normandie Avenue), and a warehouse building (16911 South Normandie Avenue).

One the three light industrial buildings at the Project site’s northern portion contains approximately 9,324 SF of industrial floor area that is in a dilapidated condition and is therefore not being used or occupiable. The other light industrial buildings on the Project site’s northern portion are currently occupied by Property Prep Services and leased out to general office and storage tenants. Onsite operations consist of the storage of power wash equipment that is used during the prep and cleaning of parking structures. The property has equipped with an aboveground clarifier that is used to separate sediment from dirty wash water that is brought in from offsite cleaning operations.

The production building, office building, and warehouse at the southern portion are currently unoccupied, with the exception of the warehouse building that is currently being cleared of storage. The property consists of one single-story production building with a mezzanine level, one single-story office building, and one single-story warehouse building. In addition to the current structures, the property is also improved with a railroad spur, loading docks, asphaltpaved parking areas, and drainage features.

Current Use of Adjacent Properties
Table 2-2: Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning in Section 2.0: Project Description, describes the land uses on properties adjoining the Project site that Partner observed during the vicinity reconnaissance.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

General Site Characteristics
Solid Waste Disposal. Solid waste generated at the Project site is disposed of in commercial dumpsters located on the site. An independent solid waste disposal contractor, Waste Resources, removes solid waste from the site. According to property personnel, only household trash is collected in the onsite solid waste dumpsters. No evidence of illegal dumping of solid waste was observed during the Partner site reconnaissance.

Sewage Discharge and Disposal. Sanitary discharges from the site are directed into the municipal sanitary sewer system. The City and Los Angeles County Sanitation District serve uses in the vicinity of the Project site. No wastewater treatment facilities or septic systems were observed or reported on the Project site.

Additionally, the three light industrial buildings at the Project site’s northern portion were equipped with an aboveground clarifier/water treatment system.

Surface Water Drainage. Stormwater is discharged from the Project site primarily by sheet flow action across the paved surfaces towards stormwater drains located throughout the site and public right-of-way. Stormwater collected in landscaped areas percolates into the soil with overflow spilling onto adjacent paved areas. The Project site is connected to a municipal owned and maintained stormwater system.

The property is not a designated wetland area, based on information obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No surface impoundments, wetlands, natural catch basins, settling ponds, or lagoons are located on site. No drywells were identified on the Project site.

Source of Heating and Cooling. Heating and cooling systems as well as domestic hot water equipment are fueled by electricity and natural gas provided by Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. Heating and cooling systems for existing buildings onsite mostly consist of roof-mounted HVAC units.

Wells and Cisterns. No aboveground evidence of wells or cisterns was observed during the site reconnaissance.

Wastewater. The three industrial buildings at the Project site’s northern portion are equipped with an above-ground clarifier/water treatment system. Domestic wastewater generated at the production building, office building, and warehouse (southern portion) is disposed by means of the sanitary sewer system. No industrial process is currently performed at the Project site.

Septic Systems. No septic systems were observed or reported on the Project site. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potential Environmental Hazards
Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Used or Stored at the Site. Partner identified hazardous substances used, stored, and/or generated on the three light industrial buildings at the northern portion of the site, which are listed in Table 4.6-1: Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Noted at Northern Portion of Project Site. The materials were found to be properly labeled and stored at the time of the assessment, and there were no signs of leaks, stains, or spills. Secondary containment is not provided. Based on the nature of use, overall small quantities observed, and lack of violations, these materials are not expected to represent a recognized environmental concern (REC).

Table 4.6-1: Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Noted at Northern Portion of Project Site
Substance Container Size Location Nature of Use Disposal Method Used Oil
Filters 1 x 55-gallon drum Warehouse area
Equipment
maintenance
Transported offsite by
Safety-Kleen monthly
Oil 2 x 55-gallon drum Warehouse
area
Equipment
maintenance N/A
Paints Various 5-gallon
cans
Warehouse
area Concrete striping N/A
Dirty Wash
Water
Two 250-gallon
totes
Exterior
storage area
Offsite concrete
power washing
Onsite water treatment
system
Source: Appendix 4.6-1.

No hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed at the southern portion during the site reconnaissance.

Aboveground and Underground Hazardous Substance or Petroleum Product Storage Tanks (ASTs/USTs). No evidence of current or former ASTs or USTs were observed during the site reconnaissance for the northern portion.

In the southern portion, there are circular concrete pads on the exterior of the production building indicative of the use of former ASTs. According to a 1993 Equipment Plan of the packaging area, the property was equipped with one 20,000-gallon syrup AST, one 20,000-gallon fructose AST, one 10,000-gallon water supply AST, and one 10,000-gallon sugar AST. Based on the non-hazardous nature of contents, no RECs were identified in connection with the former ASTs. Additionally, a concrete cut at the exterior of the warehouse building appears to have been related to former USTs.

Evidence of Releases. Black surface staining near damaged concrete was observed in the southwest corner of the equipment storage yard at the site’s northern portion. According to the regulatory database report, four open-top poly drums of unidentified dark sludge/liquid were located near the southwest corner of the equipment storage yard during the fire department’s - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

routine inspection in 2020. A proper waste determination had reportedly not been made at the time; however, compliance was subsequently achieved in September 2020. The area of staining appeared to be primarily confined to the concrete surface with some minor impacts to surface soil in the areas of damaged concrete. Based on the limited extent of the staining,surficial nature, and proper offsite removal of the former drums, this area of black staining is considered de minimis and not a recognized environmental concern at this time.

No spills, stains, or other indications that a surficial release occurred in the southern portion were observed.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The on-site reconnaissance addressed indoor and outdoor transformers that may contain PCBs. Three modern-style pole-mounted transformers, one padmounted transformer, and four interior dry-type transformers were observed on the Project site.

The transformers are not labeled indicating PCB content. No staining or leakage was observed in the vicinity of the transformers. Based on the good condition of the equipment, the transformers are not expected to represent a recognized environmental concern.

Additionally, no other potential PCB-containing equipment (oil-filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, balers, etc.) was observed during Partner’s reconnaissance.

Strong, Pungent, or Noxious Odors. No strong, pungent, or noxious odors were evident at the Project site during the site reconnaissance.

Pools of Liquid. No pools of liquid were observed on the Project site during the site reconnaissance.

Drains, Sumps, and Clarifiers. The industrial buildings in the northern portion are equipped with an aboveground clarifier/water treatment system. This feature is within a concrete-bermed area with no indications of a release within containment. This feature is permitted with the Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LACDPW), and no significant violations or releases have been reported in connection with the feature. Based on the aboveground nature and regulatory status, the aboveground clarifier/water treatment system is not considered a REC. No other drains, other than those associated with stormwater removal, were observed on the northern portion during the site reconnaissance.

No clarifiers were observed during Partner’s site reconnaissance at the southern portion; however regulatory records indicate clarifier and “interceptors” systems were historically located on the property.

One sump pump was observed next to the fire riser on the warehouse building’s southern wall.

Another sump pump was observed that is used for stormwater drainage. No hazardous substances or petroleum products were noted in the vicinity of the sump pumps. Based on the nature of use of the sump pumps, these units are not expected to represent a recognized - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

environmental concern. No other drains, other than those associated with stormwater removal, were observed on the Project site during the site reconnaissance.

Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons. No pits, ponds or lagoons were observed on the site.

Stressed Vegetation. No stressed vegetation was observed on the site.

Additional Potential Environmental Hazards. No additional environmental hazards, including landfill activities or radiological hazards, were observed at either the northern or southern portions.

Railroad and Utility Corridors, and Roads— A railroad spur diverges from the rail right-of-way at the property’s southeast portion. The spur runs to the property’s northwestern portion. This feature was investigated as part of the 2020 South Phase I; see Appendix 4.6-2. Hazardous substances potentially associated with railroad and utility corridors include heavy metals in ballast rock, lead (from wood preservatives), herbicides, PCBs, asbestos (from train disc brake pads), creosote (from railroad ties), arsenic (from railroad ties and some herbicides), and petroleum hydrocarbons. The assessment found no concentrations of these substances above regulatory thresholds and did not recommend further evaluation of the rail spur.

Non-ASTM Services
Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs). Partner was not provided building plans or specifications for review, which may have been useful in determining areas likely to have used ACMs. However, based on the age of the buildings, there is a potential that ACMs are present.

Lead Based Paint (LBP). Based on the age of the buildings (pre-1978), there is a potential that LBP is present. Interior and exterior painted surfaces were observed in good condition and therefore not expected to represent a “hazard,” although the condition of the paint should be monitored and maintained to ensure that it does not become deteriorated.

Radon.Radon sampling was not conducted as part of this assessment. Review of the US EPA Map of Radon Zones places the property in Zone 2 (moderate potential for elevated radon levels).

Based upon the radon zone classification, radon is not considered to be a significant environmental concern.

Lead in Drinking Water. According to available information, Golden State Water Company serves the Project site. Golden State Water Company sources are a blend of groundwater pumped from the West Coast and Central Groundwater Basins and imported water from the Colorado River Aqueduct and the State Water Project. According to Golden State Water Company 2019 Annual Water Quality Report, water supplied to the site complies with all federal and state regulations pertaining to drinking water standards, including lead and copper. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Mold.Partner inspected accessible interior areas of the buildings for significant evidence of mold growth (exceptions detailed in Section 1.5 of Appendix 4.6-1 and Appendix 4.6-2). No obvious indications of water damage or mold growth were observed during Partner’s site reconnaissance.

Adjacent Property Reconnaissance. No RECs were identified on the adjacent properties during the site reconnaissance, including hazardous substances, petroleum products, ASTs, USTs, evidence of releases, PCBs, strong or noxious odors, pools of liquids, sumps or clarifiers, pits or lagoons, stressed vegetation, or any other potential environmental hazards.

Historical Information
Research was conducted during the Phase I ESAs to identify the likelihood of past uses having led to RECs in connection with the Project site. Standard historical sources, including fire insurance maps, city directories, historical topographic maps, and historical aerial photographs, have been reviewed to document the Project site’s past uses, as far back as it can be shown that the Project site contained structures; or from the time the Project site was first used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, or governmental purposes. The results of the research are presented below.

Northern Portion of Project Site. According to available historical sources, the site was formerly occupied by a rural residence from at least 1928 until at least 1952. The property appears to have been occupied by industrial operations since construction of the first building in 1957. One industrial building was developed in 1957; the second was developed in 1963; and the third industrial building was developed by 1976. The three light industrial buildings have been occupied by various light-industrial tenants since initial development in 1957. These tenants have included two machine shops, an auto body repair operation, an engine repair business (FM Engine), a cabinet maker, and several manufacturing entities, all operations that would have used or stored hazardous substances. There were RECs and “Environmental Issues” that were identified during the Phase I ESA; see Appendix 4.6-1.

Recognized Environmental Conditions
Several of the manufacturing tenant listings were prior to 1980, thus, there is no documentation pertaining to historical hazardous substance use, storage, or disposal practices. Additionally, several paint booths were historically identified in connection with former tenants Avenue Auto Body and KS Custom Cabinets, which confirms the historical onsite usage of solvents. Based on the plan to redevelop this site with a sensitive receptor (i.e., residential development), the longterm duration of use/occupancy by businesses that used, stored, and disposed of hazardous substances (60+ years), and lack of any subsurface data, the long-term light-industrial usage of the Project site is considered to be a REC.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Environmental Issues
According to California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (CalGEM), no oil or gas wells are located on or immediately adjacent to the site. The closest well was identified to be located approximately 480 feet south of the site and is reported as ”abandoned.” As previously addressed, due to the age of the buildings, there is a potential that ACMs and/or lead-based paint (LBP) are present. Readily visible suspect ACMs and painted surfaces were observed in good condition. The identified suspect ACMs and LBPs would need to be sampled to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos or lead prior to any renovation or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants.

Southern Portion of Project Site. According to available historical sources, the southern portion is shown with no structural improvements as early as 1896. In 1928 one residential and one ancillary structure were constructed, and the remainder of the property was in agricultural use from 1928 to 1947. In 1952 the industrial building and one residence were developed. In 1953 and 1967 the remaining industrial structures and a rail spur running into the northwestern building were developed. Former on-site operations included office activities, packaging and warehousing operations, and manufacturing of fruit bases for use in preparation of yogurt, ice creams, and pies. Various tenants have occupied the site from 1928 through 2019. There were no RECs or Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CRECs) identified, but there were Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs) and “Environmental Issues” that were identified during the Phase I ESA and are described below:

Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
The property was formerly equipped with one 10,000-gallon diesel UST and one 2,500-gallon diesel UST along the northern exterior of the warehouse building. The property also historically contained one 550-gallon fuel UST on the southern exterior of the production building. It was determined that impacted soils had been successfully removed and perched ground water had not been impacted. Regulatory closure was issued by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works on November 2, 1989 for the 10,000-gallon diesel UST and 2,500-gallon diesel UST and on July 28, 1994 for the 550-gallon fuel UST.

Based on the removal of the USTs, the removal of impacted soils, and regulatory closures, the releases at the former USTs on the property represent an HREC and no further investigation is considered necessary; see Appendix 4.6-1.

Environmental Issues
Several additional areas of potential environmental concern were identified in connection with the historical operations at the Project site including the following: a railroad spur, washout area, chemical storage area, former clarifier, storage yard, testing laboratory, maintenance area, and - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

former ASTs and refrigerant system. Additionally, due to the age of the buildings, there is a potential that ACMs and/or LBP are present.

Records review
A database search report was obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The report documents findings of various federal, state, and local regulatory database searches regarding properties with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons. The searches were performed according to ASTM standards for Phase I ESA database searches.

The Project site was identified in various databases in the regulatory database report searched by EDR. The site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §659621.5.1. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

The properties adjacent to the north, south (southern portion of Project site), and east were identified in various databases in the regulatory database report searched by EDR; see Appendix 4.6-2 for the full database report.

Phase II Subsurface Investigation
There were no RECs or Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CRECs) identified in the Phase I performed for the Project site’s southern portion, and the Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs) and “Environmental Issues” that were identified during the Phase I ESA for the Project site’s southern portion did not necessitate a Phase II investigation.

Therefore, the discussion below focuses on the Project site’s northern portion.

Northern Portion of the Project Site. Following the Phase I ESA, a Phase II Investigation was performed for the northern portion of the Project site to evaluate the potential impact of petroleum hydrocarbons and VOCs to soil gas, soil, and/or groundwater as a consequence of a release or releases from the current and/or former on-site industrial activities. The Phase II investigation included observations of site conditions and laboratory analysis of soil, groundwater, and soil gas samples taken at the Project site. Soil samples were analyzed for TPHcc, PAHs, and VOCs, groundwater samples were analyzed for PAHs and VOCs, and soil gas samples were analyzed for VOCs. Results from soil sampling indicated various VOC’s, PAHs, DRO and ORO were detected but did not exceed the respective regulatory thresholds for residential uses.

Results from groundwater samples indicated that various VOC’s and PAH naphthalene were detected, but also did not exceed the respective regulatory thresholds.

Results from the soil gas sampling indicated several VOCs including Benzene, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene -PCE, and trichloroethene – TCE exceeded residential screening levels, and some exceeded commercial screening levels. The Phase II Investigation recommended conducting post-grading soil gas sampling to confirm whether soil gas concentrations have been reduced to acceptable concentrations. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

A Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation (VIRE) was conducted in September 2022 and updated in August 2023. The VIRE’s purpose was to assess whether the presence of VOCs detected in soil gas under the Project site area are likely to exceed levels considered acceptable to California health and environmental protection agencies. The VIRE evaluated the potential for VOC vapor intrusion exposure under for the proposed townhomes and apartments. The cancer risk estimated to result from unmitigated vapor intrusion at the apartment buildings was below the DTSC threshold. However, the townhomes were estimated to have estimated cancer risks exceeding the DTSC threshold. Therefore, the VIRE recommends that an engineered vapor mitigation measure (such as an impermeable membrane) be included in the design of any townhome and that parking structures include sufficient ventilation to minimize accumulation of VOCs on the Project site.

Proximity to Schools
There are no schools located within 0.25 mile of the Project site. The school nearest the Project site is Peary Middle School, located approximately 0.4 mile north of the Project site, at 1415 West Gardena Boulevard.

Proximity to Airports
The airport nearest the Project site is Hawthorne Municipal Airport/Jack Northrop Field, located approximately 3.4 miles north of the Project site. Review of the Hawthorne Airport’s Airport Influence Area Map1 indicates the Project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area boundaries.

Therefore, no further analysis concerning this Airport is warranted. Additionally, there are no other airports or airstrips within 2.0 miles of the Project site.

Disaster and Evacuation Routes
Disaster routes are transportation routes, such as freeway, highway, or arterial routes, which are pre-identified for use during times of crisis.2 These routes are used to bring in emergency personnel, equipment, and supplies to impacted areas, to save lives, protect property, and minimize environmental impacts. During a disaster, these routes have priority for clearing, repairing, and restoration over all other roads. The County states that “Disaster Routes are not Evacuation Routes. Although an emergency may warrant a road be used as both a disaster and evacuation route, they are completely different. An evacuation route is used to move the affected population out of an impacted area.” Evacuation routes depend on the nature and location of the emergency or disaster. The County designates Artesia Boulevard to the south and I-110 to the east as disaster routes.3 The City does not designate disaster or evacuation routes. 1 Los Angeles County Dept. of Regional Planning. (2003). Hawthorne Airport Airport Influence Area. Retrieved from http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-hawthorne.pdf. 2 Los Angeles County Dept. of Regional Planning. (2008). Disaster Routes with Road Districts: South Los Angeles County. https://pw.lacounty.gov/dsg/DisasterRoutes/map/disaster_rdm-South.pdf 3 Ibid. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Wildfires
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) maps identify fire hazard severity zones in state and local responsibility areas for fire protection. The Project site is not within an area designated as a very high fire hazard severity area.4

4.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING
See Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, for regulations pertaining to flood hazards and Section 4.5: Geology and Soils, for regulations pertaining to geology- and soils-related hazards.

Federal
The management of hazardous materialsand hazardous wastes isregulated at federal, state, and local levels, including, among others, through programs administered by the U.S. EPA; agencies within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), such as the DTSC; federal and state occupational safety agencies; and Los Angeles County Division of Environmental Health.

At the federal level, the U.S. EPA is the principal regulatory agency, while at the State level, DTSC is the primary agency governing the storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has jurisdiction over discharges into waters of the State. The federal OSHA and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulate many aspects of worker safety.

Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established a program administered by the U.S. EPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRAwas amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (U.S.

Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be 4 CalFire. (2022). FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and the National Priorities List
The U.S. EPA also maintains the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation (CERCLIS) and Liability Information System list. This list contains sites that are either proposed to be or on the National Priorities List (NPL), as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The NPL is a list of the worst hazardous waste sites that have been identified by Superfund.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
The federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted to inform communities and residents of chemical hazards in their area. Businesses are required to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored onsite to both State and local agencies.

EPCRA requires the U.S. EPA to maintain and publish a digital database list of toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported by certain industry groups and Federal facilities. This database, known as the Toxic Release Inventory, gives the community more power to hold companies accountable for their chemical management.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) receives authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials from the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended and codified (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). The DOT is the primary regulatory authority for the interstate transport of hazardous materials and establishes regulations for safe handling procedures (i.e., packaging, marking, labeling, and routing).

California Vehicle Code §31303 states that any hazardous material being moved from one location to another must use the route with the least travel time. This, in practice, means major roads and highways, although secondary roads are permitted to be used for local delivery. These policies are enforced by both the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Clean Water Act/Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq., formerly the federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the U.S. The CWA requires states to set standards to - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non‐point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, the nine RWQCBs. The Project is within the Los Angeles RWQCB’s jurisdiction.

Clean Water Act Section 402 authorizes the California State Water Resources Control Board to issue an NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit, referred to as the “Construction Stormwater General Permit.” Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the Construction Stormwater General Permit provided that they:
 Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters;
 Eliminate or reduce non‐stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation; and
 Perform inspections of all BMPs.

NPDES regulations are administered by the RWQCB. Projects that disturb one or more acres are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permits.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act to ensure worker and workplace safety.

Their goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. To establish standards for workplace health and safety, OSHA also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as the research institution for OSHA. The Administration is a division of the U.S.

Department of Labor that oversees the administration of OSHA and enforces standards in all states. OSHA standards are listed in Title 29 CFR Part 1910.

OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard apply to five groups of employers and their employees. This includes any employees who are exposed or potentially exposed to hazardous substances (including hazardous waste) and who are engaged in clean-up operations; corrective actions; voluntary clean-up operations; operations involving hazardous wastes at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and emergency response operations. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials