Gardena City Council
January 14, 2025

State
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
CalEPA has jurisdiction over hazardous materials and wastes at the State level. DTSC is the department of CalEPA responsible for implementing and enforcing California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are known collectively as the Hazardous Waste Control Law. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Although similar to RCRA, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and its associated regulations define hazardous waste more broadly and regulate a larger number of chemicals. Hazardous wastes regulated by California but not by the U.S. EPA are called “nonRCRA hazardous wastes.” Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

Government Code §65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having underground storage tank leaks and have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.

Enforcement of directives from DTSC is handled at the local level, in this case the Los Angeles County Division of Environmental Health. The RWQCB also has the authority to implement regulations regarding the management of soil and groundwater investigation.

California Fire Code
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, contains the California Fire Code (CFC), included as Title 24, Part 9. The CFC includes provisions and standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution.

Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act created the State hazardous waste management program, which is similar to but more stringent than the federal RCRA program. The Actis implemented by regulations contained in CCR Title 26, which describes the following required aspects for the proper management of hazardous waste: identification and classification; generation and transportation; design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; treatment standards; operation of facilities and staff training; and closure of facilities and liability requirements. These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of such waste. Under the Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

accompanies the waste from generator to transporter to the ultimate disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the DTSC.

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) required the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and waste programs (Program Elements) under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The Program Elements consolidated under the Unified Program are Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs (known as Tiered Permitting); Above ground Petroleum Storage Tank SPCC; Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program (a.k.a. Hazardous Materials Disclosure or “Community‐Right‐To‐Know”); California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Cal ARP); Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program; and Uniform Fire Code Plans and Inventory Requirements.

The Unified Program is intended to provide relief to businesses complying with the overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements of formerly independently managed programs. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by CUPAs. Most CUPAs have been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department. Some CUPAs have contractual agreements with another local agency, a participating agency, which implements one or more Program Elements in coordination with the CUPA. The CUPA designated for Los Angeles County is the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) – Health Hazardous Materials Division.

Department of Toxic Substance Control
DTSC is a department of CalEPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Government Code §65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.

California Office of Emergency Services (OES)
To protect the public health and safety and the environment, the California OES is responsible for establishing and managing statewide standards for business and area plans relating to the handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. Basic information on hazardous materials handled, used, stored, or disposed of (including location, type, quantity, and the health risks) needs to be available to firefighters, public safety officers, and regulatory - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

agencies. The information must be included in these institutions’ business plans to prevent or mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release or threatened release of these materials into the workplace and environment.

These regulations are covered under California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 Article 1 – Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program (§§25500 to 25520), Article 2 – Hazardous Materials Management (§§25531 to 25543.3).

CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4 (Minimum Standards for Business Plans) establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP). These plans shall include the following: (1) a hazardous material inventory in accordance with §§2729.2 to 2729.7; (2) emergency response plans and procedures in accordance with §2731; and (3) training program information in accordance with §2732. Business plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of in the state. Each business shall prepare a HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material or an extremely hazardous material in quantities greater than or equal to the following: 500 pounds of a solid substance, 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, a hazardous compressed gas in any amount, or hazardous waste in any quantity.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Cal/OSHA is the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than Federal regulations. The employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR §§337‐340). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident‐prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings.

In addition, Cal/OSHA regulates medical/infectious waste, including management of sharps, requirements for containers that hold or store medical/infectious waste, labeling of medical/infectious waste bags/containers, and employee training. 2022 California Fire Code
CCR Title 24, Part 9 (2022 California Fire Code) contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings, the use of premises, and the management of WUI areas, among other issues. The California Fire Code is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission and was last updated in 2022 (effective January 1, 2023). The California Fire Code sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training. It contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the code also include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises.

Los Angeles County adopted the 2022 California Fire Code with certain amendments, additions, and deletions, as Los Angeles County Code Title 32 (Los Angeles County Fire Code).

Regional
County Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health, Emergency Response Team
The Los Angeles County Emergency Preparedness and Response Unit ensures that the Los Angeles County Division of Environmental Health is able to protect the public from health hazards that occur after emergencies or disasters. The agency develops plans and establishes procedures to coordinate responses with partner agencies. The agency provides training and conducts exercises to create a workforce that is able to manage the health effects of any emergency.

County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team The LACFD Health Hazardous Materials Divisionis the lead agency (CUPA) for hazardous materials within Los Angeles County. Any business that handles a hazardous material or hazardous waste of quantities at any one time during a year equal to or greater than a total volume of 55 gallons, a total weight of 500 pounds, or a total volume of 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas is a hazardous materials handler and must report Owner/Operator, Business Activities, Inventory, Site Map, and Emergency Response and Contingency Plan and Employee Training Plan information in the California Environmental Reporting System.

Local
City of Gardena General Plan
The Project relevant General Plan policy concerning hazards and hazardous materials is addressed below.
 Goal CN 2: Conserve and protect groundwater supply and water resources. o Policy CN 2.6: Encourage and support the proper disposal of hazardous waste and waste oil. Monitor businesses that generate hazardous waste materials to ensure compliance with approved disposal procedures.

City of Gardena Municipal Code
The City adopted the Los Angeles County Fire Code with certain amendments, additions, and deletions, as Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 8.08.010: Adoption of the County Fire Code. The City currently operates under the 2022 Los Angeles County Fire Code. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Pursuant to GMC Chapter 8.08.030: Fire Fighting, the City’s Emergency Medical Services’ transferred responsibility of providing fire protection, EMS services, and protection from hazardous materials in the City to the LACFD. The Los Angeles County Fire Code provides standards to ensure that the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials comply with all applicable State laws (including but not limited to, California Government Code §65850.2 and California Health and Safety Code §25505 et seq.) and that appropriate information is reported to the County of Los Angeles, as the regulatory authority. This section of the Fire Code includes reporting requirements; standards regarding underground and aboveground storage of hazardous materials; and standards for new development.

City of Gardena 2017 Emergency Operations Plan
The purpose of the Emergency Operations Plan is to provide guidance for the City’s response to emergency situations from natural disasters, technological incidents, and National security emergencies. The Emergency Operations Plan describes procedures for the effective and efficient allocation response to a hazardous materials emergency. It establishes an emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policy and general procedures, and provides coordination of planning for all phases of emergency planning for a hazardous materials emergency.

4.6.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning hazards and hazardous materials, and wildfires. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project could have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant);
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (see Impact 4.7-1);
 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant);
 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant);
 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant);  Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant); or
 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant).

4.6.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.6-1:

Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Construction
Project construction would include demolition of all structures and complete over-excavation and re-compaction of soils, which could be contaminated.

The existing buildings were noted as a REC due to potential ACM and LBP. Demolition of the onsite buildings has the potential to cause airborne asbestos and LBP concentrations that would exceed federal and State thresholds and may pose an exposure risk for construction workers.

Therefore, ACM and LBP would be removed or stabilized prior to demolition. Condition of Approval (COA) HAZ-1 requires an ACM and LBP survey of the existing onsite buildings. COA HAZ-1 includes measures for the safe dismantling and removal of building components and debris and prevents the accidental release of asbestos, and COA HAZ-2 includes measures to safely demolish structures containing potential LBP, thereby protecting workers and the public from potential exposure to hazardous materials and wastes during demolition. Therefore, following compliance with COA HAZ-1 and COA HAZ-2, the potential presences of these materials would not result in a significant hazard to the public through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.

As previously addressed, the Phase I ESAs identified various onsite RECs associated with past uses of the Project site. Additionally, there could be other undocumented contamination associated with previous uses on the Project site. Therefore, Project demolition and construction activities could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. MM HAZ-1 requires a construction management plan that includes provisions for responding to the disturbance of undocumented contamination. Responsibility for responding to - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

the discovery of undocumented contamination is delegated to the CUPA, LACFD. If soil, groundwater, or other environmental media with suspected contamination is encountered unexpectedly during construction (for example, identified by odor or visual staining, or by unearthing any underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials and wastes), work would immediately cease in the vicinity of the suspect materials. The area would then be secured as necessary, and all appropriate measures would be taken to protect human health and the environment. Appropriate measures include notifying regulatory agencies and complying with the various agencies’ laws, regulations, and policies. MM HAZ-1 requiresthat the Applicant and its contractors would work with these agencies should undocumented contamination be encountered during construction. These provisions would minimize the potential for hazardous materials to be released into the environment. With implementation of COA HAZ-1 and COA HAZ-2, and MM HAZ-1, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Operations
The Phase II Investigation identified PCE concentrations that exceed DTSC screening levels for residential applications and recommended conducting a VIRE to determine a possible vapor intrusion threat to future residents on the Project site. The VIRE evaluated the potential for VOC vapor intrusion exposure under for the townhomes and apartments based on the specifications outlined in the California DTSC’s February 2023 Draft Supplemental Guidance. The cancer risk estimated to result from unmitigated vapor intrusion at the apartment buildings was below the DTSC. 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. MM HAZ-2 incorporatesthe VIRE’s recommendations and requires that an engineered vapor measure (such as an impermeable membrane) be included in the proposed townhome design and proper ventilation be included in the apartment building parking structure design. With implementation of MM HAZ-2, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving soil and groundwater contamination. With mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.

As previously noted, South Normandie Avenue contains railroad tracks along the roadway's western boundary, near West 170th Street, but these tracks cross onto the roadway’s eastern boundary near Asher Court. During operations, trains could derail, and cause potential upset and accident conditions. To assess the Project’s potential to increase transportation hazards associated with the existing railroad facilities, the City and Applicant consulted with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Through the consultation process, various railroad improvements were identified as being required along South Normandie Avenue pursuant to current CPUC standards and UPRR guidelines. As such, the Project proposes railroad track improvements along South Normandie Avenue, which would be designed pursuant to current CPUC standards and UPRR guidelines, and include the following:
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Removing approximately 170 linear feet of railroad spur track which enters the Project site and formerly served the southernmost industrial building (16911 South Normandie Avenue).
 Removing approximately 830 linear feet of railroad spur track which enters the Project site and formerly served the central industrial building (16907 South Normandie Avenue).
 Constructing a new median both north and south of the track alignment.  Installing new warning devices and tactile warning strips on the South Normandie Avenue east and west sidewalks.
 Refreshing railroad crossing pavement markings immediately north and south of the track alignment.

These improvements would minimize potential impacts from derailments by bringing the crossing up to current CPUC standards and UPRR guidelines. Furthermore, according to the Federal Railroad Administration crossing report (FRA 2023), the maximum speed of trains at this crossing is 10 miles per hour, thus, any derailment would be at very low speeds.

Project operations would involve the use of typical hazardous materials/chemicals associated with residential uses such household cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Any routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials during Project operations must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Further, hazardous materials/chemicals such as household cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers in low quantities do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, Project operations would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework.

Conditions of Approval
COA HAZ-1 Asbestos Survey. Prior to demolition activities, an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) certified inspector shall conduct an Asbestos Survey to determine the presence or absence of asbestos containing-materials (ACMs) pursuant to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations.

COA HAZ-2 If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional. A portable, field X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer shall be used to identify the locations of potential lead paint, and test accessible painted surfaces. The qualified Environmental Professional shall identify the likelihood that lead is present in - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

concentrations greater than 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2) in/on readily accessible painted surfaces of the buildings.

If lead-based paint is found, a qualified Lead Specialist shall complete abatement prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. Potential methods to reduce lead dust and waste during removal include wet scraping, wet planning, use of electric heat guns, chemical stripping, and use of local HighEfficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) exhaust systems. Lead-based paint removal and disposal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, §1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by workers exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead-based paint removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City Engineer.

Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit for the onsite structures, a construction management plan addressing procedures and requirements for responding to disturbance of undocumented contaminated soil shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval.

MM HAZ-2 Engineered Vapor Mitigation and Ventilation. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the City of Gardena Building Department shall review the building plans to verify that an engineered vapor measure (such as an impermeable membrane or equivalent) is included in the design of all townhomes and that the apartment parking structures include sufficient ventilation to minimize accumulation of VOCs on the Project site. The impermeable vapor membrane shall not underlay non-slab areas, such as landscaping and the dog run area, because these spaces are not enclosed. The City of Gardena Building Department shall have oversight/sign-off responsibility for the vapor barrier.

4.6.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the hazardous materialsimpact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development within Gardena, according to the related projects; see Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects. As indicated in Table 3-1 and depicted in Exhibit 3-1: Cumulative Project Locations, there are eight related projects within the geographic context for the cumulative hazardous materials analysis (i.e., 1.0-mile radius):
 Related Project No. 25 (a condominium development approximately 720 feet to the northeast);
5 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)
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Related Project No. 36 (a small lot subdivision development approximately 400 feet to the northeast);
 Related Project No. 9 (a residential development approximately 0.90 mile to the northeast);
 Related Project No. 12 (a self-storage development 0.30 mile to the south);  Related Project No. 15 (a residential project 0.50 mile to the southwest);  Related Project No. 16 (a mixed-use development 0.30 mile to the north);  Related Project No. 22 (a townhome development 0.70 mile to the north); and  Related Project No. 23 (multi-family residential development 0.60 mile to the southwest).

As concluded above, Project construction could encounter undocumented LBP, ACMs, and other hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. HAZ COA-1 and HAZ COA-2 would be required to reduce potential impacts related to ACMs and LBP. Preparation of an Environmental Management System, demolition plan and construction management plan (HAZ MM-1) would be required to reduce impacts related to a release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction or operations.

As addressed in this EIR section, the Phase I and Phase II ESA identified various RECs in association with past uses within the Project site. The VIRE found an exceedance of DTSC cancer risk for the townhome component and recommended installing a vapor intrusion barrier and ventilating the apartment parking structure. Therefore, the Project requires compliance with MM HAZ-2 to provide an engineered vapor barrier (such as an impermeable membrane) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would result from projects that combine to increase exposure to hazards and hazardous materials. The potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited since the impacts from onsite hazardous materials use are site-specific. The EIR evaluates environmental hazards in connection with the Project site and surrounding area.

Regarding the offsite environmental hazards, the database search documents the findings of various governmental database searches regarding properties with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials within a search radius of up to 1.0 mile from the Project site and serves as the basis for defining the cumulative impacts study area.

Although some of the related projects have potential site-specific impacts associated with hazardous materials, it is expected that future development would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations applicable to hazardous materials. 6 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 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

With implementation of the COAs and MMs, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning hazardous materials. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s hazardous materials-related impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

4.6.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials would occur.

4.6.7 REFERENCES
City of Gardena (2006). Gardena General Plan, updated 2022. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena.

City of Gardena, Gardena Municipal Code (City Municipal Code Chapter 17). Accessed August 27, 2020.Gardena, CA:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gardena/#!/Gardena08/Gardena0808.html#8.08.

Hillman Consulting, Opinion Letter: Light Industrial Property 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, July 26, 2021 (Opinion Letter); see Appendix 4.6-5: North Opinion Letter.

Hillman Consulting, Technical Memorandum Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, August 11, 2023 (VIRE); see Appendix 4.6-6:

North VIRE.

Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 16831 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, July 13, 2021 (North Phase I); see Appendix 4.6-1.

Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Food & Beverage Processing Plant, 16911 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, January 7, 2021 (South Phase I); see Appendix 4.6-2.

Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., Assessment Report 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, November 4, 2021 (Soil/Gas Phase II); see Appendix 4.6-3 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report 16829-16839 South Normandie Avenue, Gardena, California, July 26, 2021 (Soil/Groundwater Phase II); see Appendix 4.6-4.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials

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

4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section analyzes the Project’s potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. 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 hydrology and water quality data provided in Appendix 4.7-1: Water Resources Technical Report. Additional resource information was obtained from available public resources, including among others, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Well Finder website and historical well data.

It is noted that Kimley-Horn conducted a third-party review on behalf of the City of Gardena (“City”) of the Project’s Water Resources Technical Report; see Appendix 4.7-1. The third-party review concluded the analysis meets the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

4.7.1 EXISTING SETTING
Regional Setting
Surface Water Hydrology
The Project site is within the Dominguez Watershed, which covers approximately 133 square miles and is largely built out. The watershed’s land uses generally consist of commercial, industrial, and residential uses.

Surface Water Quality
The Project site is within Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) jurisdiction. The LARWQCB regulates water quality within the Dominguez Watershed. The LARWQCB lists the Dominguez Watershed on the 303(d) list1 for impaired water bodies which requires the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML). A TDML is an estimate of the daily load of pollutants that a water body may receive from point sources, non-point sources, and natural background conditions, without exceeding its water quality standard. Table 4.7-2:

Dominguez Channel List of 303(d) Impairments and TDML’s summarizes existing 303(d) Impairments and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) in the Dominguez Channel watershed. 1 Under §303(d) of the CWA, states are required to identify water bodies that do not meet their water quality standards. Biennially, the LARWQCB prepares a list of impaired waterbodies in the region, referred to as the 303(d) list. The 303(d) list outlines the impaired waterbody and the specific pollutant(s) for which it is impaired. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

Table 4.7-1: Dominguez Channel List of 303(d) Impairments and TDML’s Water Body 303(d) Impairment & TDMLs
Dominguez Channel (lined portion
above Vermont Ave) Copper, Indicator Bacteria (303d only), Lead, Toxicity, Zinc Dominguez Channel (unlined
portion below Vermont Ave)
Benthic Community Effects, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene(3,4- Benzopyrene-7-d), Chlordane (tissue), Chrysene (C1-C4), Copper, DDT (tissue & sediment), Dieldrin (tissue), Indicator Bacteria (303d only), Lead, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toxicity Los Angeles Harbor – Consolidated
Slip
2-Methylnaphthalene, Benthic Community Effects, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene(3,4-Benzopyrene-7-d), Cadmium (sediment), Chlordane (tissue & sediment), Chromium, Chrysene (C1-C4), Copper (sediment), DDT (tissue & sediment), Dieldrin, Lead (sediment), Mercury (sediment), PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toxaphene (tissue), Toxicity, Zinc (sediment)
Los Angeles/Long Beach Inner
Harbor
Beach Closures (TMDL only), Benthic Community Effects,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene(3,4-Benzopyrene-7-d), Chrysene (C1-C4), Copper, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), Toxicity, Zinc (sediment)
Los Angeles/Long Beach Outer
Harbor (inside breakwater)
DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), Toxicity
San Pedro Bay Near/Offshore
Zones
Chlordane, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), Total DDT (sum of 4,4’ and 2,4’-isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD), Toxicity
Source: Appendix 4.7-1, Table 4
Groundwater
The Project site and City overlie the Los Angeles Coastal Plain Groundwater Basin (Coastal Plain Basin), which consists of four major subbasins: Hollywood, Santa Monica, Central, and West Coast. The Project site is within the West Coast Subbasin, which covers approximately 160 square miles of the Coastal Plain Basin. The West Coast Subbasin was adjudicated in 1961, with the California Department of Water Resources serving as Watermaster and maintaining Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) reporting requirements. The West Coast Basin Judgment (West Judgment) limits the amount of groundwater each party can extract annually from the West Coast [Sub]Basin.

The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) manages groundwater replenishment and recharge. Coastal Plain Basin replenishment occurs primarily through percolation of rainfall throughout the Dominguez Watershed via permeable surfaces, spreading grounds, and groundwater migration from adjacent basins. Injection wells are also used to pump freshwater along specific seawater barriers to prevent seawater intrusion. Coastal Plain Basin groundwater generally flows in a south/southwesterly direction. West Coast Subbasin groundwater replenishment occurs through stormwater percolation and imported and recycled water that is injected to prevent seawater intrusion.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

The Project site is in Golden State Water Company’s (GSWC) service area, and specifically, within the Southwest System service area, which serves Gardena, seven other cities, and portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The Southwest System’s water supply sources are imported water, groundwater wells, and recycled water. The Southwest System is supplied by two active Central Subbasin wells and 12 active West Coast Subbasin wells. As previously noted, the Project site is within the West Coast Subbasin.

Local Setting
The Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscape, and landscaping.

Surface Water Hydrology
On the Project site, stormwater runoff sheet flows to a catch basin near the West 169th Street and South Normandie Avenue intersection. All roof flows from the southerly existing buildings and paved parking areas are captured by a series of drains and discharge directly to ground level, where they join surface-level sheet flows and discharge to a catch basin on Brighton Way. From the catch basin on Brighton Way, stormwater runoff flows to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) storm drain system.

Hydrology analysis was conducted to determine peak flows during the 10-year, 25-year, and 50- year storm event under existing and proposed conditions. Table 4.7-1: Existing Conditions Hydrology, contains the existing conditions hydrology analysis results; see Appendix 4.7-1 for existing conditions hydrology calculations. As indicated in Table 4.7-1, the Project site is almost entirely (99.7 percent) comprised of impervious surfaces.

Table 4.7-2: Existing Conditions Hydrology
Drainage Area Area (acres) % Impervious Q10 (cfs) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) A-1 1.34 100 2.61 3.45 4.28
A-2 0.38 100 0.87 1.07 1.21
A-3 0.23 100 0.52 0.65 0.73
A-4 0.58 100 1.32 1.63 1.85
A-5 2.72 98.5 5.29 7.00 8.69
Existing Total 5.25 99.7 10.61 13.80 16.76
Source: Appendix 4.7-1, Table 1.

In the vicinity of the Project site, stormwater runoff is collected and conveyed through offsite storm drain facilities along South Normandie Avenue and West 170th Street. Stormwater sheet flows to a catch basin near the West 169th Street and South Normandie Avenue intersection, as well as a catch basin on South Normandie Avenue. The catch basin on 169th Street and Normandie - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

Avenue discharge into the LACFCD storm drain system which flows southerly. From there, runoff is piped into the LACFCD catch basin near the intersection of West 169th Street and South Normandie Avenue, where it enters a storm drainpipe within the public right-of-way.

After flowing into the LACFCD storm drainpipe, the runoff then flows southerly within the Dominguez Flood Control Channel (Dominguez Channel). The stormwater then flows southerly through Dominguez Channel where it eventually discharges into the Dominguez Channel Estuary, the Los Angeles Harbor, the San Pedro Bay Near/Offshore Zones, and then to the Pacific Ocean.

Surface Water Quality
The Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and minimal landscaping. There are no known existing water quality best management practices (BMPs) on the Project site. Stormwater leaves the Project site via an existing catch basin, existing drains, and roof drains which penetrate the finished surface, or exits onto adjacent streets and remains untreated.

Existing potential pollutants at the Project site are likely based on the existing six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and landscaping. Likely existing pollutants include oil and grease, trash, total suspended solids (TSS), heavy metals, and hydrocarbons from the parking areas.

Groundwater
Groundwater depth is monitored at various stations throughout the County of Los Angeles (“County”) with monitoring data accessible on the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) website (Groundwater Well Map). There is a monitoring well (County Well ID:
792W) approximately 0.2-mile southwest of the Project site.2 As of July 19, 2021, groundwater levels were 28 feet below ground surface (bgs) level.3 Groundwater levels have been gradually increasing across sampling measurements from 2011.

Flood Hazard, Tsunami, and Seiche Zone
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the Project site is within Zone X. Zone X depicts areas outside of the 0.2-1.0 percent(500- year) annual chance floodplain; see the FEMA FIRM map provided in Appendix E of Appendix 4.7-1.

Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes. When these waves reach shorelines, they sometimes produce coastal flooding. Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, which can occur in response to ground 2 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (No Date). Well Finder. Retrieved fromhttps://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/wells/#, Accessed May, 2023. 3 Appendix 4.6-4: Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report . - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

shaking. The Project site is approximately eight miles east of the Pacific Ocean and there are no nearby bodies of standing water. Therefore, the Project site is not within a tsunami or seiche zone.

Therefore, there is no existing flood, tsunami, or seiche hazard potential for the Project site that would risk release of pollutants due to inundation; see also Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant, for a discussion of the Project’s potential impacts concerning flood hazards, tsunamis, and seiche zones.

4.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The 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 establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the U.S. and has given the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs. The CWA requires states to set standards to 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, nine RWQCBs.

The City, which is within LARWQCB jurisdiction, operates under Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. R4-2012-0175-A01, NPDES Permit No. CAS004001). This Permit provides the discharge requirements for the MS4 discharges within the Los Angeles County watersheds.

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the SWRCB to issue NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit (Water Quality Order 2022-0057-DWQ), referred to as the “Construction Stormwater General Permit.”4 The Construction Stormwater General Permit Order was adopted on September 8, 2022 and becomes effective on September 1, 2023. Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the Construction Stormwater General Permit provided they:
4 California State Water Resources Control Board. (2022). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities(General Permit), Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No.

CAS000002. Retrieved from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2022/wqo_2022-0057- dwq.pdf, Accessed June 2023.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

1. Develop and implement a Stormwater 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 off-site into receiving waters;

2. Eliminate or reduce non‐stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation; and

3. Perform inspections of all BMPs.

The SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non‐ visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the construction site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Increased compliance tasks under the Construction Stormwater General Permit include project risk evaluation, effluent monitoring, receiving water monitoring, electronic data submission of the SWPPP and all other permit registration documents, and a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP), which must be designed to protect all exposed portions of a project site within 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event.

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d)
CWA §303(d) (CWA, 33 USC 1250, et seq., at 1313(d)) requires states to identify “impaired” water bodies as those which do not meet water quality standards. States are required to compile this information in a list and submit the list to U.S. EPA for review and approval. An affected waterbody, and associated pollutant or stressor, is then prioritized in a list of impaired water bodies known as the 303(d) List. The CWA further requires the development of a TMDL for each listing.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The NFIP, implemented by Congress in 1968, enables participating communities to purchase flood insurance. Flood insurance rates are set according to flood-prone status of property as indicated by FIRMs developed by FEMA. FIRMs identify the estimated limits of the 100‐year floodplain for mapped watercourses, among other flood hazards. As a condition of participation in the NFIP, communities must adopt regulations for floodplain development intended to reduce flood damage for new development through such measures as flood proofing, elevation on fill, or floodplain avoidance.

State
California Porter-Cologne Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the legal and regulatory framework for California’s water quality control. The California Water Code (CWC) authorizes the SWRCB to - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

implement the provisions of the CWA, including the authority to regulate waste disposal and require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants.

As discussed above, under the CWC, California is divided into nine RWQCBs, governing implementation and enforcement of the CWC and CWA. The Project site is within Region 4, also known as the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB). Each RWQCB is required to formulate and adopt a Basin Plan for its region. The LARWQCB’s Basin Plan is a comprehensive document that reports beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, defines narrative and numeric parameters to protect water quality, and describes implementation programs to protect waters throughout the Region. The Basin Plan must adhere to the policies set forth in the CWC and established by the SWRCB. The RWQCB is also given authority to include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to conditions, areas, or types of waste.

Low Impact Development – Sustainable Storm Water Management On January 20, 2005, the SWRCB adopted sustainability as a core value for all activities and programs conducted by the SWRCB. Low Impact Development (LID) is a sustainable practice that promotes water retention and the protection of water quality. LID design techniques include features that increase infiltration, filtration, storing of water, reduce evaporation, and detain runoff. Ten common LID practices are:

1. Bioretention and Rain Gardens

2. Rooftop Gardens

3. Sidewalk Storage

4. Vegetated Swales, Buffers, and Strips;
Tree Preservation

5. Roof Leader Disconnection

6. Rain Barrels and Cisterns

7. Permeable Pavers

8. Soil Amendments

9. Impervious Surface Reduction and
Disconnection

10. Pollution Prevention and Good
Housekeeping
California Toxics Rule
In 2000, the U.S. EPA promulgated the California Toxics Rule, which establishes water quality criteria for certain toxic substances to be applied to waters in the State. In 1994, a California state court revoked the State’s water quality control plans, which contained numeric criteria for water quality. This was in direct violation of the CWA and required EPA action. The EPA then implemented the California Toxics Rule. The EPA promulgated this rule based on Clean Water Act §303(c)(2)(B), which dictates that states must adopt numeric criteria in order to protect human health and the environment. The California Toxics Rule establishes acute (i.e., short-term) and chronic (i.e., long-term) standards for bodies of water such as inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries that are designated by the LARWQCB as having beneficial uses protective of aquatic life or human health.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In 2014, California adopted the SGMA to help manage its groundwater. The SGMA requires that local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) be formed for all high and medium priority basins in the state. These GSAs must develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for managing and using groundwater without causing undesirable results: significant groundwater-level declines, groundwater-storage reductions, seawater intrusion, water-quality degradation, land subsidence, and surface-water depletions; these are also referred to as sustainability indicators.

SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. For critically over-drafted basins, this would be 2040. For the remaining high and medium priority basins, 2042 is the deadline. The latest basin prioritization project, SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization, was completed in December 2019. SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization identified 94 basins/sub-basins as medium or high priority. The Project site is within a “low priority” California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring groundwater basin that is also part of an adjudicated groundwater. Basins prioritized as low- or very low priority are not required to form a GSA and prepare a GSP. However, these basins are still encouraged to form GSAs and develop GSPs, update existing groundwater management plans, and coordinate with others to develop a new groundwater management plan in accordance with Water Code §10750 et seq.

Senate Bill X7-7 - Water Conservation Bill of 2009
The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBX7-7) requires a statewide 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020. It requires that urban water retail suppliers determine baseline water use and set reduction targets according to specified requirements and requires agricultural water suppliers to prepare plans and implement efficient water management practices.

State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) preserves, enhances, and restores the quality of California’s water resources. Wastewater generators must obtain a permit to discharge their wastewater. Pursuant to the federal CWA and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the SWRCB and LRWQCB regulates wastewater discharges to surface waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Some wastewater discharges are exempt from federal NPDES requirements, but California law may still apply. Under California law, the SWRCB and LRWQCB require waste discharge requirements for some discharges, in addition to those subject to NPDES permits. Permits contain specific requirements that limit the - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

pollutants in discharges. They also require dischargers to monitor their wastewater to ensure that it meets all requirements. Wastewater dischargers must maintain their treatment facilities, and treatment plant operators must be certified. The SWRCB and LRWQCB routinely inspect treatment facilities and strictly enforce permit requirements.

Regional
County Waste Discharge Requirements
The LACFCD, the County of Los Angeles, and the City along with 83 other incorporated cities therein (Permittees) discharge pollutants from their municipal separate storm sewer (drain) systems (MS4s). Stormwater and non-stormwater enter and are conveyed through the MS4 and discharged to Los Angeles Region surface water bodies. These discharges are regulated under countywide waste discharge requirements (WDRs) contained in Order No. R4-2012-0175 (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001), Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges Within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Except Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, which was adopted November 8, 2012.

The MS4 Permit Order provides the revised WDRs for MS4 discharges within the Los Angeles County watersheds, which includes Gardena. The MS4 Permit Order, which became effective December 28, 2012, supersedes Order No. 01-182. Los Angeles County uses its LID Ordinance to require that projects comply with NPDES MS4 Permit water quality requirements. Gardena adopted the County’s LID Standards Manual to use as its guidelines for stormwater quality mitigation, see Gardena Municipal Code Section below.

The MS4 Permit Order requires development and implementation of a Planning and Land Development Program for all “New Development” and “Redevelopment” projects subject to the Order. New development and redevelopment projects/activities subject to Los Angeles County’s LID Ordinance include all development projects equal to 1.0 acre or greater of disturbed area and residential new or redeveloped projects that create, add, or replace 10,000 square feet (SF) or greater impervious surface area.

County of Los Angeles Hydrology Manual
The Project site is within a watershed that the County classifies as the Dominguez Watershed.

The LACFCD is responsible for providing flood protection, water conservation, recreation, and aesthetic enhancement within this entire watershed. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) developed the “Hydrology Manual” (January 2006) (“2006 Hydrology Manual”), which establishes the LACDPW hydrologic design procedures based on historic rainfall and runoff data collected within the County. The Project is required to utilize the 2006 Hydrology Manual and accompanying hydrologic tools including the HydroCalc Calculator to calculate existing and proposed Project discharges and volumes.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Low Impact Development Standards Manual
The County’s Department of Public Works prepared the Low Impact Development Standards Manual (February 2014)5 (LID Standards Manual) to comply with NPDES MS4 Permit requirements for stormwater and non-stormwater dischargesfrom the MS4 within the County’s coastal watershed (CAS004001, Order No. R42012-0175). The LID Standards Manual provides guidance for the implementation of stormwater quality control measures in new development and redevelopment projects in unincorporated areas of the County with the intention of improving water quality and mitigating potential water quality impacts from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges.

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 concerning hydrology and water quality:
 CN Goal 2: Conserve and protect groundwater supply and water resources. o Policy CN 2.2: Comply with the water conservation measures set forth by the California Department of Water Resources.
o Policy CN 2.6: Encourage and support the proper disposal of hazardous waste and waste oil. Monitor businesses that generate hazardous waste materials to ensure compliance with approved disposal procedures.

City of Gardena Municipal Code
City of Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 8.70: Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control, addresses stormwater and runoff pollution control and is intended to reduce the quantity of pollutants being discharged to waters of the United States. GMC §8.70.110.B.1: Development Construction, specifies that “construction projects that disturb one or more acres of soil by grading, clearing, and/or excavating or other activities are required to obtain a general construction activity stormwater permit (“GCASWP”) from the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”). No grading permit shall be issued to such construction projects without obtaining a GCASWP [Construction Stormwater General Permit],” which would be issued by the SWRCB. Additionally, GMC §8.70.110.B.2: Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation, specifies that new development subject to the MS4 Permit must comply with post-construction runoff pollution reduction BMPs implemented through the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). SUSMP conditions assigned by the City shall consist of: (a) low impact development 5 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. (2014). Low Impact Development Standards Manual. Retrieved from:

Los Angeles County Low Impact Development (LID) Manual.pdf (lacounty.gov) , Accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

(LID) BMPs; (b) source control BMPs; and (c) structural and nonstructural BMPs for specific types of uses.

4.7.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning hydrology and water quality. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as significance criteria in this section. The Project could have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality (see Impact 4.7-1);  Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (see Impact 4.7-2);
 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
o Impede or redirect flood flows (see Impact 4.7-3);
 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation (see Section 7.0: Effects found not to be significant);  Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (see Impact 4.7-4)
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

4.7.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.7-1:

Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
The Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and landscaping (see Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map). The Project’s constructionrelated activities would include demolition of the existing six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, landscaped areas, and all existing improvements and excavation of existing soils. Excavation, grading, and trenching could displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. The main pollutant of concern during construction is typically sediment and soil particles that discharge off of the site due to wind, rain, and construction patterns. Construction-related erosion effects would be addressed through compliance with the NPDES program’s Construction Stormwater General Permit. Construction activity subject to the Construction Stormwater General Permit includes any construction or demolition activity, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than 1.0 acre. The Project proposes demolition and construction activities throughout the entire site, with a land disturbance of approximately 5.25 acres. Therefore, the Project would be subject to the Construction Stormwater General Permit. To obtain coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit, dischargers are required to file with the State Water Board the Permit Registration Documents, which include a Notice of Intent (NOI) and other compliancerelated documents. The Construction Stormwater General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction Stormwater General Permitto control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. The types of required BMPs would be based on the amount of soil disturbed, the types of pollutants used or stored at the Project site, and proximity to water bodies.

The Project would also be required to comply with GMC Chapter 8.70: Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control, which addresses stormwater and runoff pollution control and is intended to reduce the quantity of pollutants being discharged to waters of the United States. GMC §8.70.110.B.1: Development Construction, specifies that no Grading Permit would be issued to construction projects that disturb 1.0 or more acres of soil without obtaining a General - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

Construction Activity Stormwater Permit [Construction Stormwater General Permit] from the SWRCB.

Following compliance with NPDES and GMC requirements, which include implementation of BMPs as a Condition of Approval, the Project’s construction-related activities would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Operations
The LACFCD, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Gardena along with 83 other incorporated cities therein (Permittees) discharge pollutants from their MS4s. Stormwater and nonstormwater enter and are conveyed through the MS4 and discharged to Los Angeles Region surface water bodies. As discussed above, these discharges are regulated under countywide WDRs contained in Order No. R4-2012-0175 (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001). The MS4 Permit Order provides the revised WDRs for MS4 discharges within the Los Angeles County watersheds, which includes Gardena. Los Angeles County uses its LID Ordinance to require that projects comply with NPDES MS4 Permit water quality requirements.

The MS4 Permit Order requires development and implementation of a Planning and Land Development Program for all “New Development” and “Redevelopment” projects subject to the Order. As previously noted, new development and redevelopment projects/activities subject to Los Angeles County’s LID Ordinance include all development projects equal to 1.0 acre or greater of disturbed area and residential new or redeveloped projects that create, add, or replace 10,000 SF or greater impervious surface area. The Project involves development with land disturbance of 5.25 acres. Additionally, the Project is a new residential development that would replace approximately 228,004 SF (approximately 5.23 acres) of impervious surface area; see Table 4.7-1.

Therefore, the Project is subject to Los Angeles County’s LID Ordinance. Additionally, GMC §8.70.110.B.2: Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation, specifies that new development subject to the MS4 Permit must comply with post-construction runoff pollution reduction BMPs implemented through the SUSMP. SUSMP conditions assigned by the City would consist of LID BMPs, source control BMPs, and structural and nonstructural BMPs for specific types of uses. LID controls effectively reduce the amount of impervious area of a completed project site and promote the use of infiltration and other controls that reduce runoff. Source control BMPs prevent runoff contact with pollutant materials that would otherwise be discharged to the MS4.

Specific structural controls are also required to address pollutant discharges from certain uses including but not limited to housing developments, parking lots, and new streets, among others.

Table 4.7-3: Potential Pollutants contains a list of materials anticipated during Project operations, which could contribute to pollutants, other than sediment, to stormwater runoff. The Project proposes LID and site design approaches and BMPs that are designed to address runoff and pollution at the source. See Appendix 4.7-1 for a description of Project BMPs and Impact 4.7- - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

3ii for a description of existing and proposed site drainage. Infiltration is Los Angeles County’s first option when screening potentially feasible LID BMPs. Infiltration systems collect stormwater runoff and conduct it into permeable soils beneath the site; effectively reducing pollution, reducing runoff and flooding, and recharging groundwater. The second priority BMP is capturing and reusing stormwater onsite fort either landscape irrigation or toilet flushing. Capture and use design features would be implemented to meet the local LID requirements due to high concentration of clay materials and shallow groundwater levels at the Project site.

The Project would treat site runoff in accordance with the LID Standards Manual. To do so, runoff resulting from the 85th percentile rain event would be treated prior to leaving the site. The Project would be subject to Los Angeles County’s LID standards. The City has adopted the County’s LID Standards Manual to use as its guidelines for stormwater quality mitigation. In accordance with these LID standards, the Project would be required to be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, captured and reused, and/or treated through a high efficiency BMP onsite for the 85th percentile storm event or 0.75”—whichever is greater. As specified in the Project’s LID Plan, the Project site’s 85- percentile rain event is 0.88 inch, which is used as the design storm for LID.

Table 4.7-3: Potential Pollutants
Potential Pollutant Source of Pollutants
Sediment Parking lots, pedestrians, driveways, building rooftops, landscaped areas, read
Nutrients Landscape areas, lawns
Pesticides Landscape areas, lawns
Pathogens Landscape areas, lawns, building rooftops, vehicular traffic/activities
Trash/Debris Parking lots, pedestrians, driveways, roadways, vehicles Oil/Grease Parking lots, driveways, roadways, vehicles
Metals Parking lots, driveways, roadways
Source: Appendix 4.7-1, Table 8.

Sizing of all stormwater treatment systems and calculation of stormwater quality design volume (SWQDV) would occur in accordance with the LID Standards Manual and would utilize the Hydrocalc program to ensure accuracy.

Percolation testing was not performed as part of the geotechnical investigation.6 Therefore, compliance with LID water quality regulations would be achieved through capture and use BPS, with biofiltration BMPs remaining as an option if currently unknown circumstances arise. 6 Appendix 4.4-1: Geotechnical Report
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

Preliminary and Final LID Plans would be coordinated with the City to satisfy the Project’s water quality requirements. The Project would use Capture and Use BMPs to ensure adequate capacity to capture and utilize the stormwater design volume within the seven-month wet season period.

Capture and Use BMPs require pretreatment devices to clean stormwater before it is stored within a cistern. This stormwater is then used for drip irrigation to water plants within the fivemonth dry season. This requires enough landscape with the correct planting factors to use the captured water within the seven months. The capture and use irrigation system would be appropriately sized in conformance with the LID manual.

There are no known structural or LID BMPs to treat stormwater under the Project site’s existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the LID features proposed as part of the Project would result in a significant improvement in surface water quality runoff as compared to existing conditions. Implementation of the Project’s proposed BMP system would result in the treatment of the entire required volume for the Project site and the elimination of pollutant runoff up to the 85th percentile storm event.

The Project’s design would ensure all proposed LID BMPs meet applicable County LID Manual requirements to the maximum extent practical. The proposed LID systems are designed to safely convey stormwater runoff into the sub-surface soil without the threat of contaminant mobilization and would assist in improving the groundwater quality. Additionally, the West Coast Subbasin is managed by the WRD and CDWR and is anticipated to meet all groundwater quality requirements. The Project would be subject to all requirements regarding groundwater quality to ensure that no impacts from proposed stormwater infiltration occur.

Following compliance with NPDES and GMC requirements, which include implementation of BMPs as a Condition of Approval, the Project’s operational activities would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.7-2:

Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the projects may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
The historical high groundwater level in the area is 15 feet bgs and groundwater was encountered during exploration with samples taken up to 22 ft bgs; see Appendix 4.4-1: Preliminary - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

Geotechnical Investigation. Although the Project would require excavation of existing soils excavation would be limited to a minimum 5.0-inch-thick slab with the addition of at least 3.0 feet below footing bottoms for foundation support. Since most of the structures would be above an elevation of 15 feet bgs, it is not expected that groundwater would be encountered during construction that would require temporary or permanent dewatering operations. The excavation depth would be at a higher elevation than the groundwater, therefore, it is not expected groundwater would be encountered. It is possible that perched water zones could potentially be encountered elsewhere on the Project site during excavation. If perched groundwater were to be encountered, it would be directed to a dewatering system and discharged in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations under NPDES General Construction Permit regulations and City grading permit conditions. As a result, potential construction-related groundwater impacts would be less than significant.

During on-site grading and building activities, minimal amounts of hazardous materials such as fuels, paints, solvents, and concrete additives could be used, and the presence of such materials provides an opportunity for hazardous materials to be released into groundwater. The proper management of any resultant hazardous wastes would decrease the opportunity for hazardous materials releases into groundwater. Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste, would reduce the potential for the construction of the Project to release contaminants into groundwater that could affect existing contaminants, expand the area or increase the level of groundwater contamination, or cause a violation of regulatory water quality standards at an existing production well. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operations
There are no groundwater supply wells located on the Project site. The Project does not include any groundwater pumping and relies on GSWC for water service. As previously noted, the Southwest System’s water supply sources are imported water, groundwater wells, and recycled water. The Southwest System is supplied by 12 active wells within the West Coast Subbasin, where the Project site is located.

West Coast Subbasin groundwater replenishment occurs through stormwater percolation and imported and recycled water that is injected to prevent seawater intrusion. The Project site is fully developed with industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and minimal landscaping. As previously indicated in Table 4.7-1, the Project site is almost entirely (99.7 percent) comprised of impervious surfaces. Therefore, under existing conditions, stormwater percolation occurs on only approximately 0.3 percent of the Project site. The Project proposes various exterior open spaces, thus, would increase the Project site’s pervious surfaces to 14.1 percent. The increase in pervious areas would improve the Project site’s stormwater percolation/ groundwater recharge capacity over existing conditions. Finally, the Project would include low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) to increase infiltration of - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

stormwater runoff. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge.

Project impacts would be less than significant.

Concerning the Project’s potential to decrease groundwater supplies, as discussed in detail in Section 4.15: Utilities and Service Systems, GSWC would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Further, the Coastal Plain Basin where the Project site is located, was adjudicated in 1961, and as such, is subject to pumping restrictions to avoid overdraft conditions.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.7-3:

Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
As depicted on the Proposed Hydrology Map (see Appendix 4.7-1, Attachment G), the Project site is divided into two Subareas, A-1 and A-2. Subarea A-1 totals 2.13 acres and is 82.7 percent impervious. Subarea A-1 surface flows east to the catch basin near the 169th Street and South Normandie Avenue intersection. Subarea A-2 totals 3.12 acres and is 89.1 percent impervious.

Subarea A-2 surface flows south to the LACFD storm drain pipe within West 170th Street where it runs east until it reaches the line in South Normandie Avenue. The proposed Project would result in an increase in landscaped areas throughout the Project site, which would decrease impervious surfaces from 99.7 percent under existing conditions to 85.9 percent under proposed Project conditions. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the site’s existing drainage pattern through the addition of impervious surfaces. Further, the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river, as none traverse or are located in the Project vicinity. As shown in Table 4.7-4: Existing Versus Proposed Drainage Conditions, the decrease in impervious surfaces on the Project site would result in a reduction of flows under 10-year, 25-year, and 50-year storm events of between 11.7 percent and 13.8 percent when compared to existing conditions; see Appendix 4.7-1 Attachment H for output calculations.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

Table 4.7-4: Existing Versus Proposed Drainage Conditions Drainage Area Area (acres) % Impervious Q10 (cfs) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) Existing 5.25 99.70 10.61 13.80 16.76
Proposed 5.25 85.90 9.18 12.10 14.80
Difference 0 13.80 1.43 1.70 1.96
% Change from Existing
to Proposed Conditions - -13.8% -13.5% -12.3% -11.7%
Source: Appendix 4.7-1, Table 6
(i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; As concluded above, the Project would not substantially alter the Project site’s existing drainage pattern through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces. Further, as concluded in Impact 4.8-1, the Project would be subject to compliance with NPDES and GMC requirements, which include implementation of BMPs, thus, would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
As shown in Table 4.7-4, the Project would reduce impervious surfaces thereby reducing flows under 10-year, 25-year, and 50-year storm events between 11.7 percent and 13.8 percent, when compared to existing conditions. Because the Project would decrease surface runoff, it would not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impact would occur in this regard. (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; or
As shown in Table 4.7-4, the Project site would reduce impervious surfaces, thereby reducing flows under 10-year, 25-year, and 50-year storm events, as compared to the existing condition.

Because the Project would decrease surface runoff, it would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. No impact would occur in this regard.
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The Project site is located entirely in FEMA Flood Zone X, outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

Overall, the Project would not substantially alter the site or area’s existing drainage patterns, either through the alteration of a water body or through addition of impervious surfaces. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.7-4:

Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
Project construction activities could result in short-term groundwater quality impacts because of soil or shallow groundwater being exposed to construction activities, materials, wastes and spilled materials. During on-site grading and building activities, minimal amounts of hazardous materials such as fuels, paints, solvents, and concrete additives could be used, and the presence of such materials provides an opportunity for hazardous materials to be released into groundwater. Additionally, as mentioned in Appendix 4.6-1: North Phase I ESA, the Phase I ESA for the sites northern portion identified the release of volatile organic compounds VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons. Thus, the Project requires compliance with MM HAZ-1, which requires a construction management plan that includes provisions for responding to the disturbance of undocumented contamination, and compliance with MM HAZ-2, which requires an engineered vapor barrier (such as an impermeable membrane) which would protect soil and shallow groundwater from being exposed.

If contaminated soils are found within the excavation limits, contaminated soils would be collected within the excavated material, removed from the Project site, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, will reduce the potential for the construction of the Project to release contaminants into groundwater that could affect existing contaminants, expand the area or increase the level of groundwater contamination, or cause a violation of regulatory water quality standards at an existing production well.

Therefore, Project construction would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

Operation
The proposed LID systems are designed to safely convey stormwater runoff into the sub-surface soil without the threat of contaminant mobilization and would assist in improving the groundwater quality. The Project’s design would ensure all proposed LID systems meet applicable LA County LID Manual requirements. The proposed LID BMP systems are designed to safely convey stormwater runoff into the sub-surface soil without the threat of contaminant mobilization. Additionally, the West Coast Subbasin is managed by the WRD as well as the CDWR and is anticipated to meet all groundwater demands. The Project would follow all requirements regarding groundwater quality to ensure that no impacts from proposed stormwater infiltration occur. Therefore, Project operations would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.7.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the hydrology and water quality analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development within Gardena, according to the related projects; see Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects.

The criteria for analyzing Project cumulative impacts is any project that could violate water quality standards, substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, alter existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation or result in flooding, impede, redirect flood flows or otherwise contribute to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving water-related hazards, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The geographic extent for considering cumulative impacts concerning hydrology and water quality includes the Dominguez Watershed. The City, and more specifically the Project site, is located within the Dominguez Watershed, which covers approximately 133 square miles and is largely built out.

As concluded above, following compliance with NPDES and GMC requirements, the Project’s construction-related and operational activities would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impervious surfaces would decrease under Project conditions and proposed LID BMPs would increase infiltration of stormwater runoff. Stormwater would be treated by proposed BMPs prior to discharging into the public storm drain system, treating potential pollutants and reducing peak flows leaving the site.

BMPs would be located and designed to effectively retain and treat runoff before it is discharged to the storm drain system. All proposed BMPs, including capture and use, would be appropriately sized and located to treat the design storm event. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact following compliance with NPDES and GMC requirements. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

As concluded above, following compliance with all applicable rules and regulations under the NPDES General Construction Permit regulations and City grading permit conditions requirements, the Project’s construction-related and operational activities would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede the sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The City’s water provider, GSWC, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan - Southwest (UWMP) Tables 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 identify that water supplies would meet the service area’s water demands for normal, singledry, and multiple dry year conditions through 2045. Finally, the Project and other cumulative projects would include low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) to increase infiltration of stormwater runoff. Therefore, cumulative projects and operational activities would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that they may impede the sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

As concluded above, the Project would not substantially alter the Project site’s existing drainage pattern through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces. Further, through compliance with NPDES and GMC requirements which include implementation of BMPs, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off of the site. A less than significant impact would occur.

As concluded above, following compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, will reduce the potential for the construction of the Project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Short-term groundwater quality impacts could potentially occur during construction of the Project because of soil or shallow groundwater being exposed to construction activities, materials, wastes and spilled materials. During on-site grading and building activities, minimal amounts of hazardous materials such as fuels, paints, solvents, and concrete additives could be used, and the presence of such materials provides an opportunity for hazardous materials to be released into groundwater. However, the Project requires compliance with MM HAZ-1 and compliance with MM HAZ-2 to mitigate significant impacts. Cumulative projects within the City would be required to comply with applicable requirements and would be required to conduct similar analysis and implement project specific mitigation measures under CEQA.A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Additionally, following compliance with applicable LA County LID Manual requirements, the Project’s operational activities would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The Projects proposed LID systems are designed to safely convey stormwater runoff into the subsurface soil without the threat of contaminant mobilization and will assist in improving the groundwater quality. Cumulative projects would be required to meet applicable LA County LID Manual requirements. The LID BMP systems are designed to safely convey stormwater runoff into the sub-surface soil without the threat of contaminant mobilization. The Project and other projects within the City would follow all requirements regarding groundwater quality to ensure - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

that no impacts from proposed stormwater infiltration occur. Therefore, Project operation would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Gardena is mostly built out with a high existing impervious condition. Cumulative projects would increase construction activities, potentially resulting in construction-related water quality impacts from increased pollutant concentrations.

Post construction, cumulative projects could increase pollutant concentrations and impervious surfaces, potentially resulting in operational water quality impacts, interference with groundwater recharge with potential groundwater management issues, changes in drainage patterns, and increased stormwater flows with potential downstream capacity issues.

Additionally, cumulative projects could substantially alter the existing drainage patterns and result in substantial erosion throughout the City; impede or redirect flows throughout the City; or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. However, cumulative development would be subject to compliance with the established federal, state, and local regulatory framework (e.g., NPDES and GMC, concerning hydrology and water quality. Most new developments require minimum landscaping, as well as implementation of LID BMPs, which typically increase permeable surfaces and consequently reduce peak flows in stormwater runoff. All new development within the City would be subject to regional and City water quality and peak flow mitigation requirements and would be reviewed on a per-project basis to ensure that water quality and storm drain infrastructure are not adversely impacted. If needed, the City can require on-site detention or upgrades to regional infrastructure. Where significant or potentially significant impacts are identified, implementation of all feasible site-specific mitigation would be required to avoid or reduce impacts. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s potential impacts concerning hydrology and water quality would not be cumulatively considerable.

4.7.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning hydrology and water quality have been identified.

4.7.7 REFERENCES
California State Water Resources Control Board. (2022). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit), Order WQ 2022-0057- DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. Retrieved from:
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2022 /wqo_2022-0057-dwq.pdf, accessed June 2023.

Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. (2023). Water Resources Technical Report for Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project. See Appendix 4.7-1.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (April 19, 2022). Well ID 792 Historical Well Measurement Data. Retrieved from : https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/wells/#, accessed May 2023.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (No Date). Well Finder. Retrieved from https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/wells/#, accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality

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

4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to land use and planning and analyze the Project’s potential to physically divide an established community or cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 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 land use and zoning data available from public resources, including among others, the City of Gardena General Plan 2006 (GGP) and the City of Gardena Municipal Code (GMC).

4.8.1 EXISTING SETTING
Local Context
The Project site is in the County of Los Angeles, approximately 12 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles, in the southeast portion of the City of Gardena (“City”), at 16829, 16835, and 16907 South Normandie Avenue; see Exhibit 2-1: Regional Vicinity Map. The 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 a highly urbanized city that is approximately 99 percent developed. In 2005 there were 44-acres of land considered vacant in the City and as of February 2023, there are only approximately 7.5 vacant acres remaining, which includes approximately 3 acres which cannot be developed.1 The City’s predominant land use has historically been and remains single-family residential, which now accounts for approximately 33 percent of the City’s total area. Streets and rights-of-way account for approximately 22 percent of the City’s land, while industrial uses account for approximately 15 percent and are largely located north of Rosecrans Avenue between Van Ness Avenue and Normandie Avenue. Multi-family residential land uses, as well as mobile home parks, account for approximately 12 percent of the City. Commercial uses, which are primarily located along Artesia Boulevard, Redondo Beach Boulevard, Crenshaw Avenue, and Western Avenue, account for approximately 10 percent of the City. While much of the City is developed with single-family residential uses, the City’s southeast portion where the Project site is located is characterized by both industrial and residential land uses. Arterial roadways such as 1 City of Gardena. (2006) City of Gardena General Plan, updated 2022. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning

Vermont Avenue, Western Avenue, Redondo Beach Boulevard, and Rosecrans Avenue are characterized by both industrial and commercial uses, with residential uses located behind them.

The approximately 5.25-acre Project site is comprised of four parcels (APN: 6106-030-011, 6106- 030-015, 6106-030-016, 6106-030-017) generally bound by West 169th and West 170th Streets on the north and south, and South Normandie Avenue and Brighton Way on the east and west; see Exhibit 2-2: Site Vicinity Map.

Onsite Land Uses
Exhibit 4.8-1: Existing Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses depicts the onsite land uses and indicates the Project site is currently fully developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and landscaping. Table 4.8-1: Existing Onsite Land Uses summarizes the existing onsite land uses by APN and address and indicates approximately 115,424 square feet (SF) of industrial floor area is present on the Project site. However, 9,324 SF of industrial floor area in one of the buildings on Parcel 4 is not being used due to its dilapidated condition and is therefore not occupiable. The onsite buildings were constructed between circa 1952 and 1978. The building heights of the existing onsite uses is at most 35 feet.2 Additionally, the Project site includes a railroad spur from the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) northern track. The spur is associated with former industrial operations but is no longer in use.

Table 4.8-1: Existing Onsite Land Uses
Parcel
ID1 APN2 Size (Acres)3 Address3 Existing Land Use
Building
(Square
Feet)3
Year
Built3
1 6106-030-011 0.55 16829 South Normandie Avenue Industrial 10,880 1963 2 6106-030-015 0.47 16835 South Normandie Avenue Industrial 9,600 1957 3 6106-030-016 0.30 No Address Industrial - -
4 6106-030-017 3.93 16907 South Normandie Avenue Industrial 94,9443 1952 Total 5.25 Industrial 115,4244
Notes:

1. Identification number (ID) correlates with labels on Exhibit 4.8-1: Existing Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses.

2. Accessors Parcel Number (APN)

3. ParcelQuest. (January 2021). Assessor Data. Retrieved from: https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home.

4. This total includes 9,324 square feet of building that is unoccupied and dilapidated. 2 Estimated structure height measurement taken using 3D Path Ruler on Google Earth. Accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

EXHIBIT 4.8-1: EXISTING ONSITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project
Kimley>>>Horn
..._ _ _.j Project Site
..._ _ _.j Offsite Improvements
and Entitlements
o Kimley>>>Horn NOTTO SCALE
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

This page intentionally blank
- ==========
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is generally surrounded by single- and multi-family residential uses. There are two immediately adjacent parcels that are outside the Specific Plan area but included within the Project’s proposed entitlement actions: the parcel immediately adjacent to the Project site’s southwest corner, at 16964 Brighton Avenue, which is occupied by a single-family residential (SFR) DU; and the parcel immediately adjacent and to the east, which is occupied by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks; see Section 2.3: Project Characteristics. The surrounding land uses are depicted on Exhibit 4.8-1: Existing Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses and described below:
 North: West 169th Street is to the north, with a 63-unit single-room occupancy multifamily development across the street, at 16819 South Normandie Avenue.  Northeast/Southeast: Multi- and single-family residential uses are to the northeast/southeast, across South Normandie Avenue, respectively.  South: West 170th Street is to the south, with single-family residential uses across the street.
 Southwest: As noted above, there is one single-family residential dwelling unit immediately adjacent to the Project site and to the southwest, at 16964 West 179th Street.  East: South Normandie Avenue and, as noted above, there is an existing UPRR track (north/south orientation) immediately adjacent to the Project site and to the east.  West: Brighton Way (an alleyway) is to the west, with single-family and duplex residential uses across the alley.

4.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Regional
Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy As the metropolitan planning organization for the region’s six counties and 191 cities, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is mandated by law to develop a longterm regional transportation and sustainability plan every four years. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and fully adopted Connect SoCal: 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. It identifies ten goals that fall into four categories: economy, mobility, environment, and healthy/complete communities. The goals are as follows:

1. Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness

2. Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

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

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

5. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality

6. Support healthy and equitable communities

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

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

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

10. Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats Goal 10 is not applicable to the Project on a direct or indirect basis because the Project site does not include any agricultural uses or biological resources.

Local
Gardena General Plan 2006
The City adopted the comprehensive Gardena General Plan 2006 (GGP) in 2006. The GGP constitutes the City’s overall plans, goals, and objectives for land use within the City’s jurisdiction.

The GGP is based upon the following core visions for the City: City of Opportunity; Safe and attractive place to live, work and play; Community that values ethnic and cultural diversity; Strong and diverse economic base. It evaluates the existing conditions and provides long-term goals and policies necessary to guide growth and development in the direction that the community desires. Through its Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs, the GGP serves as a decision-making tool to guide future growth and development decisions.

The GGP consists of the following elements and plans:
 Community Development Element
 Land Use Plan (updated in June 2012, March 2013 and February 2023)  Economic Development Plan
 Community Design Plan
 Circulation Plan (updated in July 2020)
 Community Resources Element
 Open Space Plan
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

 Conservation Plan
 Community Safety Element
 Public Safety Plan (updated February 2022)
 Noise Plan
 Housing Element (updated in February 2023; see below)  Environmental Justice Element (adopted in February 2022)  Implementation
 Implementation Program (updated in February 2022)
Through its Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs, the GGP serves as a decision-making tool to guide future growth and development decisions. The General Plan Goals and policies applicable to the Project are listed in Table 4.8-2: Gardena General Plan 2006 Consistency found at the end of this section.

The General Plan designates 13 distinct categories of land use designations (not including Streets and Rights of Way). The General Plan also designates each land use designation with a quantitative measure of intensity of use and the type of uses allowed. In addition to the Land Use Designations, the General Plan includes Overlay Designations, which allow greater flexibility of development alternatives and provide opportunities for housing to meet the City’s housing needs. The overlays allow properties to be developed as the underlying land use, as residential areas, or as a combination of commercial and residential uses. Table 4.8-2, lists the Project site’s existing land use designations and indicates almost all of the Project site (approximately 3.93 acres) is designated Industrial, while the remainder (approximately 1.32 acres) is designated Industrial, High Density 30 Overlay. The Industrial designation provides for a wide range of clean and environmentally friendly industries, technology-related uses and supporting facilities, and business parks.3 The High Density 30 Overlay provides for 21 to 30 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). As indicated in Table 4.8-2, the Project site’s maximum development capacity, based on the existing land use designations, is 40 DU (on the northerly portion) and/or approximately 228,690 SF of industrial floor area throughout the site.

The parcel immediately adjacent to the Project site’s southwest corner, at 16964 West 179th Street, and the parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site are both designated Industrial.
3 City of Gardena. (2006). City ofGardena General Plan 2006, Updated 2022. Figure LU-2: 2013 General Plan Land Use Policy Map. Gardena, CA:

City of Gardena.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

Table 4.8-2: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Parcel
ID1
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(Acres)
Existing Land Use Designation
General Plan
Land Use2,3
Intensity
(FAR)/Density
(DU/AC)3,4,5
NonResidential
Development
Capacity (SF)5
Residential
Development
Capacity (DU)5
1 6106-030-011 0.55
Industrial, High
Density 30
Overlay

1.0 FAR/30
DU/AC
23,958 17
2 6106-030-015 0.47
Industrial, High
Density 30
Overlay
20,473 14
3 6106-030-016 0.30
Industrial, High
Density 30
Overlay
13,068 9
4 6106-030-017 3.93 Industrial 1.0 FAR 171,191 0
Total 5.25 228,690 40
Notes:

1. Identification number (ID) correlates with labels on Exhibit 4.8-1: Existing Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses.

2. City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022. Figure LU-2: 2013 General Plan Land Use Policy Map. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena. Accessed April 2023.

3. City of Gardena. (2021). Gardena Housing Element 2021-2029, page 66.

4. City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022, page LU-19.

5. FAR = Floor Area Ratio; DU/AC = dwelling units per acre; SF = square feet; DU = Dwelling Units.

City of Gardena Municipal Code
Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 17.16 - Vesting Tentative Maps.Establishes procedures for implementation of the vesting tentative map statute and supplements the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. This chapter specifies that land that is subdivided and developed as a vesting tentative map must be consistent with the General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan and any other provisions of the GMC.

GMC Title 18 - Zoning. Among other purposes, GMC Title 18 was adopted to encourage, classify, designate, regulate, restrict and segregate the highest and best location and use of buildings and structures for residence, commerce, trade, industry, water conservation or other purposes in appropriate places and for such purposes to divide the city into zones of such number, shape and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement.

The zones established by Title 18 and the boundaries of such zones are shown on a map, which is designated as the “official zoning map.” Table 4.8-3: Existing Zoning, lists the Project site’s existing zoning and indicates almost all of the Project site (approximately 3.93 acres) is zoned Industrial Zone (M-2) while the remainder (approximately 1.32 acres) is zoned General Industrial Zone (M-1), High density 30 overlay (HO-4). The M-1 and M-2 zones are intended for general - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

industrial uses; see Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapters 18.36 and 18.38 for permitted uses in these zones. Additionally, the Housing Overlay 4 (HO-4) zone allows 21-30 DU/AC.

Table 4.8-3: Existing Zoning
Parcel
ID1
Assessor’s Parcel
Number Size (Acres) Existing Zoning2,3,4
1 6106-030-011 0.55 Industrial Zone (M-1),4
Housing Overlay 4 (HO-4)5
2 6106-030-015 0.47 Industrial Zone (M-1),
Housing Overlay 4 (HO-4)
3 6106-030-016 0.30 Industrial Zone (M-1),
Housing Overlay 4 (HO-4)
4 6106-030-017 3.93 General Industrial Zone (M-2)6
Total 5.25
Notes:

1. Identification number (ID) correlates with labels on Exhibit 4.8-1: Existing Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses.

2. City of Gardena. (2020). Zoning Map. Available at https://cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/Gardena_Zonning_2020.pdf. Accessed April 2023.

3. See GMC §18.38.010: General Industrial Zone (M-2).

4. See GMC §18.36.010: Industrial Zone (M-1).

GMC Chapter 18.39 - Specific Plans. Establishes procedures for consideration of specific plans as authorized by Government Code §65450 et seq. and other applicable provisions of law. It also describes the relationship between an adopted specific plan and GMC Title 18.

GMC Chapter 18.44 - Site Plan Review. Establishes the procedure for site plan review, prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Additionally, this chapter specifies that Site Plans are required to be submitted for any development project for which a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Tract Map, or other discretionary permit is being sought.

GMC Chapter 18.52 - Amendments. Establishes procedures for requests to amend, supplement or change the land use designation, regulations, zone boundaries or classifications of property in accordance with California Government Code procedures.

4.8.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions pertaining to land use and planning. 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:
 Physically divide an established community (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant);
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect:
o Gardena General Plan 2006 (see Impact 4.8-1),
o Gardena Municipal Code (see Impact 4.8-2),
o Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (see Impact 4.8-3).

Methodology
This analysis analyzes the Project’s consistency with regional and local plans, policies, and regulations for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Specifically, the Project was analyzed for consistency with the applicable local and regional land use plans, policies, and/or regulations (i.e., GGP and SCAG’s RTP/SCS). This analysis also analyzes whether the Project would physically divide an established community.

Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts concerning land use and planning examines the Project’s consistency with existing land use plans, policies, and regulations. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in land use conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment. The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents.

4.8.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.8-1:

Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any Gardena General Plan 2006 land use plan, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Land Use Designation
As previously noted, the Gardena General Plan’s Land Use Plan designates almost all of the Project site (approximately 3.93 acres) as Industrial, while the remainder (approximately

1.32 acres) is designated Industrial and High Density 30 Overlay. The Industrial designation provides for a wide range of clean and environmentally friendly industries, technology-related uses and supporting facilities, and business parks. The High Density 30 Overlay provides for 21 to - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

30 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The Project proposes the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (NCSP) to establish a maximum allowable development of up to 403 DU. The multi-family residential development proposes two types of residential uses: an apartment building with 328 DU at the Project site’s northern portion; and 75 townhome-style units within nine buildings; see Exhibit 2-4: Conceptual Site Plan. Overall, the Project site would be developed at a density of approximately 77 DU/AC, Table 2-3: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning, summarizes the proposed development according to land use type. As such, the proposed multi-family residential development would conflict with the Project site’s existing Industrial land use designation.

Therefore, concerning the NCSP area, a General Plan/General Plan Map Amendment is proposed to: (i) change the land use designation on the General Plan Land Use Map from “Industrial” and “Industrial, High Density 30 Overlay” to “Specific Plan” and (ii) amend the Land Use Plan text and Land Use Plan Table LU-3 to allow the mix of uses and densities specified in the NCSP. Separate and unrelated to the NCSP and concerning the residential parcel at 16964 Brighton Avenue, a General Plan amendment is proposed to change the land use designation on the General Plan Land Use Map from Industrial to Single-Family Residential and rezone from General Industrial Zone (M2) to Single Family Residential Zone (R-1) consistent with the existing residential land use. Concerning the parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site that is currently occupied by UPRR tracks, the Project proposes to redesignate the property from Industrial to Public/Institutional, and rezone from General Industrial Zone (M-2) to Official (O) consistent with the existing railroad land use. The Project Applicant seeks approval of General Plan Amendment/General Plan Map Amendment (GPA #3-21) to implement these changes. This amendment would occur pursuant to GMC Chapter 18.52, which establishes procedures to amend, supplement, or change a property’s land use designation. Following approval of the requested General Plan Amendment, the Project would not conflict with the GGP Land Use Plan, thus, would not cause a significant environmental impact in this regard.

Gardena General Plan 2006 Goals and Policies
Table 4.8-4: Gardena General Plan 2006 Analysis evaluates the Project concerning the relevant GGP goals and policies, and concludes the Project would not conflict with the relevant General Plan goals and policies. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact concerning a conflict with the GGP.

Table 4.8-4: Gardena General Plan 2006 Analysis
General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Community Development Element: Land Use Plan
LU Goal 1: Preserve and protect existing single-family and low/medium-density residential neighborhoods while promoting the development of additional high-quality housing types in the City.

Policy LU 1.1: Promote sound housing and
attractive and safe residential
neighborhoods.

No Conflict. The NCSP would implement new zoning and
development standards to promote development of
high-quality housing in the City. The Projectfacilitates the surrounding neighborhood’s transition into a more
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

General Plan Policy Project Analysis
complete community, in that it would bring new
residents to the neighborhood, bring new housing to this area, improve the streetscape, and activate the
pedestrian realm.

Policy LU 1.2: Protect existing sound
residential neighborhoods from
incompatible uses and development.

No Conflict. Factors influencing land use compatibility include aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic. As concluded in Section 4.2: Air Quality, Section 4.9: Noise, Section 4.13: Transportation, and Section 4.16
Aesthetics, respectively, the Project would result in less than significant operational impacts concerning these
resource areas, which in turn would influence land use
compatibility. The surrounding properties include singleand multi-family land uses. Therefore, the Project would be a compatible land use and would involve removal of
potentially incompatible industrial uses with NCSP
approval.

Policy LU 1.4: Locate new medium- and
high-density residential developments near
neighborhood and community shopping
centers with commensurate high levels of
community services and facilities.

No Conflict. Commercial uses and services are located
approximately 0.16 mile south of the Project site at the Artesia Boulevard at Normandie Avenue intersection.

These shopping centers are characterized by commercial
and retail uses that would provide community services
and facilities to the Project’s future residents.

Additionally, the Project would cluster urban-density
housing at an appropriate location in the vicinity of the Harbor Gateway Transit Center, which would offer easy
access to public transportation and reduce their
automobile dependence.

Policy LU 1.5: Provide adequate residential
amenities such as open space, recreation,
off-street parking and pedestrian features
in multi-family residential developments.

No Conflict. The Project would incorporate quality
residential amenities, including private and community
open spaces. The Project’s apartment amenities include
a fitness room, dog park, and bike room on the ground
level; pools, BBQ’s and courtyards with fire pits on level three; and a roof deck and club room on level seven. The Project’s townhome amenities include a dog park,
paseos, courtyard with BBQ’s and fire pits, and a pool.

The Project provides adequate residential amenities
which would create more attractive and livable spaces for residents. The Project would also provide approximately 399 off-street vehicle and 173 bicycle parking spaces.

Policy LU 1.6: Ensure residential densities
are compatible with available public service
and infrastructure systems.

No Conflict. The Project permits residential density
compatible with available public service and
infrastructure systems. As described in Section 4.12:

Public Services and Recreation, and Section 4.15:

Utilities and Service Systems, the Project includes
measures to ensure that the plan area is served by
adequate public services, infrastructure, and utilities. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Policy LU 1.8: Minimize through-traffic on
residential streets.

No Conflict. The Project proposes three vehicle access
points at 169th Street (north), 170th Street (south), and Normandie Avenue (east). 169th Street and 170th Street
are classified as Local Streets in the GGP. Traffic on these two roadways proceed to Normandie Avenue, which is
classified as a Major Collector. The Project minimizes
through-traffic on residential streets by orienting
vehicular access towards Normandie Avenue.

Community Development Element: Economic Development Plan ED Goal 3: Attract desirable businesses to locate in the City.

Policy ED 3.3: Maintain a multidisciplinary
proactive approach to improve the City’s
image as a desirable business location.

No Conflict. The Project facilitates the development of quality housing nearlocal technology and creative sector companies and other employment centers to further
attract desirable businesses to locate in the City.

Innovative technology firms and their employees place a premium on quality-of-life and livability factors,
including access to quality housing options; social,
cultural, and environmental amenities; access to shops
and restaurants; and low-stress commutes. Project
implementation would help alleviate the negative
impacts of a lack of housing for local technology and
creative sector employees. The Project adopts a multidisciplinary, proactive approach, balancing job growth in the expanding technology sector with new high-quality
housing opportunities to enable local employees to live close to where they work.

Community Development Element: Community Design Plan
DS Goal 1: Enhance the visual environment and create a positive image of the City.

Policy DS 1.3: Promote a stronger design
review process to ensure that public and
private projects comply with best design
practices and standards.

No Conflict. The Project has been subject to City review and approval to ensure that future development is held
to quality design practices and standards.

Policy DS 1.4: Provide a sense of arrival to
Gardena through entry monument signs,
landscaping features, architectural and
motifs at key gateway locations.

No Conflict. The Project would enhance the visual
environment by replacing obsolete, industrial warehouse buildings with a new multi-family development. The
Project would incorporate high-quality design and
landscaping consistent with the Specific Plan standards.

Developing new residential uses in proximity to growing local technology and creative sector industries would
help create a positive image of the City. The Project
would provide onsite landscaping features and a highquality sign identifying the Project, consistent with GMC Chapter 18.58 sign standards, at a key gateway location in the City.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

General Plan Policy Project Analysis
DS Goal 2: Enhance the aesthetic quality of the residential neighborhoods in the City.

Policy DS 2.1: Provide stronger design
guidelines for residential development,
including both new construction and
additions to existing single-family units or
multi-family dwellings.

No Conflict. The Project is intended to achieve quality and attractively designed development that can serve as a model for future multi-family development in the City.

The Project would replace aged and dilapidated industrial warehouse buildings with a residential development that is intended to serve as a catalyst to transform southeast Gardena into a multi-family neighborhood.

Policy DS 2.2: Ensure that new and
remodeled dwelling units are designed
with architectural styles, which are varied
and are compatible in scale and character
with existing buildings and the natural
surroundings.

Policy DS 2.3: Encourage a variety of
architectural styles, massing, floor plans,
color schemes, building materials, façade
treatments, elevation and wall
articulations.

No Conflict. The NCSP development standards would
ensure the development includes a variety of massing,
floorplans, color schemes, façade treatments, elevations, and wall articulations.

Policy DS 2.7: Require appropriate
setbacks, massing, articulation and height
limits to provide privacy and compatibility
where multiple-family housing is
developed adjacent to single-family
housing.

No Conflict. The apartment building portion of the
Project design and access is oriented towards Normandie Avenue and away from the nearest single-family housing
located to the south andwestof the Project site. Further, the Project appropriately transitions building massing
from a single- to multi-family scale by locating the
townhome style buildings along the Project boundary
that borders single-family housing (south and west) and the apartment building near the multi-family apartments (north) and Normandie Avenue (east).

Policy DS 2.9: Integrate new residential
developments with the surrounding built
environment. In addition, encourage a
strong relationship between the dwelling
and the street.

Policy DS 2.10: Provide landscape
treatments (trees, shrubs, groundcover,
and grass areas) within multi-family
development projects in order to create a
“greener” environment for residents and
those viewing from public areas.

No Conflict. The Project would provide landscape
treatments that would create a “greener” environment.

The Project would replace existing industrial warehouses with a multi-family residential building that incorporates street trees to shade the street and sidewalk and create a pedestrian-scale screen between the ground level and
upper levels of the building. The upper-level courtyards would all be landscaped and visible from the street,
further enhancing the “green” environment for residents and those viewing from public areas.

Policy DS 2.11: Incorporate quality
residential amenities such as private and
communal open spaces into multi-unit
development projects in order to improve
the quality of the project and to create
more attractive and livable spaces for
residents to enjoy.

No Conflict. The Project would incorporate quality
residential amenities, including 16,120 SF of private and 20,000 SF of community open spaces. The Project’s
apartment amenities include a fitness room, dog park,
pool, and bike room on the ground level; pools, BBQs and courtyards on level 3; and a roof deck and club room on level 7. The Project’s townhome amenities include a dog - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

General Plan Policy Project Analysis
park, paseos, courtyard with BBQs, and a pool. These
amenities would create more attractive and livable
spaces for residents to enjoy.

Policy DS 2.12: Provide well-designed and
safe parking areas that maximize security,
surveillance, and efficient access to
building entrances.

No Conflict. The apartment building portion of the
Project would provide parking in an enclosed garage
consisting of two vertical floors, starting at the ground level. The parking garage would be accessible only to
residents and would be secured by a key fob entry
system. Residents would be able to enter the building
directly from the parking garage. The townhome units
would have enclosed parking garages.

Policy DS 2.14: Require design standards be
established to provide for attractive
building design features, safe egress and
ingress, sufficient parking, adequate
pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and
proper signage.

No Conflict. The Project includes design guidelines to
ensure that the Project is designed with a varied but
cohesive architectural style. These design standards
would ensure that the Project would be designed with
attractive building design features, safe egress and
ingress, sufficient parking, adequate pedestrian
amenities, landscaping, and proper signage.

Policy DS 2.15: Promote innovative
development and design techniques, new
material and construction methods to
stimulate residential development that
protects the environment.

No Conflict. The Project would provide a new high-quality residential development through Specific Plan
implementation, which would conform to the latest
CALGreen sustainability standards and encourage
attractive architectural design and features to stimulate residential development and protect the environment.

Community Development Element: Circulation Plan
CI Goal 1: Promote a safe and efficient circulation system that benefits residents and businesses and integrates with the greater Los Angeles/South Bay transportation system.

Policy CI 1.1: Prioritize long-term
sustainability for the City of Gardena, in
alignment with regional and state goals, by
promoting infill development, reduced
reliance on 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.

No Conflict. The Project’s apartment building portion
would provide 173 bicycle parking spaces and 399 auto
parking spaces, consistent with the NCSP but less than
the City’s parking requirements, providing 1.2 parking
spaces per apartment unit. As such, the Project would
discourage multi-vehicle households. Providing less
parking spaces per unit encourages residents to carpool or seek alternative modes of transportation. The Project further promotes use of multi-modal transportation
networks through its close proximity to such networks.

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 intersection of Artesia Boulevard and South Normandie Avenue. The Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Harbor
Gateway Transit Center is also located approximately 0.9 - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

General Plan Policy Project Analysis
mile to the south, providing more access to public transit opportunities. Further, per the NCSP, new residents who sign a 12-month lease would be offered one free monthly Metro pass. The Project would provide two parking
spaces per townhouse unit, plus 10 guest parking spaces.

CI Goal 3: Develop Complete Streets to promote alternative modes of transportation that are safe and efficient for commuters, and available to persons of all income levels and disabilities.

Policy CI 3.1: Work with Gardena Municipal
Bus Lines and MTA to increase the use of
public transit, establish or modify routes,
and improve connectivity to regional
services.

No Conflict. Transit and pedestrian facilities exist near the Project site. Existing GTrans busstops 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 intersection of Artesia Boulevard and South Normandie Avenue. 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. To improve access to public
transportation, the Project includes the construction of onsite and offsite sidewalks in this area. The Project
includes the construction of sidewalks per Local Street requirements along the south side of 169th Street,
Brighton Way (west), and 170th Street (south).

Additionally, the Project proposes to construct offsite sidewalk improvements offsite along the south side of
169th Street. The Project, with the incorporation of these sidewalk improvements, would improve connectivity to
regional services and promote alternative modes of
transportation for residents. Further, the NCSP proposes that new residents who sign a 12-month lease would be
offered one free monthly Metro pass. This provision
would increase the use of established public transit in the area.

Policy CI 3.3: Maintain and expand
sidewalk installation and repair programs,
particularly in areas where sidewalks link
residential neighborhoods to local schools,
parks, and shopping areas.

No Conflict. The Project would include reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters adjoining the Project site.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Project proposes
to construct offsite sidewalk improvements offsite along the south side of 169th Street and onsite along Brighton Way (west) and 170th Street (south) pursuant to the GGP Circulation Element requirements for a Local Street (2
lanes, undivided with parking).

Policy CI 3.4: Maintain a citywide bicycle
route and maintenance plan that promotes
efficient and safe bikeways integrated with
the MTA’s regional bicycle system.

No Conflict. The Project promotes bicycle usage through provision of bicycle access along street frontages and
bicycle parking.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Housing Element
Goal 3.0: Minimize the impact of governmental constraints on housing construction and cost.

Policy 3.3: Encourage the use of special
development zones and other mechanisms
to allow more flexibility in housing
developments.

No Conflict. The Project reduces the impact of
governmental constraints on housing construction and
cost by implementing special zoning and development
standards to permit more flexibility in housing
developments in southeast Gardena. The Project offers
an opportunity to create a vibrant, multi-family
neighborhood. The Project facilitates more diverse multifamily housing options to serve the City’s growing and evolving technology industry, and balances job growth
with new high-quality housing opportunities. By
permitting denser development than would otherwise be
permitted under existing zoning, the Project incentivizes construction of new multi-family housing with a variety of unit types thereby reducing costs.

Goal 4.0: Provide adequate residential sites through appropriate land use and zoning to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs.

Policy 4.1: Implement land use policies that
allow for a range of residential densities.

No Conflict. Upon adoption of the General Plan
Amendment and zone changeto Specific Plan, the Project
would be consistent with land use designations and
zoning to provide for the development of multi-family
residential development. The provision of up to 403
residential units near regional serving public transit
infrastructure assists the City in meeting its share of the regional housing needs allocation. Currently, residential development in southeast Gardena primarily consists of
single-family housing with minimal multi-family housing along arterials. The Project permits a greater range of residential densities than is currently permitted in this area of the City. Additionally, three parcels of the existing Project site are designated with a Housing Overlay which identifies that the site has potential to be redeveloped with residential uses to help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Community Resources Element: Conservation Plan
CN Goal 2: Conserve and protect groundwater supply and water resources.

Policy CN 2.2: Comply with the water
conservation measures set forth by the
California Department of Water Resources.

No Conflict. The Project conserves and protects
groundwater supply and water resources through
compliance with all applicable regulations, including the water conservation measures set forth by the
Department of Water Resources. The Project site is
approximately 99.7% impervious under existing
Policy CN 2.6: Encourage and support the
proper disposal of hazardous waste and
waste oil. Monitor businesses that
generate hazardous waste materials to
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

General Plan Policy Project Analysis
ensure compliance with approved disposal
procedures.
conditions.
4 The Project would reduce the impermeable
area to approximately 85.90 %, an approximately 13.80%
reduction by incorporating approximately 31,000 SF of
new planting areas. The Project would be required to
comply with all applicable regulations regarding the
disposal of hazardous waste and waste oil during
construction.

CN Goal 3: Reduce the amount of solid waste produced in Gardena.

Policy CN 3.1: Comply with the
requirements set forth in the City’s Source
Reduction and Recycling Element.

No Conflict. The Project would comply with all applicable local and state requirements for waste diversion during both construction and operations, including the City’s
Source Reduction and Recycling Element.

CN Goal 4: Conserve energy resources through the use of technology and conservation methods.

Policy CN 4.1: Encourage innovative
building designs that conserve and
minimize energy consumption.

No Conflict. The Project would be a multi-family
development subject to Title 24 requirements. The
Project would be designed to achieve best practices for architectural design and land development that enhance
the City’s infrastructure, reduce consumption of nonrenewable resources, and limit pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. The Project would comply
with the 2022 CALGreen sustainability standards, or
those in effect at the time that plans are submitted.

Policy CN 4.2: Require compliance with
Title 24 regulations to conserve energy.

CN Goal 5: Protect the City’s cultural resources.

Policy CN 5.3: Protect and preserve cultural
resources of the Gabrielino Native
American Tribes found or uncovered during
construction.

No Conflict. The Project would incorporate measures to
protect and preserve any cultural resources of the
Gabrielino Native American Tribe, or any other Tribe,
found or uncovered during construction. See
Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources.

Community Safety Element: Public Safety Plan
PS Goal 1: Maintain a high level of fire and police protection for residents, businesses and visitors.

Policy PS 1.6: Ensure that law enforcement,
crime prevention, and fire safety concerns
are considered in the review of planning
and development proposals in the City.

No Conflict. The City has considered law enforcement,
crime prevention, and fire safety concerns in its Project review. The building and parking structure would be
accessible only to residents. The Project proposes 10
guest parking spaces, which would be located near the
townhome units. The Project would comply with all
applicable Fire Code and fire safety regulations.

PS Goal 2: Protect the community from dangers associated with geologic instability, seismic hazards and other natural hazards.

Policy PS 2.3: Require compliance with
seismic safety standards in the Uniform
Building Code.

No Conflict. The Project would be required to comply
with the seismic safety standards in the Uniform Building Code.
4 Urban Architecture Lab. (2022). 16911 Normandie Apartments and Townhomes Entitlement Set, Sheet No. G0.01: Project Information. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

General Plan Policy Project Analysis
Policy PS 2.4: Require geotechnical studies
for all new development projects located in
an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or
areas subject to liquefaction.

No Conflict. The Project site is near parcels within a
liquefaction zone; therefore, a geotechnical study was
prepared for the Project area; see Appendix 4.4-1:

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.

PS Goal 4: Increase public awareness of crime and fire prevention, and emergency preparedness and procedures.

Policy PS 4.3: Promote professional
management of multi-family residential
buildings.

No Conflict. The Project’s proposed multi-family
residential building would be professionally managed and the property managers would develop standard
emergency preparedness plans and procedures.

Community Safety Element: Noise Plan
N Goal 2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions.

Policy N 2.4: Require mitigation of all
significant noise impacts as a condition of
project approval.

No Conflict. The Project’s potential for generating noise impacts on the surrounding environment both during
construction and operation is addressed in Section 4.9:

Noise. As concluded in Section 4.9: Noise, impacts
associated with Project onsite construction activities
would be significant and unavoidable despite the
specified mitigation measures. In accordance with Policy

2.4, mitigation is required to minimize construction noise impacts. As to Policies 2.5 and 2.6, the Project would
conduct interior noise level studies and achieve interior noise level standards as required by the Building Code. As to Policy 2.9, the Project would incorporate design
features necessary to control residential interior noise levels and minimize exposure of residents to nearby
mobile noise sources in accordance with the Building
Code standards for interior noise levels.

Policy N 2.5: Require proposed projects to
be reviewed for compatibility with nearby
noise-sensitive land uses with the intent of
reducing noise impacts.

Policy N 2.6: Require new residential
developments located in proximity to
existing commercial/ industrial operations
to control residential interior noise levels as
a condition of approval and minimize
exposure of residents in the site design.

Policy N 2.9: Encourage the creative use of
site and building design techniques as a
means to minimize noise impacts.

N Goal 3: Develop measures to control non-transportation noise impacts.

Policy N 3.2: Require compliance with
noise regulations. Review and update
Gardena’s policies and regulations
affecting noise.

No Conflict. The Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s noise ordinance.

Policy N 3.3: Require compliance with
construction hours to minimize the
impacts of construction noise on adjacent
land.

No Conflict. The Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s regulations regarding permitted
construction hours.

Source: City of Gardena. 2006. Gardena General Plan 2006, Updated 2022. https://www.cityofgardena.org/general-plan/. Accessed May 2023.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

Impact 4.8-2:

Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any Gardena Municipal Code land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The following is an analysis of the Project concerning the relevant GMC standards.

GMC Title 17: Subdivisions and GMC Chapter 17.16: Vesting Tentative Maps. The Project Applicant is seeking approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM #4-21) for a lot merger and condominium subdivision. GMC Title 17, and more specifically GMC Chapter 17.16 establishes the procedures necessary for the implementation of the vesting tentative map statute and supplements the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. The regulations set forth in this chapter ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare and for the promotion of orderly growth and development. This chapter specifies that no land shall be subdivided and developed pursuant to a vesting tentative map for any purpose which is inconsistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan or not permitted by the zoning provisions or other applicable provisions of the GMC. Following approval of the Vesting Tentative Map, the Project would not conflict with GMC Title 17 or GMC Chapter 17.16.

GMC Title 18, Zoning. The Project Applicant seeks approval of a Zone Change (ZC # 4-21) and Zone Map Amendment to change the Project site’s zoning from Industrial (M-1) with a High Density 30 Overlay and General Industrial (M-2) to Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (NCSP).

Additionally, the Project requires a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA #6-21) that would modify the GMC to include the NCSP Zone and meet GMC Title 18 requirements. These approvals are needed for Project development, which replaces warehouse buildings with 403 multi-family residential dwelling units. Adoption of the NCSP (SP #1-21) would establish the Project area’s zoning regulations and development standards. The changes would occur pursuant to GMC Chapter

18.39: Specific Plans, which establishes procedures for consideration of Specific Plans, and GMC Chapter 18.52, which establishes procedures to amend, supplement, or change a property’s regulations, zone boundaries, or classifications.

Additionally, separate and unrelated to the NCSP, the Project Applicant seeks approval of a Zone Change and Zone Map Amendment for two offsite parcels (APN: 6106-030-008 and 6106-030- 800). Specifically, the Project proposes to rezone APN 6106-030-008 from General Industrial Zone (M-2) to Single Family Residential Zone (R-1), consistent with the existing residential land use, and to rezone APN 6106-030-800, which is currently occupied by UPRR tracks, from General Industrial Zone (M-2) to Official (O) consistent with the existing railroad land use.

Following approval of the requested Zone Changes, Zone Map Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment, the Project would not conflict with GMC Title 18. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

GMC Chapter 18.39: Specific Plans. The Project applicant is seeking approval of the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (NCSP) (SP #1-21) which would outline the design standards and guidelines for the Project and any future development on the Project site. GMC Chapter 18.39 outlines the required contents of specific plans and approval procedures. The NCSP would be consistent with both the content requirements and procedures. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with GMC Chapter 18.39.

GMC Chapter 18.44: Site Plan Review. Pursuant to GMC Chapter 18.44, review of the development’s physical design would occur through the City’s Site Plan Review process.

Accordingly, the Project Applicant seeks approval of Site Plan Review (SPR #11-21) to verify compliance with GMC standards. Following approval of the Project’s Site Plan, the Project would not conflict with GMC Chapter 18.44.

GMC Chapter 18.52: Amendments. The Project Applicant seeks approval of a General Plan Amendment (SP#3-21) to amend the Land Use Plan text and Land Use Plan Table LU-3 to allow multi-family residential development within the NCSP and a General Plan Map Amendment to reflect those changes on the GGP Land Use Map. These approvals are needed for Project development, which proposes one seven-story apartment building with 328 apartments and nine three-story structures which include 75 townhome style units to replace the warehouse buildings currently on the property. Approval of the General Plan Amendment would establish the Specific Plan Land Use and therefore allow the Project to be consistent with the General Plan.

Additionally, separate and unrelated to the NCSP, the Project Applicant seeks approval of a General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map Amendment for two offsite parcels (APN: 6106- 030-008 and 6106-030-800). Specifically, the Project proposes to redesignate APN 6106-030-008 from Industrial to Single Family Residential and to redesignate APN 6106-030-800, which is currently occupied by UPRR tracks, from Industrial to Public/Institutional.

As evidenced by the discussions presented above, the Project would not conflict with the GMC following approval of the Project’s proposed amendments; therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the GMC. Impacts would be less significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

Impact 4.8-3:

Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
SCAG established a process to identify a project’s impact on a regional scale and how it could contribute to the region’s plan and vision, given SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency under State law and is responsible for preparing the RTP, including the SCS. As previously noted, pursuant to SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Program, lead agencies are required to determine the consistency of a regionally significant plan, project, and program with SCAG’s adopted regional plans. A project is considered to be of statewide, regional, or areawide significance if it meets various criteria, including among others, a proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared; see State CEQA Guidelines §15206(b)(1). The Project is considered regionally and areawide significant, given it proposes to amend the City’s General Plan. Therefore, pursuant to SCAG’s IGR Program, as Lead Agency, the City is required to determine the Project’s consistency with SCAG’s adopted regional plans.

The Project would not conflict with the RTP/RCP’s long-term goals and policies concerning air quality, water quality, transportation, and infrastructure; see Section 4.1: Air Quality, Section 4.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 4.13: Transportation, respectively, for further discussion concerning the Project’s potential environmental impacts for these resource areas. Additionally, Table 4.5-5: RTP/SCS Goals Analysis, presents an analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable RTP/SCS goals. As is evidenced by the analysis provided in Table 4.5-5, the Project would not conflict with RTP/RCP goals. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning a potential conflict with an RTP/SCS land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.8.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the land use and planning 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 contexts of the land use and planning cumulative analyses are the City, County, and SCAG planning region; see also Table 3-2: Geographic Context for Cumulative Analysis.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

As concluded above, the Project would not conflict with any applicable GGP, GMC, or RTP/SCS land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, following approval of the requested entitlements pursuant to GGP and GMC requirements.

When combining the Project with the other related projects, cumulative development would provide 654,538 SF of non-residential land uses and 1,835 DU. Although other changes in land use plans and regulations may be necessary for other individual future projects, such changes would be required to demonstrate consistency with the GGP and GMC. Given that, upon adoption, the Project would not conflict with the land use policies of the applicable plans, the Project would not combine with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects to cause a significant adverse cumulative land use impact based on a conflict with a plan or policy.

Any associated physical impacts are addressed in the individual EIR topic sections.

As part of their review process, each cumulative project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the applicable land use designation(s) and zoning district(s). It is assumed that cumulative development would progress in accordance with the GGP and GMC.

Each cumulative project would be analyzed to ensure that the applicable goals and policies are consistently upheld. Project-specific measures would be identified, as needed. Consequently, the Project combined with other cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative environmental impact by conflicting with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning land use and planning.

4.8.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning land use and planning have been identified.

4.8.7 REFERENCES
City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofgardena.org/general-plan/. Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. (2022). Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022. Figure CI-1: Roadway Network and Figure CI-2: Roadway Cross Sections. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena.

Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CirculationPlan-2020-Update.pdf. Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. (2006, Updated February 2013). Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022.

Figure LU-2: 2013 General Plan Land Use Policy Map. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena.

Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Land-use-Plan2023-Update-FINAL.pdf. Accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report L

City of Gardena. (2006, Updated February 2013). Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022, page LU-19. Gardena, CA: City of Gardena. Retrieved from:
https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Land-use-Plan-2023-UpdateFINAL.pdf. Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. (2020). City of Gardena Zoning 2020. Retrieved from:
https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Gardena_Zonning_2020.pdf.

Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. 2020. Gardena Municipal Code. Retrieved from:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gardena/. Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. Gardena Municipal Code §17.16: Vesting Tentative Maps. Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. Gardena Municipal Code §18.36.020: Uses Permitted and §18.36.020: Industrial Zone (M-1). Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. Gardena Municipal Code §18.38.010: Uses Permitted and §18.38.010: General Industrial Zone (M-2). Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. Gardena Municipal Code §18.39: Specific Plans. Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. Gardena Municipal Code §18.44: Site Plan Review. Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. Gardena Municipal Code §18.52: Amendments. Accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. Gardena Municipal Code §18.58: Signs. Accessed May 2023.

ParcelQuest. (May 2023). Assessor Data. Retrieved from:
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home. Accessed May 2023.

SCAG. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Retrieved from:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/0903fConnectSoCal-Plan.pdf.

Accessed May 2023.

Urban Architecture Lab. (2022). 16911 Normandie Apartments & Townhomes Entitlement Set, Sheet No. A0.11: Site Plan.

Urban Architecture Lab. (2022). 16911 Normandie Apartments and Townhomes Entitlement Set, Sheet No. G0.01: Project Information.

Urban Architecture Lab. (2022). 16911 Normandie Apartments & Townhomes Entitlement Set, Sheet No. L1.02: Overall Illustrative Plan.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn

4.9 NOISE

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

4.9 NOISE
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing noise-related environmental and regulatory settings and evaluate the Project’s potential to generate a substantial temporary/permanent increase in ambient noise levels and/or excessive groundborne vibration/groundborne noise levels, and expose people residing/working in the Project area to excessive airstrip- or airportrelated noise levels. 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 noise and vibration data provided in the Noise Impact Study, 16911 Normandie Project - Gardena, CA (“Noise Impact Study”) (Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., 2023); see Appendix 4.9-1: Noise Impact Study.

It is noted, Kimley-Horn conducted a third-party review on behalf of the City of Gardena (“City”) of the Project’s Noise Impact Study; see Appendix 4.9-1. The third-party review concluded the analysis meets the applicable provisions of Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

4.9.1 EXISTING SETTING
Characteristics of Noise
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air or water; the manner in which sound travels is influenced by the physical properties of the medium (such as temperature, density, and humidity). Noise is often defined as unwanted sound. Of the various noise descriptors used to characterize the loudness of a sound, the sound pressure level has become the most common.

The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies on the audible sound spectrum; for this reason, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called “A-weighting,” expressed as A-weighted decibel (dBA). The dBA is a scale of noise measurement that approximates the human ear’s range of sensitivity to sounds of different frequencies. On this scale, the normal range of human hearing extends from about 0 dBA to about 140 dBA. Sound can vary in intensity by over 1 million times within the range of human hearing; for this reason, the decibel scale is based on logarithms (a system used to shorten calculations in mathematics), which keeps sound pressure measurements within a convenient and manageable range. Because the decibel scale is logarithmic in nature, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion. For example, if two sources each produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. The noise levels presented in this section are expressed in dBA, unless otherwise indicated.

Stationary noise sources such as idling vehicles or onsite construction equipment are considered “point sources,” and noise originating from these sources “attenuates,” or decreases, based on - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

certain physical principles (e.g., spherical spreading). In accordance with these principles, this analysis assumes that noise originating from a point source within 200 feet of a receiver attenuates at a rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance, and noise from a point source greater than 200 feet away attenuates at a rate of 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Application of these attenuation rates account for such factors asthe absorption of noise waves into ground surfaces, vegetation, and intervening structures.

Noise Exposure and Community Noise
The sound pressure level is a measure of noise experienced by an individual at a given moment.

Noise exposure is a measure of noise experienced over a period of time. However, consistent noise levels rarely persist over a long period of time. In fact, community noise varies continuously with time and in relation to the contributing sound sources within the environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources that combine to create a relatively stable background noise environment, and individual contributors to the community noise level are generally unidentifiable. Background noise levels change throughout a typical day, but do so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources as well as changes in atmospheric conditions. The addition of short duration, single-event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens) makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day.

To appropriately characterize the community noise environment and evaluate noise impacts, noise exposure must be measured over a period of time. This time-varying nature of environmental noise is characterized using statistical noise descriptors. In addition to dBA, the following noise descriptors are used in this evaluation:
dB The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity, with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain.
dBA A-weighted decibels (dBA) are measured using a filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies.

Leq The energy-equivalent sound level (Leq) provides a single numerical value for noise measured over a specified period of time. The Leq is the average noise exposure level for the given time period.

Lmax The instantaneous maximum noise level (Lmax) measured during the measurement period.

DNL The day-night average sound level (DNL) is the average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period and accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to noise at night. DNL “penalizes” noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. by adding 10 dBA to nighttime noise levels. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

CNEL Similar to DNL, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) treats each evening noise event as though it were three, which adds a 4.77-dB “penalty” for noise events occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Nighttime events are multiplied by ten, which adds a 10-dB penalty to noise events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories: the subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers at industrial plants often experience noise in the third category. A wide variation exists in the individual thresholds of annoyance, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise. Therefore, an important method of predicting human reactions to a new noise environment is to compare the new noise level to the existing noise level to which one has adapted (i.e., the ambient noise level). In general, the more a new noise level exceeds the former ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise environment would be judged. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol reports the following human responses to changes in noise levels:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived.
 Outside the laboratory, a 3 dBA increase is considered a “barely perceptible” difference (i.e., the change in noise is perceived but does not cause a human response).  An increase of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response is expected.
 A 10 dBA increase is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness.

Groundborne Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium. In contrast to airborne noise, groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for individuals to perceive vibration from sources such as buses and trucks, even in locations near major roads.

However, some common vibration sources produce groundborne vibration that can be felt (e.g., construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy equipment). There are several methods employed to quantify vibration. The measurement used in this analysis—peak particle velocity (PPV)—is defined as the vibration signal’s maximum instantaneous peak. PPV is used to describe vibration impacts on buildings and structures and is expressed in inches per second (in/sec). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activity attenuates rapidly with distance from the vibration source. Vibration-sensitive receptors include structures (especially older masonry structures); people (residents, especially the elderly and sick); and - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

locales with vibration-sensitive equipment such as hospitals, research labs, and production facilities for computer-chip manufacturing.

The responses of human receptors and structures to vibration are influenced by a combination of factors, including soil/rock type, distance from the source, duration, and the number of perceived events. Energy transmitted through the ground as vibration can reach levels that cause structural damage; however, humans are very sensitive, and the vibration amplitudes that can be perceived by humans are well below the levels that cause architectural or structural damage.

The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans, 2013b) characterizes the annoyance potential of vibration as follows: 0.01 in/sec PPV is “barely perceptible,” 0.04 in/sec PPV is “distinctly perceptible,” 0.1 in/sec PPV is “strongly perceptible,” and 0.4 in/sec PPV is “severe” for continuous/frequent intermittent sources.

Mobile Noise Sources
Mobile noise sources in the Project vicinity consist of vehicular traffic along the area’s roadways.

Most of the Project area’s existing mobile noise is generated from vehicles on West 169th Street immediately adjacent/north of the Project site, West 170th Street immediately adjacent/south of the Project site, and South Normandie Avenue immediately adjacent/east of the Project site.

Traffic-related mobile source noise is a function of the roadways’ traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. Table 4.9-1: Offsite Roadway Traffic Noise Levels – Existing Conditions presents the existing offsite traffic noise levels along the area’s roadways. Additionally, according to the Federal Railroad Administration crossing report (FRA 2023), up to two trains per day travel on the adjacent trains at up to 10 miles per hour. As shown in Table 4.9-1, the estimated noise levels along the area’s roadways range from 47.6 dBA CNEL to 68.6 dBA CNEL.

The Project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The airport located nearest the Project site is Hawthorne Municipal Airport/Jack Northrop Field (“Airport”), approximately 3.4 miles to the northwest. Therefore, airstrip- and airport-related noise levels will not be further discussed in this section.

Table 4.9-1: Offsite Roadway Traffic Noise Levels – Existing Conditions Roadway Segment
Estimated Traffic Noise
Levels1 CNEL
Existing
Normandie Avenue
Between 169th Street and 170th Street 68.6
West 169th Street
West of Normandie Avenue 55.5
West 170th Street
West of Normandie Avenue 47.6
Source: Appendix 4.9-1, Table 10
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

Stationary Noise Sources
Gardena is highly urbanized and comprised of a mix of residential and non-residential land uses (i.e., commercial, and industrial). The Project area’s primary stationary noise sources are urbanrelated activities (i.e., mechanical equipment, parking areas, and residential areas). The noise associated with these stationary sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, shortterm or long-term/continuous noise.

Noise-Sensitive Receptors and Existing Ambient Noise Levels Human response to noise varies widely depending on the type of noise, time of day, and receptor sensitivity. The effects of noise on humans can range from temporary or permanent hearing loss to mild stress and annoyance due to such things as speech interference and sleep deprivation.

Prolonged stress, regardless of the cause, is known to contribute to a variety of health disorders.

Noise, or the lack thereof, is a factor in the aesthetic perception of some settings, particularly those with religious or cultural significance. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long-term medical and mental care facilities, and parks and recreation areas. Residential areas are also considered noise-sensitive, especially during the nighttime hours. Additionally, Gardena has various public and private educational facilities, churches, a library, senior housing, and park and recreation facilities that are considered noisesensitive. The Project site is surrounded by residential uses, as summarized in Table 2-2:

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning. Based on a review of the surrounding land uses, the noisesensitive receptors nearest the Project site are the single--family residential uses located approximately 25 feet to the west.

Six offsite noise-sensitive receptor locations were selected to represent noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the Project area. These noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6) are described in Table 4.9-2: Existing Ambient Noise Levels, and their locations are depicted on Exhibit 4.9-1: Receptor Locations. Ambient noise measurements were taken at the six offsitenoisesensitive receptor locations on February 3, 2022. The ambient noise measurements were conducted using a Larson-Davis Model 870 Integrating/Logging Sound Level meter, which meets and exceeds the minimum industry performance requirements for “Type 1” standard instruments as defined in the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) S1.4. Daytime and nighttime measurements were conducted at each of the offsite receptor locations and were taken in accordance with the City’s standards. As indicated in Table 4.9-2, the existing ambient noise levels at the six noise sensitive receptor locations range from 49.0 dBA to 69.9 dBA Leq during daytime hours and from 48.7 dBA to 67.3 dBA Leq during nighttime hours.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise

Table 4.9-2: Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Offsite Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Approximate
Distance from
Project Site1
(Feet)
Ambient Noise Levels
dBA Leq
Daytime Hours
(7 a.m. to
10 a.m.)
Nighttime
Hours
(10 p.m. to
7 a.m.)
R1 – Single-Family Residential Use adjacent to
Project site’s southwest corner, at 16964
Brighton Avenue
0 (adjacent) 49.0 52.2
R2 – Single-Family Residential Use south of
Project site, at 17001 Brighton Way 40 55.1 53.8
R3 – Single-Family Residential Use east of Project
site, at 1337 169th Place 80 69.9 67.3
R4 – Single-Family Residential Use north of
Project site, at 16815 Brighton Avenue 60 56.9 56.4
R5 – Single-Family Residential Use west of Project
site, at 16904 Brighton Avenue 25 54.8 53.0
R6 – Single-Family Residential Use , west of
Project site, at 16934 Brighton Avenue 25 54.6 48.7
R7 – Multi-Family Residential (63-unit singleroom occupancy), north of Project sites, at 16819 South Normandie Avenue2
25 56.92 56.42
Notes:

1. Distances are estimated based on Google Earth map and are referenced to the Project site’s nearest property line.

2. This receptor was under construction when the ambient noise measurements were taken on February 3, 2022. Therefore, no noise measurements were taken at this receptor location at that time. Because receptor locations R4 and R7 share similar surrounding land uses and distance from the Project site, receptor location R4's ambient noise levels are considered representative of receptor location R7’s ambient noise levels, thus, are assumed for analysis purposes.

Source: Appendix 4.9-1, Table 4.

Vibration-Sensitive Receptors
Vibration-sensitive receptors include structures (especially older masonry structures); people (residents, especially the elderly and sick); and locales with vibration-sensitive equipment such as hospitals, research labs, and production facilities for computer-chip manufacturing. The six offsite noise-sensitive receptor locations identified above were also selected to represent vibration-sensitive receptors surrounding the Project area. There are no older masonry structures or locales with vibration-sensitive equipment in the Project vicinity. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

e .

EXHIBIT 4.9-1: RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
Normandi e Crossing Specific Plan Project
Kimley>>>Horn
..._ _ _.! Project Sile
...__ .... Offsite Improvements
oise Receptor Location
o Kimley>>>Horn NOTTO SCALE
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

This page intentionally left blank.
- =========
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

4.9.2 REGULATORY SETTING
STATE
California Noise Standards
California does not have statewide standards for environmental noise, but the California Department of Health Services (DHS) has established guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. The purpose of these guidelines is to maintain acceptable noise levels in a community setting for different land use types. Noise compatibility by different land use types is categorized into four general levels: “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable.” For instance, a noise environment ranging from 50 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for multi-family residential uses, while a noise environment of 75 dBA CNEL or above for multi-family residential uses is considered to be “clearly unacceptable.” In addition, California Government Code §65302(f) requires each county and city in the State to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development, with §65302(g) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element must:
(1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels.

California Vibration Standards
There are no state-established vibration standards. Moreover, according to the Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, there are no official Caltrans standards for vibration. However, this manual provides guidelines that can be used as screening tools for assessing the potential for adverse vibration effects related to structural damage and human perception. The manual is meant to provide practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects.

LOCAL
City of Gardena General Plan
The Gardena 2006 General Plan (GGP) includes a Community Safety Element that provides a Noise Plan, the basis of which is to achieve and maintain environmental noise control. The following goals and policies for the treatment of noise are applicable to the Project:
 N Goal 2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions o Policy N 2.4: Require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval.
o Policy N 2.5: Require proposed projects to be reviewed for compatibility with nearby noise-sensitive land uses with the intent of reducing noise impacts. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

o Policy N 2.6: Require new residential developments located in proximity to existing commercial/industrial operations to control residential interior noise levels as a condition of approval and minimize exposure of residents in the site design. o Policy N 2.9: Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a means to minimize noise impacts.
 N Goal 3: Develop measures to control non-transportation noise impacts. o Policy N 3.2: Require compliance with noise regulations. Review and update Gardena’s policies and regulations affecting noise.
o Policy N 3.3: Require compliance with construction hours to minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent land.

Further, the City has adopted noise compatibility guidelines for land use planning. The types of land uses and the acceptable noise categories for each land use are included in the GGP Noise Plan. The level of acceptability of the noise environment is dependent upon the activity associated with the particular land use. Table 4.9-3: Gardena Noise and Land Use Compatibility provides the exterior noise standard associated with various land uses, as provided in the City Noise Plan. According to the City, an exterior noise environment up to 65 dBA CNEL is “conditionally acceptable” for single- and multi-family residential uses. In addition, noise levels up to 75 dBA CNEL are “normally unacceptable,” while noise levels at 75 dBA CNEL and above are “clearly unacceptable” for residential.

Table 4.9-3: Gardena Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Land Use Category CNEL, dBA1
< 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Single-family, multifamily, duplex A A B C C NA NA Residential – Mobile homes A A B C C NA NA
Transient Lodging – Motels, hotels A A B B C C NA
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes A A B C C NA NA
Auditoriums, concert Halls,
Amphitheaters, Meeting Halls B B C C NA NA NA
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator
Sports, Amusement Parks A A A B B NA NA
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks A A A B C NA NA
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Cemeteries A A A A B C C
Office and Professional Buildings A A A B B C NA
Commercial Retail, Banks,
Restaurants, Theaters A A A A B B C
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

Table 4.9-3: Gardena Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Land Use Category CNEL, dBA1
< 55 60 65 70 75 80
Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities,
Wholesale, Service Stations A A A A B B B
Agriculture A A A A A A A
Notes:
1 CNEL = Community Equivalent Noise Level; dBA = Decibel A = Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

B = Conditionally Acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

C = Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If it does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

D = Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

NA = Not Applicable
Source: City of Gardena General Plan, 2006, Updated 2022.

City of Gardena Municipal Code
City of Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) §8.36.040 – Exterior Noise Standards. Establishes the City’s exterior noise standards, respectively, in terms of Leq(15) and Lmax. Table 4.9-4: Gardena Allowable Exterior Noise Levels, provides the allowable exterior noise levels at the affected property receiving the noise by land use category. GMC §8.36.040(C) states that if the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, then the ambient noise level shall become the noise standard.

Table 4.9-4: Gardena Allowable Exterior Noise Levels
Type of Land Use
15-minute Average Noise Level,
dBA (Leq)
Maximum Noise Level,
dBA (Lmax)
7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 10 p.m. - 7 a.m.

Residential 55 50 75 70
Residential
portions of mixeduse60 50 80 70
Commercial 65 60 85 80
Industrial or
manufacturing 70 70 90 90
Source: Gardena Municipal Code §8.36.040, 2020.

City of Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) §8.36.050 – Interior Noise Standards. Establishes the City’s interior noise standards respectively, in terms of Leq(15) and Lmax. GMC §8.36.050(C) states that if the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, then the ambient noise level shall become the noise standard.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

City of Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) §8.36.070 – Prohibited Acts. GMC §8.36.070 prohibits the operation of a device that generates vibration which is above the perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property line if the source is on private property.

City of Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) §8.36.080 – Exemptions. –This section establishes that the provisions of the City noise standard shall not apply to the following:

Item G - Noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, grading or demolition of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or anytime on Sundays or federal holidays.

Item H – Operation of refuse and recyclable collection vehicles, provided:
1) Collection of residential refuse/recyclables does not occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, or at any time on weekend or holiday, except as provided below.
2) Collection from commercial premises, audible in residential areas, and which does not occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, or at any time on a weekend or holiday, except as provided below.
3) When a collection day occurs on a holiday, alternative collections may be made on the following Saturday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

It is noted, while the GMC does not have a quantitative construction noise standard, the City utilizes a 10 dBA over ambient threshold to analyze construction noise impacts under CEQA.

Pursuant to Caltrans, 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.1 Applicable Vibration Standards
City of Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) §8.36.070 – Prohibited Acts. This section prohibits the operation of any device that creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the real property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way. The vibration perception threshold as defined by the GMC is 0.01 in/sec over the range of 1 to 100 Hz (80 VdB).2

4.9.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning noise. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as threshold of 1 California Department of Transportation. (2013). Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, pages 71 and 207.

Retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf.Accessed August 2023. 2 The 80 VdB significance threshold is based on the City vibration limit of 0.01 in/sec converted to VdB, 80 VdB = 20*log(0.01*1,000,000). - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

significance in this section. Accordingly, the Project may create a significant environmental impact and it would:
 Result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (see Impact

4.9-1).
 Result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels  For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Temporary Construction Noise
Construction noise impacts from the Project’s onsite construction activities were evaluated by calculating the construction-related noise levels at representative noise-sensitive receptor locations and comparing these estimated Project construction-related noise levels to the existing ambient noise levels (i.e., noise levels without Project construction noise). Project construction noise was analyzed based on the Project’s potential construction equipment inventory, construction durations, and construction schedule. The construction equipment noise levels are based on the published noise data (equipment source levels) by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) “Roadway Construction Noise Model.” (FHWA, 2006) Project construction noise levels were then calculated for sensitive receptor locations based on the standard point source noisedistance attenuation factor of 6.0 dBA for each doubling of distance. A 5 dBA attenuation was assigned for receptor locations where the acoustic line-of-sight is just interrupted (i.e., around the edge of a building).

In addition, the construction-related offsite trucks noise impacts were analyzed using the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM). The TNM noise model calculates the hourly Leq noise levels generated by construction-related trucks. Noise impacts were determined by comparing the Project’s estimated construction noise levels with the existing ambient noise levels.

Temporary Construction Vibration
Ground-borne vibration impacts due to the Project’s construction activities were evaluated by identifying potential vibration sources (i.e., construction equipment), estimating the vibration levels at the potentially affected receptors, and comparing the Project’s activities to the applicable vibration significance thresholds.

Operation Noise
Offsite roadway noise was analyzed using the FHWA’s TNM, based on the roadway traffic data provided in the Project’s transportation study. The TNM is the current Caltrans standard - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

computer noise model for traffic noise studies. The model allows for the input of roadway parameters, noise receivers, and sound barriers (if any). Roadway noise attributable to the project “existing plus project” was calculated and compared to “existing without project” noise levels to determine project noise impacts.

Onsite stationary point-source noise impacts were evaluated by (1) identifying the noise levels that would be generated by the Project’s stationary noise sources, such as rooftop mechanical equipment, outdoor activities (i.e., use of the dog run/park, courtyards, open spaces, pools, and open decks), parking facilities, and trash compactor; (2) calculating the noise level from each noise source at surrounding noise-sensitive receptor property line locations, including the composite noise of all sources; and (3) comparing such noise levels to City noise standards and ambient noise levels to determine significance. The onsite stationary noise sources were calculated using the SoundPLAN, a 3-dimensional computer noise prediction model.

4.9.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.9-1:

Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Level of Significance: Significant Unavoidable Impact

CONSTRUCTION (NOISE)
Noise impacts from Project construction activities would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the location of the equipment, the timing and duration of the noisegenerating construction activities, and the relative distance to noise-sensitive receptors. Project construction activities would generally include demolition, site grading, site preparation, foundation construction, building construction, and paving/landscaping. Each stage of construction would involve the use of various construction equipment types and would, therefore, have its own distinct noise characteristics. Demolition generally involves the use of backhoes, front-end loaders, and heavy-duty trucks. Grading and excavation typically require the use of earth-moving equipment, such as excavators, front-end loaders, and heavy-duty trucks.

Building construction typically involves the use of forklifts, concrete trucks, concrete pumps, and delivery trucks. Noise from construction equipment would generate both steady-state and episodic noise that could be heard within and adjacent to the Project site. The duration of the Project’s construction activities is estimated to be approximately 3.5 years.

Table 4.9-5: Construction Equipment Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factorsshows individual pieces of construction equipment that would be used for construction produce maximum noise levels of 74 dBA to 81 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source. The construction equipment noise levels at 50 feet from the source (Referenced Maximum Noise Levels) are based on the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

(RCNM) (FHWA, 2006), which is a technical report containing actual measured noise data for construction equipment. These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions (i.e., the equipment engine at maximum speed). However, equipment used on construction sites often operates under less than full power conditions, or partial power. To characterize the Project’s construction-period noise levels more accurately, the average (hourly Leq) noise level associated with each construction stage was calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction stage.3 These noise levels are typically associated with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.

Table 4.9-5: Construction Equipment Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors Type of Equipment Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Reference Maximum Noise Levels at 50 Feet,1 Lmax (dBA)
Backhoe 40 78
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79
Crane 16 81
Dozer 40 82
Forklift 20 75
Gradall 40 83
Dump/Haul Truck 40 76
Excavator 40 81
Jackhammer 20 89
Man Lift 20 75
Grader 40 85
Rubber Tired Loader 40 79
Delivery Truck 40 74
Welders 40 74
Pneumatic Tool 50 85
Notes:
1 Construction equipment noise levels are based on the FHWA RCNM and represent exterior noise measurements.

Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Table 1, 2006.

Table 4.9-6: Estimated Construction Noise Levels provides the Project’s estimated construction noise levels for various construction phases at the nearest offsite noise-sensitive receptors described in Table 4.9-2. For a conservative analysis, the estimated noise levels were calculated assuming all pieces of construction equipment for each construction phase are operating simultaneously and located at the construction area nearest the noise-sensitive receptors. These assumptions represent the worst-case noise scenario because construction activities would 3 Pursuant to the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2005, the usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction is operating at full power. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

typically be spread out throughout the Project site, and, thus, some equipment would be farther away from the affected receptors.

As shown in Table 4.9-6, the Project’s estimated construction noise levels during demolition (i.e., the loudest construction phase) would range from 72.1 dBA (Leq) at receptor location R3 to 86.8 dBA (Leq) atreceptor location R1. Pursuant to GMC §8.36.080, construction activities are exempt from the City’s noise standards, provided construction activities do not take place between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or any time on Sundays and federal holidays. Project construction activities would be subject to compliance with GMC §8.36.080, thus, would not take place during the restricted days/hours. Therefore, the Project’s construction activities would be exempt from the City’s noise standards.

Notwithstanding, the Project’s estimated construction noise levels have been conservatively analyzed, as discussed below.

Table 4.9-6: Estimated Construction Noise Levels
Receptor
Location
Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase1
dBA (Leq)2
Measured
Ambient
Noise
Levels2
Significance
Threshold3
Mitigated
Noise
Level4 Demolition Grading Site
Preparation
Foundation
Construction
Building
Construction
Paving/
Landscaping
R1 86.8 86.7 83.0 83.5 85.3 85.1 49.0 59.0 74.8
R2 83.8 83.7 79.7 80.4 81.4 81.1 55.1 65.1 71.8
R3 72.1 71.9 67.6 68.4 68.0 67.4 69.9 79.9 60.1
R4 81.2 81.0 76.9 77.7 78.0 77.6 56.9 66.9 69.2
R5 84.6 84.5 80.7 81.3 82.5 82.2 54.8 64.8 72.6
R6 84.6 84.5 80.7 81.3 82.5 82.2 54.6 64.6 72.6
R7 81.2 81.0 76.9 77.7 78.0 77.6 56.9 66.9 69.2
Notes:
1 Detailed calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.9-1. 2 See Table 4.9-5: Construction Equipment Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors. 3 10 dBA over ambient threshold. 4 With Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Noise implemented.

Source: Appendix 4.9-1, Table 6.

As indicated in Table 4.9-6, the Project’s estimated construction noise levels would exceed the City’s significance thresholds at all noise-sensitive receptor locations except receptor location R3.

To reduce the Project’s construction-related noise levels, implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) MM NOI-1: Construction Equipment, which requires power construction equipment to be properly maintained and equipped with noise shielding and muffling devices, and MM NOI-2:

Construction Noise, which requires that an impermeable sound barrier be constructed prior to any demolition/construction activities along the Project’s northern, southern, and western property lines and that these barriers remain for the duration of construction, are recommended.

Table 4.9-6 provides the estimated construction noise levels at the nearest offsite noise-sensitive receptors with MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 incorporated. As indicated in Table 4.9-6, despite MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 achieving an approximately 12-dBA attenuation (i.e., noise reduction), - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

construction noise levels at all six of the significantly-impacted noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., receptor locations R1, R2, R4, R5, R6, and R7) would continue to exceed the City’s specified thresholds. As previously noted, GMC §8.36.080(G) exempts noise associated with construction activities provided it does not occur within restricted days and hours. Notwithstanding, given that construction-related noise levels would exceed the City’s specified thresholds, and considering the proposed building height (seven stories at a maximum height of approximately 90 feet) and extended construction period (i.e., 3.5 years), it is conservatively concluded that the Project’s construction-related noise levels would result in a significant unavoidable impact.

In addition to onsite construction noise sources, materials delivery, concrete mixing, and haul trucks (construction trucks), and construction worker vehicles would require access to the Project site during the Project construction period. The major noise sources associated with offsite construction trucks would be from haul trucks during the demolition and site grading/excavation (for import and export), which would require approximately 20 daily truck trips (10 incoming trips and 10 outgoing trips). Construction-related trucks would be fewer during other construction phases with up to 10 delivery truck trips per day. Therefore, the construction-related mobilesource noise analysis is based on the peak period with a maximum of 20 truck trips per day. Based on an eight-hour haul period and a uniform distribution of truck trips, there would be 3 truck trips per hour. Haul trucks would generally access the Project site via I-405 and South Normandie Avenue.

The offsite construction trucks would generate noise levels of approximately 54.7 dBA Leq along Normandie Avenue between the Project site and I-405. The estimated noise from offsite construction trucks would be well below the existing ambient noise level of 69.9 dBA Leq (measured at noise-sensitive receptor location R3) along Normandie Avenue. As such, the Project’s offsite construction traffic would result in less than significant noise impacts.

OPERATIONS (NOISE)
The Project’s operational noise sources would include: (a) onsite stationary noise sources, including outdoor mechanical equipment (e.g., heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) equipment), outdoor activities (i.e., use of dog run/park, courtyards, open spaces, pools, and open decks), parking facilities, trash compactor; and (b) offsite mobile (roadway traffic) noise sources.

Outdoor Mechanical Equipment
The Project would include new outdoor mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC equipment), which would be located on the building roof levels. Project-related outdoor mechanical equipment would be required to comply with the GMC, which limits the noise from the mechanical equipment such that it does not exceed the City’s exterior noise standards at the property lines of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. As shown in Table 4.9-7: Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels, the estimated mechanical equipment noise levels would range from

28.2 dBA (Leq) at receptor location R5 to 34.1 dBA (Leq) at receptor R1, which would be below the - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

City’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s mechanical equipment noise levels would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.9-7: Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels
Receptor
Location
Nighttime
Hours Ambient
Noise Levels1
dBA (Leq)
Estimated
Noise from
Project
Mechanical
Equipment2
dBA (Leq)
Significance
Threshold3
dBA (Leq)
Exceedance
over
Significance
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
R1 49.0 34.1 50.0 0.0 No
R2 53.8 29.7 53.8 0.0 No
R3 67.3 31.7 67.3 0.0 No
R4 56.4 28.3 56.4 0.0 No
R5 53.0 28.2 53.0 0.0 No
R6 48.7 29.3 50.0 0.0 No
R7 56.4 28.3 56.4 0.0 No
Notes:
1 See Table 4.9 1: Existing Ambient Noise Levels. 2 Noise levels associated with the Project outdoor mechanical equipment were calculated based on manufacturer’s published sounddata for typical outdoor condenser units. Detailed calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.9-1. 3 Significance threshold is 50 dBA (Leq) (see Table 4.9-4: Gardena Allowable Exterior Noise Levels), unless the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, then the ambient noise level becomes the noise standard (GMC §8.36.040(C)).

Source: Appendix 4.9-1, Table 7.

Outdoor Activities
The Project’s outdoor spaces would include several common areas where various outdoor activities would occur, as follows:
- Apartments: dog run, courtyard, and open spaces on Level 1; an outdoor pool and courtyards on Level 3; and an open deck on Level 7.
-Townhomes: swimming pool with BBQ and seating areas; dog park; club house; and paseos with seating areas.

Noise sources associated with the outdoor spaces typically include noise from people gathering and conversing. For this operational noise analysis, reference noise levels of 65 dBA for a male and 62 dBA for a female speaking in a raised voice were used for analyzing potential noise impacts from people gathering at the outdoor spaces. The noise analysis assumed up to 1,352 people at apartment courtyards 1, 2, and 3, up to 151 people at the open spaces and dog park, and up to 130 people gathering at the apartment Level 7 outdoor deck based on 15 square feet per - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

person.4, 5 To analyze a typical noise scenario, it was assumed that up to 50 percent of the people (half of which would be male and the other half female) would be talking at the same time. Noise levels associated with the dog run area were calculated based on measured noise levels from an existing dog park,6 which generated approximately 58.4 dBA (Leq) at a distance of 25 feet.7 Table 4.9-8: Outdoor Activity Noise Levels presents the estimated noise levels at the offsite noise-sensitive receptors, resulting from use of outdoor spaces. The estimated noise levels were calculated with the assumption that the outdoor spaces would be fully occupied and operating concurrently to represent a worst-case noise analysis. As presented in Table 4.9-8, the estimated noise levels from the Project’s outdoor spaces would range from 28.8 dBA (Leq) at receptor locations R4/R7 to 48.7 dBA (Leq) at receptor location R3, which would be below the City’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s outdoor stationary noise source noise levels would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.9-8: Outdoor Activity Noise Levels
Receptor
Location
Ambient Noise
Levels1
dBA (Leq)
Estimated
Noise from
Project
Outdoor Uses2
dBA (Leq)
Significance
Threshold3
dBA (Leq)
Exceed over
Significance
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
R1 49.0 46.6 50.0 0.0 No
R2 53.8 37.7 53.8 0.0 No
R3 67.3 48.7 67.3 0.0 No
R4 56.4 28.8 56.4 0.0 No
R5 53.0 29.6 53.0 0.0 No
R6 48.7 30.0 50.0 0.0 No
R7 56.4 28.8 56.4 0.0 No
Notes:
1 Based on City nighttime exterior noise limits.
2 Detailed calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.9-1. 3 Significance threshold is 50 dBA (Leq) (see Table 4.9-4: Gardena Allowable Exterior Noise Levels), unless the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, then the ambient noise level becomes the noise standard (GMC §8.36.040(C)).

Source: Appendix 4.9-1. Table 8.
4 International Code Council. (2021). 2019 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9 with July 2021 Supplement, Table 1004.5. Retrieved from:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CFC2019P4/chapter-10-means-of-egress/CFC2019P4-Pt03-Ch10-Sec1004.5, accessed May 2023. 5 It is noted, this is a very conservative assumption given the Project’stotal population growth of 1,088persons; see Table 4.10-7: Existing Plus Project Growth Forecast.
6 The measured noise levels provided in the referenced report are from an existing dog park with 5 to 11 dogs present in each of the small and large dog areas. The measured noise level is appropriate for the Project as the Project also includes areas for dogs. In addition, the reference noise level was adjusted up by 3.8 dBA to account for the maximum 19 dogs for the Project. 7 City of San Diego. (2019). Noise Technical Report Beyer Community Park. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

Parking Facilities
Parking for the apartments would be provided within two above-gradeparking levels, with a total of approximately 4138 parking spaces. In addition to the entrance/exit driveways at the north along South Normandie Avenue and east along West 170th Street, the parking garage includes natural ventilation along all facades. In addition, there would be five surface parking spaces at the east side of the apartment building along South Normandie Avenue. Townhome resident parking would be located in private garages for each unit. Any outdoor parking spaces would be minimal and dispersed throughout the townhome area. As indicated in Table 4.9-9: Parking Facility Noise Levels, the estimated noise levels from the Project’s parking facilities would range from 22.8 dBA (Leq) at receptor location R2 to 43.9 dBA (Leq) at receptor locations R4/R7, which would be below the City’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s parking facility noise levels would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.9-9: Parking Facility Noise Levels
Receptor
Location
Ambient Noise
Levels1
dBA (Leq)
Estimated
Noise from
Project Parking
Uses2 dBA (Leq)
Significance
Threshold3
dBA (Leq)
Exceed over
Significance
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
R1 49.0 23.7 50.0 0.0 No
R2 53.8 22.8 53.8 0.0 No
R3 67.3 40.0 67.3 0.0 No
R4 56.4 43.9 56.4 0.0 No
R5 53.0 30.2 53.0 0.0 No
R6 48.7 28.8 50.0 0.0 No
R7 56.4 43.9 56.4 0.0 No
Notes:
1 Based on City nighttime exterior noise limits.
2 Detailed calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.9-1. 3 Significance threshold is 50 dBA (Leq) (see Table 4.9-4: Gardena Allowable Exterior Noise Levels), unless the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, then the ambient noise level becomes the noise standard (GMC §8.36.040(C)).

Source: Appendix 4.9-1, Table 9.

Trash Compactor
The Project trash compactor would be located within an enclosed room inside Level 1 parking, at the apartment’s interior. The noise levels from the trash compactor operation would be effectively shielded to the offsite noise-sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, the Project’s trash compactor noise levels would be less than significant. 8 Appendix 4.9-1 assumed 413 parking spaces; however, the Project site plan was subsequently revised to include only 399 parking spaces and therefore the report conservatively assumes noise impacts from parking facilities. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

Offsite Mobile Roadway Traffic
The Project is expected to generate approximately 1,715 net daily trips; see Appendix 4.13-1:

CEQA Impact Transit Assessment. Project-generated traffic noise impacts were evaluated by comparing the change in noise levels from the “existing” condition to the “existing plus project” condition with the significance threshold of a 3-dBA increase (i.e., “barely perceptible”). Traffic noise levels at the offsite noise-sensitive receptors were calculated using FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model and the Project’s traffic volume data. The traffic noise impact analysis is based on the 24- hour CNEL noise descriptor.

As shown in Table 4.9-10: Offsite Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts, Project traffic would result in a maximum noise level increase of 1.8 dBA CNEL along West 170th Street (west of Normandie Avenue). In addition, the estimated noise level increases along Normandie Avenue and West 169th Street(west of Normandie Avenue) would be 0.2 dBA CNEL and 0.3 dBA CNEL, respectively.

As previously noted, a 3-dBA increase is considered a “barely perceptible” difference (i.e., the change in noise is perceived but does not cause a human response). As such, the Project’s estimated traffic noise level increases are considered negligible. Therefore, the Project’s offsite traffic noise levels would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.9-10: Offsite Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts
Roadway Segment
Estimated Traffic Noise
Levels1 CNEL Increase in
Noise
Levels, CNEL
Significant
Impact? Existing Existing +
Project
South Normandie Avenue
Between 169th Street and 170th Street 68.6 68.8 0.2 No
West 169th Street
West of Normandie Avenue 55.5 55.8 0.3 No
West 170th Street
West of Normandie Avenue 47.6 49.4 1.8 No
1 Detailed calculation worksheets, are included in Appendix 4.9-1.

Source: Appendix 4.9-1. Table 10.

Composite Noise Impacts from Project Operations
An evaluation of composite noise levels, including all Project-related noise sources, was conducted to identify the potential maximum Project-related noise level increase that could occur at the noise-sensitive receptor locations. The overall sound environment at the areas surrounding the Project site would include contributions from each onsite individual stationary noise source associated with typical daily Project operations. The Project’s principal onsite stationary noise sources would include mechanical equipment, parking facility, and outdoor uses.

As indicated in Table 4.9-11: Composite Noise Impacts, the Project’s composite noise levels would range from 34.2 dBA at receptor locations R5/R6 to 49.3 dBA at receptor location R3, - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

which would be below the City’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s composite operational noise levels would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.9-11: Composite Noise Impacts
Receptor
Location
Ambient
Noise
Levels1
dBA (Leq)
Calculated Project-Related Noise
Levels, Leq (dBA) 2 Project
Composite
Noise
Levels, Leq
(dBA)
Significance
Threshold,3
dBA (Leq)
Significant
Impact? Mechanical Outdoor
Uses Parking
R1 49.0 34.1 46.6 23.7 46.9 50.0 No
R2 53.8 29.7 37.7 22.8 38.5 53.8 No
R3 67.3 31.7 48.7 40.0 49.3 67.3 No
R4 56.4 28.3 28.8 43.9 44.1 56.4 No
R5 53.0 28.2 29.6 30.2 34.2 53.0 No
R6 48.7 29.3 30.0 28.8 34.2 75.0 No
R7 56.4 28.3 28.8 43.9 44.1 56.4 No

1. Based on City nighttime exterior noise limits.

2. Detailed calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.9-1.

3. Significance threshold is 50 dBA (Leq) (see Table 4.9-4: Gardena Allowable Exterior Noise Levels), unless the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, then the ambient noise level becomes the noise standard (GMC §8.36.040(C)).

Source: Appendix 4.9-1, Table 11.

MITIGATION MEASURES
MM NOI-1 Construction Equipment Noise. Prior to issuance of any Demolition or Grading Permit, the Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that require all power construction equipment (including combustion engines), fixed or mobile to be: 1) equipped with state-ofthe-art noise shielding and muffling devices (consistent with manufactures’ standards); and 2) properly maintained to ensure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated.

MM NOI-2 Construction Noise. A temporary and impermeable sound barrier shall be provided along the Project northern, southern and western property line. The temporary sound barrier shall be minimum 10-foot high and provide minimum 12 dBA noise reduction, and shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of STC-25, such as, acoustical barrier blanket (with STC-25 rating) or 3/4" thick exterior grade plywood.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

Impact 4.9-2:

Would the Project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation

CONSTRUCTION (VIBRATION)
Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the type of construction equipment used. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies, depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receptor buildings.

The Project would generate ground-borne construction vibration forces during building demolition and site excavation/grading activities when heavy construction equipment, such as large bulldozer/excavator and loaded trucks, would be used. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities levels for various construction equipment operations (FTA, 2018). It is noted that Project construction would not use impact pile driving methods, therefore, impact pile driving vibration is not included in the onsite construction vibration analysis. As indicated in Table 4.9-12: Construction Vibration Impacts – Human Annoyance, the estimated vibration velocity levels from all construction equipment would be below the City’s significance criteria of 80 VdB at all offsite vibration-sensitive receptors, except receptor location R1, where the estimated vibration level would be up to 87 VdB. Therefore, the Project’s construction-related vibration levels, pursuant to the significance criteria for human annoyance, would be significant without mitigation. To reduce the Project’s construction-related vibration impacts, implementation of MM NOI-3: Construction Vibration Impacts, which prohibits the use of large construction equipment greater than 400 horsepower or loaded trucks within 45 feet from receptor location R1 would be required. At this mitigated distance, the estimated vibration velocities at receptor location R1 would be 79 VdB, which would be below the 80 VdB significance threshold. Therefore, the Project’s construction-related vibration levels, pursuant to the significance criteria for human annoyance, would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

Table 4.9-12: Construction Vibration Impacts – Human Annoyance Receptor
Location
Estimated Vibration Velocity Levels
at the Offsite Vibration-Sensitive Receptors, VdB1 Significance Threshold2
VdB
Significant
Large Impact?
Bulldozer
Loaded
Trucks Jack-hammer Small Bulldozer
FTA Reference
Vibration Levels
at 25 feet
87 86 79 58 -- --
R1 87 86 79 58 80 Yes
R2 78 77 70 49 80 No
R3 68 67 60 39 80 No
R4 74 73 66 45 80 No
R5 79 78 71 50 80 No
R6 75 74 67 46 80 No
R7 74 73 66 45 80 No
1 Vibration level calculated based on FTA reference vibration level at 25-foot distance. 2 Significance threshold is based on City vibration limit of 0.01 in/sec converted to VdB, 20*log(0.01*1,000,000).

Source Appendix 4.9-1 Table 13.

In addition, vibration impacts associated with potential building damage were analyzed at buildings nearest the Project site. The City currently does not have any adopted standards, guidelines, or thresholds relative to vibration impacts associated with building damage.

Therefore, criteria from the FTA are used as the threshold to assess impacts associated with potential building damage. Table 4.9-13: Construction Vibration Impacts – Building Damage provides the estimated vibration levels at the nearest offsite buildings. As indicated in Table

4.9-13 the estimated vibration velocity levels from construction equipment would be below the significance criteria at the nearest offsite buildings. Therefore, the Project’s construction-related vibration levels, pursuant to the significance criteria for building damage, would be less than significant.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

Table 4.9-13: Construction Vibration Impacts – Building Damage Receptor Location
Estimated Vibration Velocity Levels at the Offsite
Buildings, PPV1 Significance
Threshold
VdB
Significant
Large Impact?
Bulldozer
Loaded
Trucks
Jackhammer
Small
Bulldozer
FTA Reference Vibration Levels at
25 feet

0.089 0.076 0.035 0.003 -- --
Single-story residential building
to the North

0.019 0.016 0.008 0.001 0.22 No
Single-story residential buildings
to the South

0.024 0.020 0.009 0.001 0.22 No
Single-story residential buildings
to the East

0.010 0.008 0.004 0.001 0.22 No
Single-story commercial buildings
to West

0.089 0.076 0.035 0.003 0.22 No
Single-story residential building
adjacent to the Project site

0.156 0.133 0.061 0.005 0.22 No
1 Vibration level calculated based on FTA reference vibration level at 25-foot distance. 2 FTA criteria for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.

Source: Appendix 4.9-1. Table 12.

MITIGATION MEASURES
MM NOI-3 Construction Vibration Impacts. The use of large construction equipment (e.g., large bulldozer greater than 400 horsepower and/or loaded trucks) shall be a minimum of 45 feet away from the off-site residence adjacent to the Project site (receptor R1)(16964 Brighton Avenue).

4.9.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the noise and vibration impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development within Gardena, according to the related projects; see Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects. As indicated in Table 3-1 and depicted in Exhibit 3-1: Cumulative Project Locations, there are two related projects within the geographic context for the cumulative noise and vibration analysis:
 Related Project No. 2 is a condominium development approximately 720 feet northeast of the Project site and second nearest the Project site. There has been no recent action from the Applicant for this related project, with Plan Check Review anticipated to expire November 2023. Construction start date for this related project is unknown.  Related Project No. 3 is a small lot subdivision development approximately 400 feet northeast of the Project site. There has been no recent action from the Applicant for this - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

related project, and Plan Check Review has expired. Construction start date for this related project is unknown.

CONSTRUCTION (NOISE)
Proposed Project construction is scheduled to occur over approximately 3.5 years, beginning June 2024 and ending September 2027. As concluded above, construction activities are exempt from the City’s noise standards, provided that construction activities do not take place between restricted days/hours (GMC §8.36.080). Because the Project would be subject to compliance with GMC §8.36.080, the Project’s construction activities would be exempt from the City’s noise standards. Notwithstanding, given that the Project’s construction-related noise levels would exceed the City’s specified thresholds, and considering the proposed building height (seven stories at a maximum height of approximately 90 feet) and extended construction period (i.e.,

3.5 years), it is conservatively concluded that the Project’s construction-related noise levels would result in a significant unavoidable impact.

Noise from construction of cumulative projects is typically localized and has the potential to affect noise-sensitive uses within 500 feet from the construction site, as construction noise would be attenuated by distance and intervening buildings, typical in an urban setting. Thus, noise from construction activities for two projects within 1,000 feet of each other can contribute to a cumulative noise impact for receptors located between the two construction sites. Although Related Project Nos. 2 and 3 are within the geographic context for the cumulative noise analysis, because there has been no recent action from either Applicant, the Plan Check Review has expired or is immanently set to expire (i.e., November 2023 for Related Project No. 2), and the construction start dates are unknown, these related projects have not been considered in this cumulative analysis. Further, it would be speculative to assume that construction activities for Related Project Nos. 2 and 3 would occur concurrent with the proposed Project’s construction.

Therefore, no cumulative construction-related noise impact would occur.

CONSTRUCTION (VIBRATION)
As concluded above, the Project would have a less than significant impact construction-related vibration impact. As discussed above, the nearest related project (Related Project No. 3) is approximately 400 feet northeast of the Project site, which would not contribute to the cumulative construction vibration impacts. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s potential construction-related vibration impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

OPERATIONS (NOISE)
As concluded above, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to operational noise. The Project along with overall development in the surrounding area would generate noise that would contribute to cumulative noise from a number of community noise sources including onsite mechanical/electrical equipment, parking facilities, loading/trash collections, and occupational activities (i.e., people and dog); and offsite mobile sources (i.e., traffic). The related - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

projects located within 1,000 feet of the Project site are residential, and these uses are not typically associated with excessive exterior noise levels.

Noise levels from stationary sources are presumed to be less than significant at the property line for each related project, given the related projects would be subject to the City’s noise regulations that limit stationary noise sources, and site-specific mitigation measures would be identified, as needed. In addition, due to the distance attenuation and intervening structures (between the related projects and the proposed Project) and the Project’s onsite stationary noise sources (i.e., building mechanical equipment, parking facility, loading/trash compactor, and outdoor sources), when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s stationary source operational noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Traffic noise level is dependent on the traffic volume. That is, doubling the traffic volume would result in a 3 dBA noise increase (Project significance threshold). As analyzed above, the Project would result in a maximum 1.8 dBA increase in offsite traffic noise along West 170th Street, below the 3 dBA significance threshold. The traffic volume from the related projects would not double the existing traffic volume on West 170th Street, based on the relative location of the related projects to West 170th Street and estimated trip generation. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s potential mobile source noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

4.9.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Project’s construction activities would be exempt from the City’s noise standards with certain restrictions pursuant to GMC §8.36.080. Notwithstanding, given that the Project’s constructionrelated noise levels would exceed the City’s specified thresholds, and considering the proposed building height and extended construction period, it is conservatively concluded that the Project’s construction-related noise levels would result in a significant unavoidable impact, despite incorporation of MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2.

4.9.7 REFERENCES
Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc. (2023). Noise Impact Study for 16911 Normandie Project.

Gardena, CA; see Appendix 4.9-1.

California Department of Transportation. (2013a). Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

Caltrans (2013b). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

Federal Highway Administration. (2006). FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Harris, Cyril M. (1991). Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Table 16.1. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report N

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

4.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

4.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to the Project area’s population and housing and evaluate the Project’s potential to induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. 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.

The Project area’s demographics are examined in the context of existing and projected population, housing, and employment for the City of Gardena (City), the South Bay Region, and the County of Los Angeles (County). The South Bay Region includes the cities of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Torrance.

This section is based on the Gardena General Plan 2006 (GGP) Community Development and Housing Elements, California Department of Finance (DOF) Population and Housing Report E-5 2021-2023, 2010-2020 U.S. Census, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Local Profiles Data 2019, and the SCAG Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) – Demographics and Growth Forecast.

4.10.1 EXISTING SETTING
Population
Table 4.10-1: Population, 2023-2045, provides the DOF’s estimated 2023 County and City populations. The DOF estimates the County’s existing 2023 population is 9,761,210 persons and the City’s existing population is 59,809 persons. The DOF population estimates were derived by multiplying the number of occupied housing units by average persons per household.

Table 4.10-1: Population, 2023-2045
Jurisdiction 20231 20452 Change
County of Los Angeles 9,761,210 11,674,000 +1,912,790
+16.4%
City of Gardena 59,809 65,700 +5,891
(+9.0%)
Sources:

1. 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.

2. Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Technical Report – Demographics and Growth Forecast.

Table 4.10-1 also provides SCAG’s forecast 2045 County and City populations, as presented in the RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS provides population, household, and employment data for counties and - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

cities in the SCAG region for 2016 and 2045. SCAG’s forecasts are based on a jurisdiction’s existing land uses and General Plan land use designations. Population forecasts are calculated based on household growth and household size. The RTP/SCS forecasts that the County’s population will grow to approximately 11.7 million persons by 2045, representing an increase of approximately

16.4 percent between 2023 and 2045; see Table 4.10-1. The RTP/SCS also forecasts that the City’s population will grow to approximately 65,700 persons by 2045, representing an increase of approximately nine percent between 2023 and 2045; see Table 4.10-1. When compared to the County’s population growth rate, Gardena’s growth rate would be significantly less (approximately one-half).

Housing
Table 4.10-2: Dwelling Units and Households, 2023-2045, provides the DOF’s estimated 2023 County and City households (occupied dwelling units (DU)) and SCAG’s forecast 2045 households, as reported in the RTP/SCS. The DOF estimates the County’s and City’s existing 2023 households total 3,471,993and 21,781, respectively. Comparatively, the City’s existing households are far less when compared to the County’s.

To further inform the nearby available housing, Table 4.10-2, also presents the dwelling unit and 2045 forecast households within the nearby South Bay Region.

Table 4.10-2: Dwelling Units and Households, 2023-2045
Jurisdiction 20231
(Dwelling Units)
20452,3
(Households) Change
County of Los Angeles 3,471,993 4,119,000
+647,007
+15.7%
South Bay Region4 276,860 297,000
+20,140
+6.8%
City of Gardena 21,781 23,700
+1,919
+8.1%
Notes:

1. Source: State of California, Department of Finance. (2022). 2022 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.

2. Per SCAG Guidance, “household” refers to the number of occupied housing units while the DOF’s “household” population estimates are derived by multiplying the number of occupied housing units by the current persons per household. This analysis uses SCAG’s “household” methodology.

3. 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.

4. The South Bay Region includes the cities of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Torrance.

Table 4.10-3: Housing, 2023 provides the County’s, South Bay Regions', and City’s existing 2023 housing, housing types, vacancy rates, and average household size (persons per household) as reported by the DOF. The DOF estimates housing units by adding new construction and land annexations and subtracting housing that is removed (e.g., demolition) and adjusting for units lost or gained by conversions. Annual housing unit change data are supplied to the DOF by local - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

jurisdictions and the U.S. Census Bureau. As reported by the DOF, the vacancy rate is a measure of the availability of housing in a community. The vacancy rate also correlates the types of units available to the market demand. A low vacancy rate suggests that households may have difficulty finding housing within their price range; a high supply of vacant units may indicate either the existence of a high number of desired units or an oversupply of units.

Table 4.10-3: Housing, 2023
Description County of Los
Angeles
South Bay
Region1 City of Gardena
Single-Family Homes: Attached and
Detached 2,004,733 169,145 11,975
Multi-Family Homes: Two to more than
Five Units 1,603,151 113,827 9,437
Mobile Homes 56,298 6,483 1,212
Total Housing Units 3,664,182 289,455 22,624
Vacancy Rate 5.2% 4.6% 3.7%
Persons per Household2 2.75 2.61 2.70
Note:

1. The South Bay Region includes the cities of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Torrance.

2. Persons per household estimates are derived by dividing the household population by the occupied housing units.

Source: 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.

As shown in Table 4.10-3, the DOF estimates that the County’s housing stock totals 3,664,182 DU, with a vacancy rate of 5.2 percent and an average of 2.75 persons per household. As also shown in Table 4.10-3, the DOF estimates that the City’s housing stock totals 22,624 DU, with a vacancy rate of 3.7 percent and an average of 2.70 persons per household. Refer to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Section below for a discussion of the City’s future housing needs.

The RTP/SCS forecasts that the County’s households will grow to 4,119,000, an increase of approximately 15 percent between 2023 and 2045; see Table 4.10-2. Additionally, the RTP/SCS forecasts that the South Bay Region’s households will grow from to 297,000, an increase of approximately 6.8 percent between 2023 and 2045; see Table 4.10-2. The RTP/SCS also forecasts that the City’s households will grow to 23,700, an increase of approximately eight percent between 2023 and 2045; see Table 4.10-2. When compared to the South Bay Regions household growth rate, Gardena’s growth rate would be significantly higher.

Employment
As shown in Table 4.10-4: Employment, 2019-2045, the County's 2019 employment totaled 4,767,204 jobs and is forecast to grow to 5,382,000 jobs by 2045, representing an increase of approximately 11 percent between 2019 and 2045. The City’s 2019 employment totaled 29,405 jobs and is forecast to grow to 32,100 jobs by 2045, representing an increase of approximately eight percent between 2019 and 2045, see Table 4.104. Comparatively, the City’s employment - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

growth is forecast to be approximately three percent higher than the County’s. To further inform the employment that exists nearby, Table 4.10-4 also presents the available employment in the nearby South Bay Region. The South Bay Regions’ 2019 employment totaled 418,617 jobs and is forecast to grow to 461,900 jobs by 2045, representing an increase of approximately nine percent between 2019 and 2045, see Table 4.10-4.

Table 4.10-4: Employment, 2019-2045
Jurisdiction 20191 20452 Change
County of Los Angeles 4,767,204 5,382,000 +614,796
+ 11.4%
South Bay Region3 418,617 461,900 +43,283
+9.4%
City of Gardena 29,405 32,100 +2,695+8.4%
Sources:

1. SCAG, SCAG Local Profiles Data 2019, April 2021.

2. Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Technical Report – Demographics and Growth Forecast.

3. The South Bay Region includes the cities of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Torrance.

Jobs to Housing Balance
The RTP/SCS states that the jobs to housing ratio is a “Comparison of median earningsfor intracounty vs. intercounty commuters for each county; analysis of relative housing affordability and jobs throughout the region.”1 The jobsto housing ratio is considered in balance when a subregion has enough employment opportunities for most people who live there and enough housing opportunities for most people who work there. The jobs to housing ratio is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in a project area. SCAG uses the jobs to housing ratio to assess the relationship between housing and employment growth. Further, the RTP/SCS states that “an imbalance between employment and housing in a community is a key contributor to local traffic congestion. These types of origin/destination disparities may also be considered an impediment to environmental justice” 2.According to SCAG, improvements in the balance of the jobs to housing ratio could result in a reduction to traffic congestion and related air quality problems. Communities with a jobs to housing ratio greater than 1.5 are considered “jobs rich” and those with a ratio less than 1.5 are considered “housing rich.” Table 4.10-5: Jobs to Housing Ratio, provides the County’s jobs to housing ratio and indicates the County is considered “housing rich” with a ratio of 1.30, which is less than 1.5. Table 4.10-5 also provides the City’s jobs to housing ratio and indicates the City is also considered “housing rich” with a ratio of 1.30, which is less than 1.5. Table 4.10-5 also provides the South BayRegion’s jobs to housing ratio and indicates the South Bay is also considered “housing rich” with a ratio of 1 Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy Plan, page 146. 2 Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy Plan.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

1.45, which is less than 1.5. However, the South Bay Region, while also considered housing rich, has an existing jobs-to-housing ratio that is higher than the City and County. Thus, the City would be providing housing that may be lacking in other areas of the South Bay Region where the jobs/housing ratio indicates a “jobs rich” community. Future predictions forecast the City gaining a higher proportion of jobs, but still remaining housing-rich, while the South Bay Region is forecast to gain a higher proportion of jobs to cross the threshold to be considered jobs rich. It is noted that despite the City’s existing jobs to housing ratio (i.e., being housing rich), SCAG’s RHNA allocated to the City 5,735 housing units for the 2021 – 2029 period; see the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Section below.

Table 4.10-5: Jobs to Housing Ratio
Jurisdiction 2022 20451
County of Los Angeles
Jobs 4,767,2042 5,382,000
Housing Units3 3,664,1824,5 4,119,000
County Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.30 1.31
South Bay Region5
Jobs 418,6172 461,900
Housing Units3 289,4554,5 297,000
South Bay Region Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.45 1.56
City of Gardena
Jobs 29,4052 32,100
Housing Units3 22,6244,5 23,700
City Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.30 1.35
Sources:

1. Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Technical Report – Demographics and Growth Forecast.

2. SCAG, SCAG Local Profiles Data 2019, April 2021.

3. Per SCAG Guidance, “household” refers to the number of occupied housing units while the DOF’s “household” population estimates are derived by multiplying the number of occupied housing units by the current persons per household. This analysis uses SCAG’s “household” methodology.

4. State of California, Department of Finance. (2022). 2022 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.

5. See Table 4.10-2 and Table 4.10-4, above.

6. The South Bay Region includes the cities of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Torrance.

4.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING
State
California State Housing Law
California State Housing Law (California Government Code [CGC] Article 10.6) establishes the requirements for the Housing Element of the General Plan, one of the seven mandatory General - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

Plan Elements. The General Plan 2006 (GGP) is the City’s General Plan which will guide the physical development in the City for the next 15-20 years. State law requires that Housing Elements identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and provide goals, policies, objectives, financial resources, and programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing (CGC §65580). The City’s Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on the following: 1) preserving and improving housing and neighborhood; 2) Providing adequate housing sites; 3) Assisting in the provision of affordable housing; 4) Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment; 5) Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities; and 6) Promoting sustainable housing. The California Legislature has determined that one of the State’s primary housing goals is to ensure every resident has a decent home and suitable living environment.

California Government Code §65588 requires that local governments review and revise the Housing Element of their comprehensive General Plans not less than once every eight years. For each review cycle, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) conducts a RHNA.

California Government Code §65583 sets forth the specific housing element content requirements. Included in these requirements are a jurisdiction’s obligations to provide their “fair share” of regional housing needs; see Regional Housing Needs Assessment Section below.

Regional and local
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency established under §6502 et seq. of the California Government Code. SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six-county region of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. The region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million persons in an area that encompasses more than 38,000 square miles. As the designated MPO, SCAG is the responsible agency for developing and adopting regional housing, population, and employment growth forecasts for local governments. Gardena is a member of the South Bay Cities COG, one of the SCAG region’s 14 subregional organizations.

SCAG’s demographic data is developed to enable the proper planning of infrastructure and facilities to adequately meet the needs of anticipated growth in the region. In September 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal, its RTP/SCS for 2020-2045. Major themes in the RTP/SCS include integrating strategies for land use and transportation; striving for sustainability; protecting and preserving existing transportation infrastructure; increase capacity through improved systems managements; providing more transportation choices; leveraging technology; responding to demographic and housing market changes; supporting commerce, economic growth and opportunity; promoting the links between public health, environmental protection and economic - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

opportunity; and incorporating the principles of social equity and environmental justice into the plan.

Connect SoCal includes a regional growth forecast that was developed by working with local jurisdictions using the most recent land use plans, policies, and assumptions. SCAG utilizes Connect SoCal’s (Transportation Analysis Zone) TAZ-level growth projections for regional modeling purposes and the projections are not adopted as part of Connect SoCal nor included as part of the Forecasted Regional Development Pattern. The growth forecasts do not affect a local jurisdiction’s authority or decision on future development projects or plans. When adopting Connect SoCal, SCAG recognized that cities and counties would foreseeably update their housing elements as part of General Plans and amend zoning to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA. For many cities and counties, SCAG acknowledged that the required RHNA and Housing Element may need to accommodate more housing units than reflected in Connect SoCal’s household and population growth projections for the jurisdictions.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The RHNA is a process performed periodically as part of the General Plan Housing Element updates at the local level. The RHNA process begins with the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s forecast of future statewide housing growth need, and the apportionment of this need to regional councils of governments throughout the State. SCAG is the agency responsible for developing an allocation methodology to allocate the region’s assigned share of statewide need to cities and counties by income level.

This “fair share” allocation concept seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility for the housing needs of its resident population, as well as the jurisdiction’s projected share of regional housing growth across all income categories. Regional growth needs are defined as the number of units that would have to be added in each jurisdiction to accommodate the forecasted number of households, as well as the number of units that need to be added to compensate for anticipated demolitions and changes to achieve an ideal vacancy rate. SCAG defines a “household” as an occupied DU.

The 6th RHNA cycle covers the planning period from October 2021 to October 2029. The housing construction need is determined for four broad household income categories: very low (households making less than 50 percent of area median income), low (50 to 80 percent of area median income), moderate (80 to 120 percent of area median income), and above moderate (more than 120 percent of area median income). The intent of the future needs allocation by income groups is to relieve the undue concentrations of very low-income and low-income households in a single jurisdiction and to help allocate resources in a fair and equitable manner.

Table 4.10-6: City of Gardena RHNA Allocation outlines the City’s RHNA allocation for the October 2021 through October 2029 period (i.e., 6th Cycle). As shown in Table 4.10-6, the City’s RHNA allocation totals 5,735 DU, with 26 percent designated for very low income, 13 percent for low income, 16 percent for moderate income, and 45 percent for above moderate income. The - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

City is required to ensure that sufficient sites that are planned and zoned for housing are available to accommodate its need and to implement proactive programs that facilitate and encourage the production of housing commensurate with its housing needs.

Table 4.10-6: City of Gardena RHNA Allocation
Income Level Percent of AMI1 Target (Units) Percent
Very Low 0-50% 1,485 26%
Low 51-80% 761 13%
Moderate 81-120% 894 16%
Above Moderate 120%+ 2,595 45%
Total 5,735 100%
Notes:
1 AMI = Area Median Income
Source: Southern California Association of Governments. (2021). SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation. Retrieved from:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785, accessed May 2023.

Gardena General Plan 2006
The City adopted the comprehensive Gardena 2006 General Plan (GGP) in 2006. The GGP constitutes the City’s overall plans, goals, and objectives for land use within the City’s jurisdiction.

The GGP Community Development Element provides a Land Use Plan with goals and policies associated with housing. The Land Use Plan has been updated several times since its adoption, with the most recent amendment in February 2023. The following goals and policies are applicable to the Project:
 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 1.1: Promote sound housing and attractive and safe residential neighborhoods.
o Policy LU 1.2: Protect existing sound residential neighborhoods from incompatible uses and development.
o Policy LU 1.4: Locate new medium- and high-density residential developments near neighborhood and community shopping centers with commensurate high levels of community services and facilities.
o Policy LU 1.5: Provide adequate residential amenities such as open space, recreation, off-street parking and pedestrian features in multifamily residential developments.
o Policy LU 1.6: Ensure residential densities are compatible with available public service and infrastructure systems.
o Policy LU 1.8: Minimize through-traffic on residential streets. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

The GGP Housing Element provides the following goals and policies for the treatment of housing:
 Goal 3.0: Minimize the impact of governmental constraints on housing construction and cost.
o Policy 3.3: Encourage the use of specific plans, overlays, and other mechanisms to allow flexibility in housing developments.
 Goal 4.0: Provide adequate residential sites through appropriate land use and zoning to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs. o Policy 4.1: Implement land use policies that allow for a range of residential densities.
o Policy 4.3: Encourage residential development within the new Housing Overlay. o Policy 4.5: Ensure the production of affordable units throughout the community to avoid over concentration in specific neighborhoods.
o Policy 4.6: Facilitate the development of mixed income projects.  Goal 5.0: Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice.
o Policy 5.2: Provide a range of housing options, locational choices, and price points to accommodate the diverse needs in Gardena and to allow for housing mobility.

4.10.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning population and housing. 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:
 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) (see Impact 4.10-1).
 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant).

4.10.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.10-1:

Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

The Project proposes to remove all existing onsite structures and, in their place, construct a 403- DU multi-family residential development with two types of residential uses: an apartment building with 328 DU at the Project site’s northeastern portion; and 75 townhome-style units within nine buildings at the Project site’s southern portion and along the western site boundary; see Exhibit 2-4: Conceptual Site Plan. Table 2-4: Land Use Summary – Proposed Apartment Building summarizes the apartment building’s proposed floor areas and various proposed apartment product types (i.e., 68 studio, 194 one-bedroom, and 66 two-bedroom). Table 2-5:

Land Use Summary – Proposed Townhomes summarizes the townhome proposed floor areas and the various proposed townhome product types (i.e., 30 two-bedroom, 35 three-bedroom, and 10 four-bedroom). Additionally, the Project’s Development Agreement (DA #2-21) would guarantee the City five percent (or 20 DU) affordable housing units for a period of 55 years.

The Project proposes 403 DU, thus, would induce population growth in the City directly through housing development. However, as concluded below, the Project’s forecast population growth is not considered substantial. Additionally, the Project does not propose to extend roads or other infrastructure, thus, would not induce population growth in the City indirectly.

Existing Plus Project Conditions
As previously noted, the Project is a residential development, thus, would induce population growth in the City directly through new housing. Table 4.10-7: Existing Plus Project Growth Forecast, compares the Project’s estimated population growth to existing 2023 population. As indicated in Table 4.10-7, the Project’s forecast population growth of 1,088 persons is estimated to increase the City’s existing 2023 population to 60,897 persons, representing an approximately

1.8 percent increase in population.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

Table 4.10-7: Existing Plus Project Growth Forecast
Description Housing
(Dwelling Units)
Population
(Persons)
City’s 2022 Existing Conditions1 22,264 59,809
Proposed Project 403 1,0882
Existing + Project 22,184 60,897
Percent Change from Existing +1.8% +1.7%
Notes:

1. State of California, Department of Finance. (2022). 2022 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.

2. Based on 403 DU, 100 percent occupancy, and 2.70 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance. (2022). 2022 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.).

General Plan Plus Project Conditions
The General Plan, which was adopted in 2006 and most recently updated in 2022, contains the City's housing and population forecasts at buildout in 2026.3 Table 4.10-8: General Plan Buildout Plus Project Growth Forecastspresents the City’s forecast housing capacity at buildout as 22,329 DU, with a forecast population of 63,799 persons. As indicated in Table 4.10-8, although the City’s existing housing stock of 22,624 DU has exceeded the City’s forecast housing capacity at buildout by approximately 295 DU, the City’s existing population of 59,809 persons is approximately 3,990 persons less than the City’s forecast population at buildout of approximately 63,799 persons.

The Project would require a General Plan amendment, zone change, as well as an adoption of a specific plan, to allow for development of up to 403 DUs on the Project site. However, given the Project site’s existing land use designation (i.e., Housing Overlay 4 (HO-4) on the northerly portion (approximately 1.32 acres), some of the Project’s forecast population growth was planned. As indicated in Table 4.8-2: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, the Project site’s maximum development capacity, based on the existing land use designations, is 40 DU (on the northerly portion) and/or approximately 228,690 SF of industrial floor area throughout the site. Therefore, approximately 10 percent of the Project’s 403 proposed DU was previously planned. Table 4.10-8 also presents the City’s forecast housing capacity at buildout as 22,329 DU, with a population of 63,799 persons. Table 4.10-8 also compares the Project’s estimated population growth of 1,088 persons to the General Plan’s forecast population at buildout. 3 City of Gardena. (2006). City of Gardena General Plan 2006 – Final Environmental Impact Report, Table 2 – Residential Capacity and Table 3 – Commercial, Industrial and Public Use Capacity.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

Table 4.10-8: General Plan Buildout Plus Project Growth Forecasts Description Housing
(Dwelling Units)
Population
(Persons)
City’s 2023 Existing Conditions1 21,781 59,809
2026 Forecast General Plan Buildout1 22,329 63,799
Proposed Project +403 +1,0882
Previously Planned Residential3 -40 -1084
Proposed Net Project +363 +980
2026 General Plan Plus Project 22,692 64,779
General Plan Plus Project % Change +1.6% +1.5%
Notes:

1. City of Gardena. (2006). City of Gardena General Plan 2006 Draft EIR Table 2: Residential Capacity. Gardena, CA.

2. Based on 403 DU, 100 percent occupancy, and 2.70 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance. (2022). 2022 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.).

3. See Table 4.8-2: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations.

4. Based on 40 DU, 100 percent occupancy, and 2.70 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance. (2022). 2022 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.).

As indicated in Table 4.10-8, when accounting for the previously planned 40 DU, the Project’s proposed net residential development of 363 DU would increase the General Plan’s forecast population at buildout by approximately 1.6 percent (980 persons). Therefore, the Project would induce unplanned population growth in the City directly through new housing based on General Plan buildout. However, the Project’s forecast net population growth of 980 persons is not considered substantial based on the following factors:
 It would constitute a nominal 1.6percent increase over the forecast population at buildout;
 As indicated in Table 4.10-1, the City’s existing population of 59,809 persons is approximately 3,990 persons less than the City’s forecast population at buildout of approximately 63,799 persons. Thus, the Project would be well within the City’s forecast population growth of 3,990 persons between 2023 existing conditions and buildout; and  The GGP 6th Cycle Housing Element includes a housing needs assessment in which it outlines local and regional conditions that are limiting housing production. These conditions include:
o New housing is needed as regional employment and population growth generate a demand for new housing throughout Southern California. o New housing is needed as Gardena’s current population increases and ages. o New construction housing is needed as most of Gardena’s existing multi-family residential uses (i.e., apartment units) are older housing stock that do not provide the types of amenities that renters are currently seeking. o New housing is needed when vacancy rates are low to ensure reasonable levels of choice and mobility in the marketplace.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

As shown in Table 4.10-6, the City’s RHNA allocation totals 5,735 DU, of which 2,246 are designated for low/very low-income. The Project would provide approximately 7.0 percent of the City’s total RHNA allocation. Additionally, the Development Agreement (DA #2-21) would guarantee the City five percent (or 20 DU) affordable housing units, which would be in furtherance of the City meeting their 6th Cycle RHNA allocation of 2,246 low/very low-income units.

Additionally, the Project would be in furtherance of various GGP goals. It is the City’s goal (GGP Land Use Goal 1) to “preserve and protect existing single-family and low/medium-density residential neighborhoods while promoting the development of additional high-quality housing types in the City.” The Project would further this goal by converting an industrial site into a residential one, which would contribute additional housing types in the City. Additionally, the Project would be in furtherance of meeting various GGP Housing Element Policies. GGP Housing Element Goal 3 which aims to “minimize the impact of governmental constraints on housing construction and cost” by “encouraging the use of special development zones and other mechanism to allow more flexibility in housing developments.” GGP Housing Element Goal 4 states “provide adequate residential sites through appropriate land use and zoning to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs” by implementing land use policies which allow for a range of residential densities, encouraging development within the new Housing Overlay, especially production of affordable housing, and to facilitate development of mixed income projects Additionally, GGP Housing Element Goal 5 states “promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice” by providing “a range of housing options, locational chouses, and price points to accommodate the diverse needs in Gardena and to allow for housing mobility.” See Table 4.9-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis, which provides a consistency analysis of the Project to the applicable GGP policies.

Therefore, although the Project would induce unplanned population growth in the City based on General Plan forecasts, the Project’s population growth is not considered substantial given the factors discussed above. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

SCAG RTP/SCS Plus Project Conditions
SCAG’s RTP/SCS forecasts the City’s population will increase by approximately 5,891 persons, or approximately 9.0 percent between 2023 and 2045; see Table 4.10-2. Similarly, SCAG’s RTP/SCS forecasts the City’s households will increase by approximately 1,919 households, or approximately 8.1 percent between 2023 and 2045. SCAG’s RTP/SCS assumes 23,700 households in the City by 2045, with a population of 65,700 persons. Table 4.10-9: SCAG RTP/SCS 2045 Plus Project Growth Forecast evaluates the Project’s contribution to 2045 growth forecasts. As indicated in Table 4.10-9, the Project’s proposed residential development would increase the RTP/SCS’ forecast 2045 population by approximately 1.6 percent (1,088 persons). - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

Table 4.10-9: SCAG RTP/SCS 2045 Plus Project Growth Forecast Description Households/Housing
(Dwelling Units)
Population
(Persons)
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS1 23,700 65,700
Proposed Project +403 +1,0882
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS Plus Project 24,103 66,788
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS Plus Project % Change 1.7% 1.6%
Notes:

1. Southern California Association of Governments. (2021). SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation. Retrieved from:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785, accessed May 2023.

2. Based on 403 DU, 100 percent occupancy, and 2.70 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance. (2022). 2022 Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.).

The Project exceeds the 2045 RTP/SCS households and population growth projection estimates and would induce unplanned population growth directly. The RTP/SCS Growth Forecast is determined on the GGP land use designations and their potential for residential development within the City. The RTP/SCS was adopted prior to the adoption of the 2021 to 2029 Housing Element and RHNA Allocations, and the recently adopted Housing Element and land use designations have not been included in the RTP/SCS forecast. Therefore, the Project would induce unplanned population growth in the City directly through new housing based on 2045 RTP/SCS forecasts. However, the Project’s forecast net population growth of 1,088 persons is not considered substantial concerning the RTP/SCS based on the following factors:
 It would constitute a nominal 1.6 percent increase over the forecast population in 2045;  The Project site is partially within a Housing Overlay Area and was envisioned to be redeveloped from Industrial to Residential land uses with adoption of the 2021 Housing Element; and
 The Project would help the City meet its RHNA Allocation, including its low-income units.

As previously discussed, communities with more than 1.5 jobs per DU are considered “jobs rich” and those with fewer than 1.5 jobs per DU are considered “housing rich.” The City’s existing jobsto-housing ratio of 1.30 indicates the City is currently housing rich. Inclusive of the Project’s proposed 403 DU, the City’s jobs-to-housing ratio would decrease from 1.30 to 1.28, indicating the City would continue to be housing rich. The City’s employment is forecast to increase by 8.4 percent between 2019 and 2045. The City’s jobs-to-housing ratio is also forecast to increase from

1.30 to 1.35 between 2023 and 2045. Comparatively, Table 4.10-5 indicates the South Bay Region is also considered “housing rich” with a ratio of 1.45. Future predictions forecast the City gaining a higher proportion of jobs, but remaining housing-rich, while the South Bay Region is forecast to gain a higher proportion of jobs to cross the threshold and be considered jobs rich. Thus, the City would be providing housing that may be lacking in other areas of the South Bay Region where the jobs/housing ratio indicates a “jobs rich” community. Additionally, by providing multi-family housing with amenities, the Project would encourage job growth in the area as employers look - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

to housing opportunities in developing areas to attract potential employees. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.10.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential cumulative population and housing impacts are assessed relative to the GGP and regional plans, including SCAG’s RTP/SCS population, housing and employment projections.

SCAG’s regional growth projections reflect recent and past trends, key demographic and economic assumptions and include local and regional policies. Local jurisdictions participate in the growth forecast development process.

As discussed above, the Project proposes 403 DU, which are forecast to increase the City’s population by approximately 1,088 persons (approximately 1.8 percent growth over existing conditions). As concluded above, the Project’s increase in dwelling units is within the RTP/SCS forecast values and would not exceed the estimated growth. The Project’s forecast population of 1,088 persons is within the City’s forecasted population growth and the additional housing would help the City meet its RHNA allocation. As indicated in Table 4.10-10: Existing Plus Cumulative Growth Forecast, the cumulative forecast population growth (proposed Project combined with the related projects) is 4,955 persons, or 8.3 percent over the City’s existing population of 59,809 persons.

Table 4.10-10: Existing Plus Cumulative Growth Forecast Description Housing
Units
Persons per
Household Population
Existing 202211 22,623

2.71 59,809
Proposed Project 403 1,0882
Related Projects 1,4323 3,8662
Cumulative
(Project + Related Projects6) 1,835 4,955
Existing 2023 + Cumulative 24,458 -- 64,764
Existing 2023 Plus Cumulative % Change 8.1% -- 8.3%
Notes:

1. 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.

2. Based on 403 DU, 100 percent occupancy, and 2.70 persons per household.

3. See Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects.

As indicated in Table 4.10-11: SCAG RTP/SCS 2045 Plus Cumulative Growth Forecast, the cumulative forecast population growth (proposed Project combined with the related projects) is 4,955 persons, or 8.3 percent over SCAG’s forecast 2045 population for the City of 65,700 - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

persons. Note this conservatively assumes that all related projects are not already accounted for in the existing adopted General Plan, which is the basis for SCAG’s forecasts. Therefore, the Project and other cumulative projects would induce growth which is not accounted for in SCAG forecasts. However, as shown in Table 4.10-6, the City’s RHNA allocation totals 5,735 DU.

Cumulative development of 1,835 DU would provide approximately 32 percent of the City’s total RHNA allocation. However, the RTP/SCS was adopted prior to the adoption of the 2021 to 2029 Housing Element and RHNA Allocations, and the recently adopted Housing Element and land use designations have not been included in the RTP/SCS forecast. As such, cumulative development would induce unplanned population growth in the City directly through new housing based on 2045 RTP/SCS forecasts. However, the cumulative forecast population growth is not considered substantial. Cumulative development would be subject to compliance with GGP Land Use Goals and the City’s Housing Element, which identifies the need for new housing to meet demands throughout southern California and specifically within the City, to account for a growing and aging population, replacement of older housing stock, and to ensure reasonable levels of choice and mobility in the marketplace.

The related projects would also be subject to project-level review and project-specific measures would be required, as needed, to reduce significant impacts. Given the Project’s consistency, as well as the potential for other related projects to be generally consistent with the population and housing policies. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s impacts concerning unplanned population growth would not be cumulatively considerable.

Table 4.10-11: SCAG RTP/SCS 2045 Plus Cumulative Growth Forecast Description Households/Housing
(Dwelling Units)
Population
(Persons)
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS1 23,700 65,700
Cumulative (Project + Related Projects)2 1,835 4,955
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS Plus Cumulative 25,535 70,655
2045 Forecast RTP/SCS Plus Cumulative % Change +7.7% +7.5% Notes:

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

2. See Table 4.10-10.

4.10.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning population and housing have been identified.

4.10.7 REFERENCES
California Employment Development Department, Labor Information Division. (2023). Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties – Annual Average 2022 Employment. Retrieved from:
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfhist/22aacou.pdf, accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

California Employment Development Department, Labor Information Division. (2023). City of Gardena Unemployment Rates (Labor Force). Retrieved from:
https://data.edd.ca.gov/en/Labor-Force-and-Unemployment-Rates/Local-AreaUnemployment-Statistics-LAUS-for-Califo/53ai-w4j9, accessed May 2023. City of Gardena. (2021). City of Gardena 2021-2029 Housing Element. Gardena, CA.

City of Gardena. (2006). City of Gardena General Plan 2006 Land Use Element, updated in 2022.

Gardena, CA
City of Gardena. (2006). City of Gardena General Plan 2006 Draft EIR Table 2. Gardena, CA Southern California Association of Governments (2020). Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Southern California Association of Governments (2020). Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report.

Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy Plan, page 146.

Southern California Association of Governments. (2021). 6th Cycle Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation Plan. Retrieved from:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785. Los Angeles, CA.

Southern California Association of Governments. (2001). Employment Density Study Summary Report, pages 4-16. Yorba Linda, CA: The Natelson Company, Inc.

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 4.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing

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

4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts for any of the public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, schools, and other (e.g., library) public facilities). 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 on readily available public resources.

4.11.1 EXISTING SETTING
Regional Setting
Fire Protection
The City contracts with Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) to provide fire protection and emergency medical services. The LACFD protects 4.1 million residents in 60 cities and unincorporated County of Los Angeles (County) areas.1 The LACFD is responsible for fire response, vehicle accidents, public assistance, medical emergencies, water rescue, and hazardous materials response.

Table 4.11-1: Fire Stations Serving the Project Site presents the two LACFD fire stations within the City that would serve the Project site, as well as their locations and distances fromthe Project site. The fire station nearest the Project site is Fire Station 158, which is approximately 0.9-mile northwest of the Project site.

Table 4.11-1: Fire Stations Serving the Project Site
Station
Number Address Distance From
Project Site (miles)
Fire Station 158 1650 West 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247 0.9
Fire Station 159 2030 West 135th Street
Gardena, CA 90249 3.1
Source: County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (No Date). Fire Station Locator. Retrieved from: https://locator.lacounty.gov/fire, accessed May 2023.
1 County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2021). Annual Report. https://fire.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/LACoFD-2020-AnnualReport_Final_081722.pdf. Accessed on September 30, 2022. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

Police Protection
Police protection services to the Project site are provided by the Gardena Police Department (GPD). The GPD employs a personnel force of 120 employees, 88 of which are sworn police officers.2 The GPD station nearest the Project site is at 1718 West 162nd Street, approximately

0.9 mile to the northwest.

Schools
The Project site is within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) boundaries. 3 Table 4.11-2: LAUSD School Facilities, lists the public schools that serve the Project site, as well as their existing capacity and enrollment. There are also private schools serving Kindergarten through 12th grades in the Project area.

Table 4.11-2: LAUSD School Facilities
School1 Capacity2 Enrollment
(2020-2021)3
Available
Capacity
Denker Avenue Elementary School (K-5) 826 7002 126
Robert E. Peary Middle School (6-8) 1,376 1,217 159
Gardena Senior High School (9-12) 1,496 1,490 6
Note:

Capacity is based on 2018-2019 enrollment.

Sources: 1 Los Angeles Unified Schools District. (No Date). Resident School Identifier. Retrieved from Resident School Identifier (lausd.net) e, accessed May 2023.
2 California Department of Education. (2023). School Accountability Report Card; Reported Using Data from the 2020-2021 School Year.

Retrieved from: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/, accessed July 2023.3 California Department of Education. (2021). School Accountability Report Card, Retrieved from: https://sarconline.org/public/findASarc, accessed August 2023.

Other Public Facilities
The Project site is within the Los Angeles County Library service area. Los Angeles County Library operates 84 community-based library outlets, including four cultural resource centers and four bookmobiles in 51 of 88 cities and unincorporated areas.4 Los Angeles County Library is responsible for maintenance and library improvements to meet library service demands. County Library’s Strategic Plan identifies goals and objectives including financial management and fundraising strategies to maintain and enhance library facilities to meet future demands. The librarynearestthe Project site is the Gardena Mayme Dear Library located at 1731 West Gardena Boulevard, approximately 0.8 mile to the northwest.
2 Gardena Police Department. (2022). History of Gardena Police Department. Retrieved from: http://www.gardenapd.org/history/, accessed May 2023.
3 Great Schools.(No Date). See What School District You Are In. Retrieved from: https://www.greatschools.org/school-district-boundariesmap/, accessed May 2023. 4 Los Angeles County Library. (2020). Library Locator. Retrieved from: https://lacountylibrary.org/library-locator/, accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

4.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING
State
California Code of Regulations Title 24 (California Building Standards Code) CCR Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), includes regulations for how buildings are designed and constructed, and are intended to ensure the maximum structural integrity and safety of private and public buildings. The CBSC, which applies to all applications for building permits, consists of 12 parts that contain CBSC administrative regulations for all State agencies that implement or enforce building standards. Local agencies must ensure the development complies with the CBSC standards. Cities and counties can adopt additional standards beyond the CBSC including CBSC Part 2, named the California Building Code (CBC), which is based upon the 2020 International Building Code, and CBSC Part 11, named the California Green Building Standards Code, also known as the CalGreen Code.

California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 2 - California Building Code The CBC contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment.

California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 9 - California Fire Code The California Fire Code (CFC) contains regulations consistent with nationally recognized accepted practices for safeguarding, to a reasonable degree, life and property from various hazards, including fire and explosion, among others. The CFC also contains provisions to assist emergency response personnel. The CFC is pre-assembled with the International Fire Code with necessary California amendments. The CFC is based on the 2021 adoption of the International Fire Code and integrates State amendments. The CFC contains fire safety-related building standards that are referenced in other parts of CCR Title 24. The CFC is updated once every three years; the 2022CFC took effect on January 1, 2023. The CFC sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training. The CFC provides minimum standards to increase the ability of a building or structure to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic reduction in fire losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

Assembly Bill 2926: Facilities Act of 1986
To assist in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development, Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 was enacted in 1986 and authorizes a levy of impact fees on new residential, commercial, and industrial development. The bill was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added §66000 et seq. to the Government Code. Under this statute, payment of school impact fees by developers serves as CEQA mitigation to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities.

Senate Bill 50
Senate Bill (SB) 50 (1998), which is funded by Proposition 1A, limits the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of developers as a condition of approving new development and provides instead for a standardized fee. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available; whether the school district is eligible for State funding; and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round schools, and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.

Local
2023 Los Angeles County Fire Code – Title 32
According to Los Angeles County Fire Code §101.3: Intent, this code’s purpose is to establish the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practice for providing a reasonable level of life safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. It also provides a reasonable level of safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. This code establishes regulations affecting or relating to structures, processes, premises, and safeguards regarding, but not limited to, fire hydrant systems, water supply, fire equipment access, and posting of fire equipment access. The City of Gardena has adopted the Los Angeles Fire Code.

Gardena 2006 General Plan
The Gardena 2006 General Plan (GGP) Community Safety Element provides a Public Safety Plan with the following goals and policies concerning public services:
 PS Goal 1: Maintain a high level of fire and police protection for residents, businesses, and visitors.
o Policy PS 1.6: Ensure that law enforcement, crime prevention, and fire safety concerns are considered in the review of planning and development proposals in the City. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services