Gardena City Council
January 14, 2025

 PS Goal 4: Increase public awareness of crime and fire prevention, and emergency preparedness and procedures.
o Policy PS 4.3: Promote professional management of multi-family residential buildings.

Gardena Municipal Code
Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 15.48 - Construction and Development Fees. This section outlines the development impact fees for multi-unit residential developments. These fees are imposed because “development and construction of new residential living units within the City creates an immediate and present danger to the existing quality of life and the ecology of the City and threatens to burden and overtax the existing public purposes of the City, such as the provisions of public services, utilities, water and drainage and the treatment and disposal of sanitary sewerage which affects the health, welfare, and safety of the community.” All proceeds from the fees collected under this chapter are applied to the costs incurred by the City associated with the burden increased by the multi-unit residential facilities, open space, drainage and other public facilities and services related thereto.

4.11.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions pertaining to public services. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as significance criteria in this section. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
 Result in 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, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
o Fire Protection (see Impact 4.11-1),
o Police Protection (see Impact 4.11-2),
o Schools (see Impact 4.11-3),
o Parks (see Section 4.12: Recreation), and
o Other Public Facilities (see Impact 4.11-4).
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

4.11.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.11-1:

Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The LACFD operates two fire stations in the City, but the fire station nearest the Project site is Station 158, which is approximately 0.9-mile northwest of the Project site.

The Project proposes a multi-family residential development comprised of a 328-unit apartment building and 75 townhome style units to replace the existing approximately 115,424 square feet (SF) of industrial buildings onsite. As concluded in Section 4.10: Population and Housing, the Project’s forecast population growth is approximately 1,088 persons. The Project’s forecast population growth would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services to the Project site. However, because the Project site is currently served by fire protection services and is located in a suburban setting where fire protection services and equipment/infrastructure are already in place, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities to maintain service objectives.

Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of fire protection facilities. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

It is also noted, the Project would be constructed with fire safety features in compliance with applicable provisions of the adopted Los Angeles County Fire Code, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures related to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, fire access, and water availability. Project development would also be subject to compliance with LACFD requirements for emergency access, fire-flow, fire protection standards, fire lanes, and other site design/building standards. Prior to Project approval, the Project building plans would undergo City and LACFD review to ensure the Project incorporates all applicable fire safety features. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for the new buildings, the LACFD would inspect all new structures to ensure that all fire safety features have been implemented and installed correctly. Additionally, the Project would be subject to payment of development fees at the time of Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy issuance, pursuant to GMC Chapter 15.48 to offset any increased costs for fire protection services. Compliance with this established regulatory framework would enhance fire and life safety, structural safety, and emergency access.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.11-2:

Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would be served by the GPD. The GPD station nearest the Project site is at 1718 West 162nd Street, approximately 0.5-mile to the northwest.

The Project proposes a multi-family residential development comprised of a 328-unit apartment building and 75 townhome style units to replace the existing approximately 115,424 SF of industrial buildings onsite. As concluded in Section 4.10: Population and Housing, the Project’s forecast population growth is approximately 1,088 persons. The Project’s forecast population growth would incrementally increase the demand for police protection services to the Project site. However, because the Project site is currently served by police protection services and is located in a suburban setting where police protection services and equipment/infrastructure are already in place, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered police protection facilitiesto maintain service objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of police protection facilities. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Additionally, through the City’s Site Plan Review process, the GPD would review the Project concerning emergency access and site/facility security requirements and recommendations. GPD would review Project plans to ensure compliance with applicable City regulations to ensure adequate site signage, lighting and other crime safety preventative measures are implemented.

GPD review would act to ensure that development would conform to GPD emergency access and thereby reducing demands on law enforcement services. Additionally, the Project applicant would be subject to compliance with GMC Chapter 15.48, which requires payment of development impact feesto help offset any increased costs for law enforcement services. Project compliance with the established regulatory framework would enhance the Project’s police protection.

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

Impact 4.11-3:

Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project proposes 403 dwelling units including 328 apartment units and 75 townhomes.

Table 4.11-3: Project Forecast Student Generation, provides the student generation rates by grade level5 and the Project’s forecast student population growth. As shown in Table 4.11-3, the Project is forecast to generate a student population growth of approximately 151 new students within the LAUSD.

Table 4.11-3: Project Forecast Student Generation
Grade Students per
Dwelling/Household
Estimated Project
Student Generation
Transitional Kindergarten – 6 0.195 79
7 – 8 0.054 22
9 – 12 0.107 44
Special Day Class 0.015 6
Total 151
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District. (2022). 2020 Developer Fee Justification Study, Table 3: LA Unified Student Generation Factors.

The Project’s forecast student population growth would incrementally increase the demand for school facilities and services. Table 4.11-4: Project Forecast Student Generation by School presents the school capacity with the Project included and indicates sufficient capacity exists at the existing elementary and middle school facilities to accommodate the Project’s forecast student population, but insufficient capacity exists at the high school. However, the Project would be subject to payment of school impact fees in accordance with SB 50. Pursuant to Government Code §65995(3)(h), “payment of statutory fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use or development of real property…” Additionally, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered school facilities to maintain service objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of school facilities. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
5 Los Angeles Unified School District. (2022). 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study, Table 3: LA Unified Student Generation Factors. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

Table 4.11-4: Project Forecast Student Generation by School Schools Serving Project Available
Capacity1
Estimated
Project Student
Generation
Capacity with
Project
Included
Sufficient
Capacity Exists?
Denker Avenue Elementary
School (K-5) 126 79 47 Yes
Robert E. Peary Middle
School (6-8) 159 22 137 Yes
Gardena Senior High School
(9-12) 6 44 -38 No
Special Day Classes1 - 61 - Yes
Notes:
1 See Table 4.11-2.

There is leftover capacity at the three schools serving the Project site that could accommodate the six students in Special Day Classes Source: Los Angeles Unified School District. (2022). 2020 Developer Fee Justification Study, Table 3: LA Unified Student Generation Factors.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.11-4:Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities, need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library facilities? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project’s forecast population growth would incrementally increase the demand for library services, and specifically at the Gardena Mayme Dear Library, which is the library facility nearest the Project site. However, the County Library system has developed a Strategic Plan that identifies goals and objectives including financial management and fundraising strategies to maintain and enhance library facilities to meet future demands. Strategic initiatives associated with the Strategic Plan include Tell the Library Story; Affirm the Library as a Center for Learning; Expand and Support the Digital Library; Transform the Role of the Library as Place; Support and Cultivate the Community’s Creativity; Develop the Library as a Center for Community Engagement; and Develop Staff Prepared for the Future. It is also noted, there are four additional libraries within an approximately 2.0-mile radius of the Project site. Additionally, the County library system has expanded access to online e-books, audiobooks, movies, music, and newspapers. As such, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered library facilities to maintain service objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of library facilities. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.11.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the public services 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 concluded above, all Project impacts concerning public services are considered less than significant, as the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered government facilities to maintain service objectives. The proposed Project, combined with cumulative development projects would result in incremental increases in public service demands as the number of people, buildings, businesses, roads, and utilities would increase.

Fire Protection
The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of fire protection services is the LACFD service area. The LACFD operates on a regional aid approach where emergency response units are dispatched as needed based on unit availability, rather than municipal or determined service boundaries. This regional response concept ensures that service levels are maintained throughout the entire LACFD service area. Further, as cumulative development would occur as redevelopment in a suburban area where government services and facilities are already provided, cumulative development would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new/physically altered fire protection facilities, as new facilities would not be needed. Consequently, the Project combined with other cumulative development would result in less than significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning fire protection. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning fire protection services.

Police Protection
The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of police protection services is the Gardena Police Department service area. Through the City’s Site Plan Review process, the Gardena Planning Department and Building Division would review the cumulative development projects on a project-by-project basis concerning access and other safety measures. Further, as cumulative development would occur as redevelopment in a suburban area where government services and facilities are already provided, cumulative development would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new/physically altered police protection facilities, as new facilities would not be needed. Consequently, the Project combined with other cumulative development would result in less than significant cumulative environmental impacts - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

concerning police protection. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning police protection services.

Schools
The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of schools is the LAUSD jurisdiction.

Construction of the Project, along with cumulative development of projects within LAUSD jurisdiction, would incrementally increase student population and thus demand for LAUSD facilities. The potential growth associated with cumulative development within the LAUSD would not require new or physically altered school facilities, as excess capacity currently exists the LAUSD, and each project would be evaluated to verify capacity exists on a project-by-project basis. Development fees would be assessed against cumulative residential, commercial, and industrial development, which would mitigate impacts resulting from the increased demand for school-related facilities services. Consequently, the Project combined with other cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning school facilities. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning schools.

Other Public Facilities
The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of libraries is the County Library system.

Development of the proposed Project, combined with other cumulative development, would create additional demand on the LACL system. Through the development review process, cumulative development would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine their Library demands and the conditions for their establishment and operation. Further, as cumulative development would occur as redevelopment in a suburban area where government services and facilities are already provided, cumulative development would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new/physically altered library facilities, as new facilities would not be needed. Consequently, the Project combined with other cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning libraries. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning libraries.

4.11.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning public services have been identified.

4.11.7 REFERENCES
City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006: Community Safety Element, Public Safety Plan, updated 2022. Available at https://www.cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/generalplan8.pdf. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (2021). Annual Report. https://fire.lacounty.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2022/08/LACoFD-2020-Annual-Report_Final_081722.pdf. Accessed on September 30, 2022.

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (No Date). Fire Station Locator. Retrieved from:
https://locator.lacounty.gov/fire, accessed October 2023.

County of Los Angeles Fire Department. (No Date). Fire Station Locator. Retrieved from:
https://locator.lacounty.gov/fire, accessed May 2023.

Ed-Data Education Data Partnership. (2022). 2021-2022 School District Data. Retrieved from:

EdData - Home Page (ed-data.org), accessed May 2023.

Gardena Police Department. (2022). History of Gardena Police Department. Retrieved from:
http://www.gardenapd.org/history/, accessed May 2023.

Great Schools. (No Date). See What School District You Are In. Retrieved from:
https://www.greatschools.org/school-district-boundaries-map/, accessed May 2023.

Los Angeles County Library. (2020). Library Locator. Retrieved from:
https://lacountylibrary.org/library-locator/, accessed May 2023.

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2022). 2020 Developer Fee Justification Study.

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2022). 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study, Table 3: LA Unified Student Generation Factors.

Los Angeles Unified Schools District. (No Date). Resident School Identifier. Retrieved from Resident School Identifier (lausd.net) e, accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn

4.12 RECREATION

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation

4.12 RECREATION
This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental park facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Additionally, this section analyzes the Project’s potential to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 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.

4.12.1 EXISTING SETTING
Similar to many cities in the County of Los Angeles (“County”), Gardena is a developed community with limited opportunities to expand its parks and recreation resources. Table 4.12-1: Parks and Recreational Facilitiesin Gardena, lists and describes the City’s parks and recreational facilities and indicates Gardena has six public parks, one community center, one municipal pool, one parkette, and two gymnasiums.

Table 4.12-1: Parks and Recreational Facilities in Gardena Facility Address Size (Acres) Distance to
Project Site
Bell Park 14708 South Halldale Avenue 1.9 1.6 miles N
Freeman Park 2100 West 154th Place 3.0 2 miles N/W
Mas Fukai Park 15800 South Brighton Avenue 4.9 0.8 mile N Nakaoka Community Center 1670 West 162nd Street - 0.9 mile N/W Rush Gymnasium Rowley Park and Gymnasium 13220 South Van Ness Avenue 18.7 3.8 miles N/W Arthur Johnson Park 1200 West 170th Street 6.8 0.4 mile S/E Thornburg Park 2320 West 149th Street 2.5 2.5 miles N/W Source: City of Gardena. (No Date). Gardena Facilities. Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/gardena-facilities-2/, accessed May, 2023.

The City park nearest the Project site is Arthur Lee Johnson Memorial Park, located 0.4-mile to the southeast, at 1200 West 170th Street. The Arthur Lee Johnson Memorial Park offers several amenities such as a 7,000 square foot (SF) skate park and various sports fields.1 The Gardena Recreation and Human Services Department also hosts various recreational and after-school 1 Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District. (2016). Arthur Johnson Park. Retrieved from:
http://egis2.lacounty.gov/rposd/Details.aspx?id=36, accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation

programs in City parks and community buildings. In addition to public parks, there is a natural willows wetland in the City. The Gardena Willows Wetland Preserve is an 8.0-acre protected natural habitat in the City’s southeast portion.
2 There are several regional recreation and park facilities near the City that are available to Gardena residents including Chester L. Washington Golf Course to the north, Helen Keller Park to the northeast, Rosecrans Recreation Center to the east, and Alondra Park and Golf Course to the northwest. These regional facilities offer a wide range of recreational amenities including basketball courts, baseball and soccer fields, volleyball courts, a golf course, lake fishing, playgrounds, and picnic and barbeque areas.

4.12.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
There are no federal regulations concerning recreational facilities that are applicable to the Project.

State
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477) states that “the legislative body of a City or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” Quimby Act fees may be used for developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities. The Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a case-by-case basis with new residential development. Fees are only imposed on subdivisions.

State Public Park Preservation Act
The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is the state Public Park Preservation Act. Under the Public Resource Code, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non-park use unless compensation or land, or both, are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides no net loss of parkland and facilities. 2 City of Gardena. (2006). City of Gardena General Plan 2006 Draft EIR, Page 101. Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/General-Plan-Update-2006-Final-EIR.pdf, accessed May 2023. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation

Landscaping and Lighting Act
The Landscaping and Lighting Act (California Streets and Highways Code §22500 et seq.) enables cities, counties, and special districts to acquire land for parks, recreation, and open space. A local government may also use the assessments to pay for improvements and maintenance to these areas. In addition to local government agencies (i.e., counties and cities), park and recreation facilities may be provided by other public agencies, such as community service districts, park and recreation districts, etc. If so empowered, such an agency may acquire, develop, and operate recreational facilities for the public.

State of California Open Space Standards
State planning law provides a structure for the preservation of open space by requiring every city and county in the state to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency a “local open-space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open-space land within its jurisdiction” (Government Code §65560). The following open space categories are identified for preservation:

Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas that require special management or regulation due to hazardous or special conditions.

Open space for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not limited to, natural vegetation, fish and wildlife, and water resources.

Open space for resource management and production, including, but not limited to, agricultural and mineral resources, forests, rangeland, and areas required for the recharge of groundwater basins.

Open space for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to, parks, and recreational facilities, areas that serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations (such as trails, easements, and scenic roadways), and areas of outstanding scenic and cultural value.

Open space for the protection of Native American sites, including, but not limited to, places, features, and objects of historical, cultural, or sacred significance such as Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located on public property (further defined in California Public Resources Code §§5097.9 and 5097.993).

Local
Gardena 2006 General Plan
The Gardena 2006 General Plan (GGP) Community Resources Element provides goals and policies concerning recreational facilities in the Open Space Plan. - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation

 OS Goal 1: Maintain and upgrade the existing parks and recreation facilities to meet the needs of all residents.
o Policy OS 1.3: Encourage adequate funding and capital improvement program to promote the ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation of City facilities.  OS Goal 2: Increase the supply and quality of parkland, open space, and recreational programs.

Gardena Municipal Code
Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 15.48 - Construction and Development Fees. This section outlines the development impact license fees for multi-unit residential developments.

These fees are imposed because “development and construction of new residential living units within the city creates an immediate and present danger to the existing quality of life and the ecology of the city and threatens to burden and overtax the existing public purposes of the city, such as the provisions of public services, utilities, water and drainage and the treatment and disposal of sanitary sewerage which affects the health, welfare, and safety of the community.” All proceeds from the fees collected under this chapter shall be applied to the costs incurred by the city associated with the burden increased by the multi-unit residential facilities, open space, drainage and other public facilities and services related thereto. GMC §15.48.040 imposes a fee rate of $1,000 per dwelling unit, except for affordable units.

GMC Chapter 17.20 - Park and Recreation Dedication and Fees. This chapter specifies that the City requires either the dedication of land, the payment of fees, or a combination of both for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel map for residential subdivisions. Gardena has set a fee that may be paid in lieu of land dedication in the amount of $10,000 per unit (Resolution No. 6433).

4.12.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions pertaining to recreation. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as significance criteria in this section. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
 Result in 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, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
o Parks (see Impact 4.12-1),
 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (see Impact 4.12-2), or
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation

 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (see Impact

4.12-2).

4.12.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.12-1:

Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental park facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project does not propose to provide or physically alter a park facility. However, the Project could incrementally generate a demand for new or physically altered park facilities.

As mentioned above, under GMC Chapter 17.20, the developer is required to pay $10,000 per unit on a subdivision map. Under this requirement, the Project Applicant would pay $750,000 for recreational purposes. Additionally, under GMC Chapter 15.48, the Project Applicant would pay an additional $383,000, which may also be used for recreational purposes.

Any future development of new or rehabilitation of existing parkland or open space would be subject to review under CEQA to determine the potential adverse physical impacts associated with such improvements. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning the need for new or physically altered governmental park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.12-2:

Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation

The Project’s forecast population growth of approximately 1,088 persons could incrementally increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities; see Table 4.10-7: Existing Plus Project Growth Forcast. However, this incremental increase would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of an existing recreational facility would occur or be accelerated. To offset the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, the Project proposes interior, exterior, and private open space uses. The Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (Section VI. Landscape and Open Space Plan) specifies that the Project must provide a minimum of 16,400 SF (50 SF per unit) of private open space and 22,698 SF of outdoor common open space for the proposed apartments and 3,750 SF (50 SF per unit) of private space and 7,645 SF of indoor and outdoor common open space for the proposed townhomes. The Project may provide additional private open space (such as balconies for certain dwelling units) for residents and their guests use and enjoyment.

The Project’s common open space and amenities consist of a series of courtyards and open areas distributed across the Project site and within the apartment building for use by residents and their guests. Overall, the Project proposes approximately 50,493 SF of open spaces, including approximately 20,150 SF of private open space and approximately 30,343 SF of common open space.

The Specific Plan separates the proposed open space and amenities by Subarea A (Apartment Building Area) and Subarea B (Townhome Area). Each Subarea A unit would be provided a minimum of 50 SF of private open space. The amenities proposed in Subarea A’s public open space are as follows: roof deck with BBQs and seating areas; swimming pool with BBQand seating areas; a dog park; fitness room; club houses; and a courtyard with seating area, and game tables.

Each Subarea B unit would be provided 50 SF of private open space (i.e., balconies and roof decks). The amenities proposed in Subarea B’s public open spaces are as follow: swimming pool with BBQ and seating areas; dog park; club house; and paseos with seating areas.

Therefore, considering the Project’s proposed open spaces and recreational amenities, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

The open spaces and recreational facilities discussed above are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this EIR. As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and implementation of the specified mitigation measures, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Given the proposed open spaces and recreational facilities’ nature and scale, their construction-related noise impacts are not considered significant with mitigation incorporated.

Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant - ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation

environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed open spaces and recreational facilities.

Mitigation Measures
See MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, COA HAZ-1, COA HAZ-2, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3.

4.12.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the recreation impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development within Gardena, according to the related projects; see Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects. The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of parks and recreation is the City of Gardena.

As concluded above, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning the need for new or physically altered governmental park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Additionally, considering the Project’s proposed open spaces and recreational amenities, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. However, the adverse physical effects on the environment associated with construction of the Project’s proposed open spaces and recreational facilities would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated.

As indicated in Table 4.10-10: Existing Plus Cumulative Growth Forecast, the Project’s forecast population growth when combined with the related projects is 4,955 persons. Project development, when combined with other cumulative development, would generate additional demand on the existing City parks and recreational facilities due to population growth. Through the development review process, cumulative developments would be evaluated on a project-byproject basis to determine their parkland demands and the conditions for their establishment and operation. Payment of GMC fees and/or land dedications by cumulative developments would mitigate the impacts from cumulative demands for parkland and recreational facilities to less than significant levels. Consequently, the Project combined with other cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning parks and recreational facilities.

4.12.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning park and recreational facilities have been identified.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation

4.12.7 REFERENCES
City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006, Open Space Plan, updated 2022. Retrieved from: https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/generalplan6.pdf, accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. (2006). City of Gardena General Plan 2006 Draft EIR, Page 101. Retrieved from:
https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/General-Plan-Update-2006- Final-EIR.pdf, accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. (No Date). Gardena Facilities. Retrieved from:
https://cityofgardena.org/gardena-facilities-2/, accessed May, 2023.

Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District. (2016). Arthur Johnson Park.

Retrieved from: http://egis2.lacounty.gov/rposd/Details.aspx?id=36, accessed May 2023.
- ======
Kimley>>>Horn

4.13 TRANSPORTATION

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

4.13 TRANSPORTATION
This purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to transportation, and analyze the Project’s potential to conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b); substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses; or result in inadequate emergency access. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the existing regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

Information in this section is based primarily on transportation data provided in the following resources:
 CEQA Transportation Impact Assessment, 16911 Normandie Project (“CEQA Transportation Impact Assessment”) (Fehr & Peers, January 2023); see Appendix 4.13-1:

CEQA Transportation Impact Assessment.
 Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Local Transportation Assessment (“Local Transportation Assessment”) (Fehr & Peers, August 2023); see Appendix 4.13-2: Local Transportation Assessment.

It is noted, Kimley-Horn conducted a third-party review on behalf of the City of Gardena (“City”) of the Project’s CEQA Transportation Impact Assessment and Local Transportation Assessment; see Appendix 4.13-1 and Appendix 4.13-2. The third-party review concluded the analyses meet the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines.

4.13.1 EXISTING SETTING
Project Area Transportation System
Transit Facilities
The Project site is located less than a mile walking distance from five bus routes:
 Line 1X (GTrans): Connects the LA Metro C Line Redondo Beach Station and Gardena to Downtown Los Angeles. Route 1X runs express service between Redondo Beach Boulevard and Harbor Freeway C (Green)/J (Silver) Line Station where connections can be made to Downtown Los Angeles. There are two bus stops within 0.25-mile of the Project site: both are located on 166th Street and Brighton Avenue (eastbound and westbound).  Line 2 (GTrans): Circles Western, Imperial Highway, Vermont, Normandie and PCH up to just past the 105 freeway and south to Harbor UCLA Medical Center. The northbound stop is approximately 0.8 mile from the Project site at Vermont Avenue and Gardena Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

Boulevard and the southbound stop is approximately 0.6 mile at Vermont Avenue and 170th Street.
 Line 1 (Torrance Transit): This line goes from Del Amo Fashion Center at Carson and Hawthorne Boulevards to Figueroa Street located at the 105 Freeway. Both the northbound and southbound stops are at Vermont Avenue and Gardena Boulevard approximately 0.8 mile from the Project site.
 Line 13 (Torrance Transit): This line goes from Veteran’s Park in Redondo Beach, north to Artesia Boulevard through Hermosa Beach to Vermont Avenue, past California State University Dominguez Hills, and ending in the City of Commerce across from the Crystal Casino. Both the eastbound and westbound stops are approximately 0.4 mile from the Project site at Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.  Line 344 (Metro): This line goes from Palos Verdes Drive and Hawthorne Boulevard to Artesia Boulevard, and then along Vermont Avenue to the Harbor Gateway Transit Center. The bus stops are both approximately 0.4 mile from the Project site, also at Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Ave.
 Harbor Gateway Transit Center: The Transit Center, located at 731 West 182nd Street, is a large bus station that serves as a transport hub for the South Bay region of Los Angeles County, including the City of Gardena. The J line can be accessed from this station, which provides transit to both downtown Los Angeles and San Pedro. Numerous other lines can also be accessed from this station. The Transit Center also includes a 980-space park and ride. The Transit Center is approximately 0.9 mile from the Project site.

Roadway Facilities
Regional access to the Project site is provided via four major freeways: the Century freeway (I-105) to the north; the northern segment of the San Diego freeway (I-405) to the south and east; and the Harbor freeway (I-110) and the Gardena Freeway SR-91 (becomes West Artesia Boulevard) to the east. From I-105, access to the Project site is provided via Crenshaw Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, from I-405, access is provided via Normandie Avenue, from I-110, access is provided via Artesia Boulevard at the City’s northern portion, which intersects with Normandie Avenue, and from SR-91, access is provided via Artesia Boulevard in the City’s southern portion, which intersects with Normandie Avenue.

The key roadways providing local access to the Project site are described below. Overall, the roadway network surrounding the Project site is provided by a network of major, arterial, and collector streets. The following describes the key roadway facilities that serve the Project site and their classifications, as specified in Figure CI-1: Roadway Network in the Gardena General Plan Circulation element.

Normandie Avenue. Normandie Avenue is a north/south Major Collector with two lanes in each direction that runs through the City. Normandie Avenue is designated as a truck route within the City. Left-turn lanes are provided at major intersections. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

hour (mph). On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. The Union Pacific Torrance Branch railroad right of way (ROW) crosses Normandie Avenue and runs along the Project site’s eastern frontage. Normandie Avenue is designated as a truck route within the City.

Artesia Boulevard. Artesia Boulevard is an east/west Arterial with three to four lanes in each direction that is under local jurisdiction. Artesia Boulevard transitions into SR-91 east of Vermont Avenue under Caltrans jurisdiction. Artesia Boulevard contains a raised median, and the posted speed limit is 45 mph. There are left-turn pockets at all intersections. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of Artesia Boulevard.

Gardena Boulevard.Gardena Boulevard is an east-west Collector that runs through Gardena with a short jog at Normandie Avenue. Gardena Boulevard has one lane in each direction and a posted speed of 30 mph east of Normandie Avenue and 25 mph west of Normandie Avenue. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street, with angled parking provided east of Normandie Avenue.

West 166th Street. 166th Street is an east-west Collector that runs from Gramercy Place in Torrance to Berendo Avenue in Gardena. 166th Street is classified as a Local Street except for the segment between Western Avenue and Normandie Avenue, where it is classified as a Collector.

On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street, and the posted speed limit is 25 mph east of Normandie Avenue and 30 mph west of Normandie Avenue. A raised median is provided east of Normandie Avenue that contains the Union Pacific Railroad Torrance Branch railroad ROW and double tracks.

West 169th Street. 169th Street is an east/west Local Street that runs from Denker Avenue to Normandie Avenue with one lane in each direction. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of 169th Street.

West 170th Street. 170th Street is an east/west Local Street that runs from Denker Avenue to Normandie Avenue where it dead ends and then picks up again on the other side of Normandie Avenue to Vermont Avenue with one lane in each direction. 170th Street west of Normandie Avenue does not connect to Normandie Avenue or the segment east of it. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of 170th Street and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.

Brighton Way. Brighton Way is a north/south Local Street that runs from 169th Street to 170th street with a shared lane for each direction. Although classified as a Local Street, Brighton Way is currently a public alleyway. On-street parking is not provided.

Pedestrian Facilities
Existing sidewalks are provided along the Project frontage and within a continuous and complete pedestrian network in the surrounding area. Sidewalks along the south side of 169th Street are discontinuous for a short segment from just west of the Project site to the alley west of Brighton Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

Avenue. Sidewalks are also not present on Brighton Way. Marked crosswalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian signals are provided at the nearest signalized intersections along Normandie Avenue at 166th Street and 170th Street, which provide direct access to nearby bus transit stops (see Transit discussion above) and surrounding land uses.

Bicycle Facilities
There are no bicycle facilities (separated or protected) currently on Normandie Avenue, West 169th Street, or West 170th Steet along the Project site frontages. However, there are existing and proposed South Bay Bicycle Master Plan (SBBMP) bike routes near the Project site; see the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Section below.

Railroad Facilities
The Project site includes a railroad spur from the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) northern track; see Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map. Thisspur is associated with the former onsite industrial operations but is no longer in use. The parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site is occupied by UPRR tracks. Additionally, Normandie Avenue contains public and private railroad tracks along the road's western boundary. The railroad tracks cross onto the roadway’s eastern side along the Project's frontage.

4.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act
The ADA of 1990 prohibits discrimination toward people with disabilities and guarantees that they have equal opportunities as the rest of society to become employed, purchase goods and services, and participate in government programs and services. The ADA includes requirements pertaining to transportation infrastructure. The Department of Justice’s regulations for Titles II and III of the ADA, known as the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Designs, set minimum requirements for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. These standards apply to accessible walking routes, curb ramps, and other facilities.

State
Senate Bill 375 - Sustainable Communities Strategies: Land Use Planning Senate Bill (SB) 375 provides a planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional transportation plans (RTP) and funding priorities in order to help California meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals established in Assembly Bill (AB) 32. SB 375 requires that RTPs Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

developed by metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) (e.g., Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG]) incorporate a “sustainable communities’ strategy” (SCS) that would achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). SB 375 also includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects, such as TransitOriented Developments (TODs).

Senate Bill 743
The Steinberg Act (SB 743) (also known as the Environmental Act) was enacted in 2013 to shift the focus of transportation analysis from driver delay to reducing GHG emissions, creating multimodal networks, and promoting mixed land uses. SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the State CEQA Guidelines to provide alternative level of service metrics for transportation impact evaluations. In December 2018, the updated State CEQA Guidelines were approved, shifting traffic analysis from delay and operations to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) when evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA.

Measurements of transportation impacts may include VMT, VMT per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. According to SB 743, projects should aim to reduce VMT and mitigate potential VMT impacts through the implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. Agencies were to have fully implemented the new CEQA mandates for transportation by July 1, 2020.

Regional
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted on September 3, 2020. The RTP/SCS aims to create a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. Connect SoCal 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. The Connect SoCal Program EIR (SCH #2019011061) addresses the cumulative impact of future development and associated infrastructure improvements for the SCAG region, which includes Los Angeles County and the City of Gardena. The RTP/SCS is available on SCAG’s website at:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx.

South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
The intent of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan (SBBMP) is to guide the development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network and set of programs and policies throughout the cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance for the next 20 years. The Master Plan has a unique focus on cross-city consistency and connectivity that is often lacking in singular city bike plans. Upon plan adoption, each Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

participating city would be eligible for grant funding sources. Master Plan Figure 4-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena, depicts Gardena’s existing and proposed bike lanes and identifies the following facilities in the Project site’s vicinity:

Existing
 Class III bike route1 exists along Normandie Avenue between West 170th Street and West 182nd Street. This bike route is near the Project site’s southeastern corner.
 Class III bike route exists along West 166th Street between Brighton Avenue and Berendo Avenue, approximately 0.12-mile north of Project site.  Class III bike route exists along Gardena Boulevard between Andrews Place and Brighton Avenue, approximately 0.25-mile north of the Project site.  Class III bike route exists along West 170th Street between Normandie Avenue and Berendo Avenue, approximately 0.03 mile east of the Project site.

Proposed
 Bike Friendly Street2 segment is proposed along the Project site’s southern boundary along West 170th Street, between Denker Avenue and Vermont Avenue.

Local
City of Gardena 2006 General Plan
The Gardena 2006 General Plan (GGP) Community Development Element provides a Circulation Plan with the following goals and policies to enhance the development and maintenance of a transportation system:
 CI Goal 1: Promote a safe and efficient circulation system that benefits residents and businesses and integrates with the greater Los Angeles/South Bay transportation system. o Policy CI 1.1: Prioritize long-term sustainability for the City of Gardena, in alignment with regional and state goals, by promoting infill development, reduced reliance on single-occupancy vehicle trips, and improved multi-modal transportation networks, with the goal of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, thereby improving the health and quality of life for residents. 1 Class III Bike Routes share the right-of-way between vehicles and bicyclists with signage and optional shared lane markings to indicate that the road is a shared use facility. (Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition. (2011). South Bay Bicycle Master Plan.

Retrieved from: https://bchd.org/docs/healthy-communities/South_Bay_BMP_Draft_Final_Plan.pdf, accessed June, 2023.) 2 A Bike Friendly Streets are defined as local roads that have been enhanced with treatments that prioritize bicycle travel. These treatments include wayfinding signage, pavement markings and traffic calming. (Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition. (2011). South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. Retrieved from: https://bchd.org/docs/healthy-communities/South_Bay_BMP_Draft_Final_Plan.pdf, accessed June, 2023.)
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

 CI Goal 3: Develop Complete Streets to promote alternative modes of transportation that are safe and efficient for commuters, and available to persons of all income levels and disabilities.
o Policy CI 3.3: Maintain and expand sidewalk installation and repair programs, particularly in areas where sidewalks link residential neighborhoods to local schools, parks, and shopping areas.
o Policy CI 3.4: Maintain a citywide bicycle route and maintenance plan that promotes efficient and safe bikeways integrated with the MTA’s regional bicycle system.

City of Gardena Public Safety Plan
The Gardena Public Safety Plan (GPSP) outlines emergency response actions in the event of a large-scale disaster. The following policies are applicable to the Project:
 PS Goal 1: A community that is highly prepared and equipped to handle emergency situations in order to minimize loss of life, injury, property damage, and disruption of vital services.
o PS 1.7: Development Review. Ensure that law enforcement, crime prevention, and fire safety concerns are considered in the review of planning and development proposals in the City.
 PS Goal 2: A City that is adequately prepared for fire emergencies. o PS 2.2: Building and Fire Codes. Require that all buildings and facilities within Gardena comply with local, state, and federal regulatory standards such as the California Building and Fire Codes as well as other applicable fire safety standards. o PS 2.7: New Development. Require adequate fire protection services, fire protection plans, and emergency vehicle access for new development. Locate, design, and construct new development to minimize the risk of structural loss from fires.
 PS Goal 3: Protect the community from dangers associated with geologic instability, seismic hazards and other natural hazards.
o PS 3.1: California Building Code. Require compliance with seismic safety standards in the California Building Code, as adopted and amended.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

City of Gardena Municipal Code
Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) §17.08.170 - Improvements. This section requires any subdivider to improve, or agree to improve, all streets, highways, alleys, ways, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. These improvements must be installed at lines and grades and in accordance with specifications approved by the City engineer.

4.13.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning transportation. 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:
 Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (see Impact 4.13-1);  Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b) (see Impact 4.13-2);
 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (see Impact 4.13-3);  Result in inadequate emergency access (see Impact 4.13-4).

4.13.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following Project design feature (PDF) was incorporated into the analysis:
 PDF TR-1. Construction Traffic Management Plan: Prior to the start of construction, a Construction Traffic Management Plan would be prepared and submitted to City for review and approval. The Construction Traffic Management Plan would minimize the potential conflicts between construction activities, street traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Furthermore, the Construction Traffic Management Plan will include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
o Identified routes for vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians around traffic lane, parking lane and/or sidewalk closures as they are required; o Provisions to ensure that access remains unobstructed for land uses near the Project site during construction;
o Provisions to accommodate parking for construction workers either on-site or at offsite, off-street locations. Parking would be prohibited on streets in the vicinity of the Project site; and
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

o Prior to the start of construction, the Applicant would coordinate with the City and emergency service providers to ensure adequate access is maintained to the Project site and neighboring businesses and residences.

4.13.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.13-1:

Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Please refer to Table 4.8-4: Gardena General Plan 2006 Consistency, which evaluates the Project’s consistency with the GGP. The analysis finds that the Project is consistent with the applicable Community Development Element, Circulation Plan policies. Transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities are discussed further below:

Transit. As discussed above, public transit service to the Project area is provided by GTrans.

Nearby bus routes provide service at the following locations:
 Line 1X (GTrans): Eastbound and westbound stops on 166th Street and Brighton Avenue.  Line 2 (GTrans): Northbound stop on Vermont and Gardena Boulevard and the southbound stop on Vermont Avenue and 170th Street.
 Line 1 (Torrance Transit): Northbound and southbound stops on Vermont Avenue and Gardena Boulevard.
 Line 13 (Torrance Transit): Eastbound and westbound stops on Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.
 Line 344 (Metro): Northbound and southbound stops on Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.

Additionally, the western portion of the Project site is within 0.5-mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor, which is a transit corridor with fixed route bus service frequency of no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.3
The Project proposes a residential development with a forecasted population growth of approximately 1,088 persons, which has the potential to increase public transit ridership.

Further, per the NCSP, new residents who sign a 12-month lease would be offered one free monthly Metro pass, providing more access to public transit opportunities. However, as concluded in Table 4.8-4, the Project is consistent with the GGP Circulation Plan Policies concerning transit facilities. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, 3 The morning and afternoon peak commute hours are defined at 6:00 to 9:00 AM and 3:00 to 6:00 PM, respectively.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

ordinance, or policy concerning transit facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Roadways. Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided by the following four driveways:
 Driveway 1 would serve the apartment building’s parking garage from 169th Street west of Normandie Avenue,
 Driveway 2 would also serve the apartment building’s parking garage from southbound Normandie Avenue,
 Driveway 3 would serve the townhomes from 170th Street, and  Driveway 4 would also serve the townhomes from 169th Street.

Internal roadways would connect Driveways 3 and 4 to all townhomes but would not connect to the apartment building garage. Additionally, a continuous fire access lane (varying from 26 to 34 feet in width) is proposed through the townhome area to provide adequate emergency access.

All roadway and driveway improvements would be constructed pursuant to Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements. There are no proposed offsite roadway improvements.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning roadway facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Bicycle facilities. As described above, there are four existing Class III bike lanes (along Normandie Avenue, along West 166th Street, along Gardena Boulevard, and along West 170th Street).

However, there are no separated or protected bicycle facilities that currently exist along the Project site frontages. Additionally, there is one proposed Bike Friendly Street segment along the Project site’s southern boundary along West 170th Street. The Project proposes a residential development with a forecasted population growth of approximately 1,088 persons, which has the potential to increase the use of existing bicycle facilities.

The Project does not propose any changes to the existing bicycle facilitiessurrounding the Project site and it would not impede or alter the installation of the SBBMP’s -planned bicycle facilities, including the Bike Friendly Street segment planned along West 170th Street. Appropriate striping and signage would be installed at driveway approaches to meet Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)4 and City design standards and in accordance with roadway safety best practices. Additionally, the Project proposes 173 bicycle parking spaces, which supports GP Policy CI 3.4 to “maintain a citywide bicycle route and maintenance plan that promotes efficient and safe bikeways integrated with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA’s) regional bicycle system” by providing bicycle amenities and parking on-site for residents, visitors, and 4 The MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655, Subpart F.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

employees. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning bicycle facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Pedestrian Facilities. As discussed above, sidewalks are provided in the area surrounding the Project site, except the sidewalk on the south side of West 169th Street is not complete between the Project site and the alley to the west of Brighton Avenue, and on north side of West 170th Street and east side of Brighton Way. To provide a complete pedestrian path for residents, the Project proposesto constructsidewalks along the Project site frontage: on the south side of West 169th Street (between Brighton Way and Normandie Avenue), on the north side of West 170th Street (between Brighton Way and Normandie Avenue), on the west side of Normandie Avenue (between West 169th Street and West 170th Street), and on the east side of Brighton Way (between West 169th Street and West 170th Street). Additionally, the Project proposes to construct approximately 266 linear feet of offsite sidewalk improvements along the south side of West 169th Street, just west of the Project site, between Brighton Way and the alley to the west of Brighton Avenue. With the incorporation of these proposed sidewalk improvements, the Project would create a continuous and complete pedestrian network in the area surrounding the Project site. The sidewalk improvements would be constructed pursuant to GMC §17.08.170:

Improvements and designed to be consistent with the GGP Circulation Element requirements for a Local Street. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning pedestrian facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.

As evidenced by the analyses presented above, and as concluded in Table 4.8-4, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The project would result in a less than significant impact in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.13-2:

Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project has been analyzed below to evaluate consistency with State CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b) concerning VMT based on the Project’s Transportation Impact Assessment; see Appendix 4.13-1.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

Baseline VMT
The VMT methodology employed in this analysis is consistent with the screening methodologies and impact criteria adopted by the City in their SB 743 Implementation Transportation Analysis Updates Per the City’s adopted criteria, the baseline VMT for the City is calculated using the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) model developed by SCAG.

The methodology includes vehicle trips within the SCAG model to generate the following metric as applicable for the Project’s proposed residential uses:
 Home-based VMT per Capita: Home-based vehicle trips are traced back to the residence of the trip-maker (non-home-based trips are excluded) and then divided by the residential population within the geographic area. This metric is used to estimate VMT for residential land uses.

VMT Impact Thresholds
The City adopted a 15 percent below the baseline regional average VMT (as defined by the SCAG six-county region) as the impact threshold for land use development projects in the City. If a project would generate VMT higher than the threshold, then it would be expected to have a VMT impact, and if the project would generate VMT lower than the threshold, then it would be expected to have a less than significant VMT impact. The regional baseline VMT and City’s VMT impact thresholds are summarized in Table 4.13-1: Baseline Regional VMT and City of Gardena VMT Impact Thresholds.

Table 4.13-1: Baseline Regional VMT and City of Gardena VMT Impact Thresholds VMT Metrics – Regional Home-Based
VMT per Capita Baseline VMT City VMT Impact Threshold
2020 14.35 12.20
2040 12.97 11.02
Notes:
1 The VMT Impact Threshold is 15% below the respective Baseline VMT.

Source: Appendix 4.13-1, Table 1.

VMT Screening
The first step of a VMT analysis is to determine what type of analysis, if any, is needed. The City identified three screening criteria to assess if a VMT analysis would be required for a project. The three screening criteria are detailed below and applied to the Project to determine if it would have the potential to result in a VMT impact.

Screening Criteria 1: Project Type
Land use projects that generate less than 110 daily trips and local-serving retail projects, defined as commercial projects with local-serving retail uses less than 50,000, are presumed to have less Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

than significant VMT impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Therefore, these projects are screened out from completing a VMT analysis based on project size. Residential projects that are 100 percent affordable are also screened out.

Based on The Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) provides trip rate for multi-family land use types (i.e., mid-rise and 4.54 trips per unit, and lowrise and 6.74 trips per unit), the Project’s proposed 403 residential units are expected to generate approximately 1,715 average daily trips (ADT), which would be more than 110 ADT threshold.

Also, the Project is not 100 percent affordable. Therefore, the Project is not screened out from VMT analysis based on project type screening criterion.

Screening Criteria 2: Low VMT Area Screening
Residential projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Based on the City’s VMT impact threshold, low VMT for residential projects is defined as an area that generates VMT on a per capita basis that is 15 percent or more below the Regional Home-Based VMT per Capita. In the City, a low VMT area for residential projects generates no more than 12.20 Home-Based VMT per Capita in 2020 and 11.02 VMT per Capita in 2040; see Table 4.13-1. The traffic analysis zones (TAZ) contained in the SCAG model can be used to identify the City’s low VMT areas.

The Project is in a TAZ estimated to generate 11.01 VMT per capita, which is 23.3 percent below the 2020 SCAG regional baseline VMT of 14.35. When compared to the 2040 SCAG regional baseline VMT of 12.97, the Project’s VMT per capita is 15 percent below the 2040 SCAG regional baseline VMT. Therefore, the Project is in an area with low residential VMT, which means the Project can be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and can be screened out from further VMT analysis based on low VMT area screening.

In addition, OPR’s Technical Advisory suggests that a project in a low VMT area is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if the project incorporates similar features as other development in the vicinity, such as similar density, similar mix of uses, and similar transit access.

The TAZ contains primarily residential land uses in the areas surrounding the Project site, including the multi-family residential development to the north. Therefore, the Project has similar characteristics as development in the vicinity.

Screening Criteria 3: Transit Proximity Screening
Projects located in proximity to high quality transit may also be exempt from VMT analysis because they are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. OPR’s Technical Advisory defines Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) as a 0.5-mile radius around an existing or planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor (HQTC). A HQTC is defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service frequency of no Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. For this analysis, the morning and afternoon peak commute hours are defined as 6:00 to 9:00 AM and 3:00 to 6:00 PM, respectively.

Public Resources Code (PRC) §21155, which states in a portion not excerpted in the City's Guidance, "A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor." The Project has more than 25 percent of its area farther from Gardena’s High-Quality Transit Areas. Therefore, the Project is not screened out from VMT analysis under this screening criterion.

Conclusions
Table 4.13-2: VMT Screening Options for Land Use Projects, summarizes the findings of the Project’s analysis concerning the three screening criteria discussed above and notes the Project meets the City’s low VMT screening criteria. Therefore, based on the City’s transportation guidelines and impact thresholds, the Project can be screened out from a full VMT analysis and is presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact concerning VMT under the low VMT screening criteria.

Table 4.13-2: VMT Screening Options for Land Use Projects Screening
Category Screening Criteria
Project
Screened
Out?
Project Type
Screening
Presumed less than significant impact for 100 percent affordable projects, local serving retail projects (defined as less than 50,000 per OPR’s Technical Advisory) and projects that generate less than 110 daily trips.

No
Low VMT Area
Screening
Presumed less than significant VMT impact for projects located in low VMT generating TAZs. These TAZs generate total daily VMT per capita or per employee that is 15 percent less than the baseline level for the region.

Yes
Transit Proximity
Screening
Presumed less than significant VMT impact for projects located in high-quality transit areas. No
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

Impact 4.13-3: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
As previously mentioned in Impact 4.13-1, vehicular access to the Project Site would be provided by the following four driveways:
 Driveway 1 would serve the apartment building’s parking garage from 169th Street west of Normandie Avenue.
 Driveway 2 would also serve the apartment building’s parking garage from southbound Normandie Avenue.
 Driveway 3 would serve the townhomes from 170th Street.  Driveway 4 would also serve the townhomes from 169th Street.

Internal roadways would link Driveways 3 and 4 to all townhomes but would not connect to the apartment building garage. As depicted in Exhibit 2-4: Conceptual Site Plan, the Project’s driveways are perpendicular to the public ROW and spaced from existing intersections pursuant to GMC §17.08.170 and City standards.

The Project proposes Driveway 2 on Normandie Avenue that is near the Union Pacific Torrance Branch railroad. Train travel on this branch is relatively light and slow due to track curvature, atgrade crossings, and in-street train operations. Driveway 2 is proposed to be right-in/right-out only on southbound Normandie Avenue and would intersect the roadway at a right-angle outside of the railroad tracks. Additionally, a 125-foot median along Normandie Avenue would be installed that would surround the railroad tracks to prevent left-turns to and from Driveway 2. If train traffic is blocking egress from Driveway 2, Driveway 1 is available for ingress and egress associated with the apartment building.

As previously noted, Normandie Avenue contains railroad tracks along the road's western boundary. The railroad tracks cross onto the roadway’s eastern side along the Project's frontage.

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 Normandie Avenue pursuant to current CPUC standards and UPRR guidelines. As such, the Project proposes railroad track improvements along Normandie Avenue, which are designed pursuant to current CPUC standards and UPRR guidelines, and include the following:
 Removing approximately 170 linear feet of the spur track, which enters the Project site and serves the southernmost industrial building (16911 Normandie Avenue); Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

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

Therefore, the Project would not increase transportation hazards due to an incompatible use near a railroad, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

It is noted, the UPRR Parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site 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; see Section 4.9: Land Use.

Finally, the Project does not introduce incompatible vehicles or onsite equipment, such as farm equipment that could create a transportation hazard. The Project proposes construction and operation of a 403-DU multi-family residential development adjacent to other residential uses.

These land uses are typical of suburban areas, such as the City, and would not create a transportation hazard due to an incompatible use. Therefore, the Project would not increase transportation hazards due to an incompatible use and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.13-4:

Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
Project construction may require traffic lane, parking lane, and/or sidewalk closures, including along Normandie Avenue, but would not result in the complete closure of any public or private street. The Project would implement PDF TR-1, which requires a Construction Traffic Management Plan, approved by the City, to minimize the potential conflicts between construction activities, street traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians during construction, as well as ensure adequate emergency access.

With implementation of the Construction Traffic Management Plan, the temporary construction activities would not impede use of the streets for emergencies or access for emergency response Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

vehicles. Therefore, Project construction would not result in inadequate emergency access. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Operation
As described above, primary vehicular access to the Project site would be provided by four driveways; see Impact 4.13-1. Additionally, a fire access lane (varying from 26 to 34 feet in width) is proposed throughout the townhome portion of the Project site, which would provide emergency access. The LACFD requires fire lanes to be a minimum of 26 feet wide and include fire lane signage. Painted red curbs would delineate the limits of the fire lanes. Signage for the fire department with direction to units would be placed pursuant to LACFD requirements. The Project is also located approximately 1.0 mile from Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Station 158, which serves the City. While the Project is expected to increase the number of vehicles on local roadways, emergency responders have sirens and are able to bypass intersection queues, utilize two-way left-turn lanes, and use the opposite side of streets. The Project also does not propose any features that would inhibit emergency access to nearby areas.

Further, the Project site is located in an urbanized area where adequate circulation and access are provided to facilitate emergency response. The Project would be subject to compliance with GPSP5 policies, specifically PS 1.7, PS 2.2, PS 2.7 and PS 3.1.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact concerning emergency access during operation and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.13.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The context for assessing cumulative environmental impacts associated with transportation in the City is as follows: for transit facilities it is the GTrans, Torrance Transit, and Metro service areas; for roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and VMT, it is the City of Gardena.

Consistency with Applicable Plans, Ordinances, and Policies As described above, the Project’s Circulation Plan would be consistent with the GGP elements pertaining to the circulation system, concerning transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact. As with the proposed Project, each related project would be expected to demonstrate consistency with existing programs, plans, ordinances, and policies that address the City’s circulation system (such as the General Plan 5 City of Gardena. (2022). Public Safety Plan. Retrieved from https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Gardena_Public-SafetyElement_FINAL-FOR-ADOPTION.pdf.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

Circulation and Mobility Sub-Element). Additionally, each related project would be expected to show consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal. No significant cumulative impacts would occur for the proposed Project and the related projects concerning compliance with City circulation policies or standards adopted to protect the environment and support multimodal transportation options. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s potential impacts concerning consistency with applicable plans, ordinances, and policies would not be cumulatively considerable.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
For baseline conditions, the Project is screened out from further VMT analysis based on its location in a low VMT area. For cumulative conditions, a project that is below the VMT impact thresholds and does not have a VMT impact under baseline conditions would also not have a cumulative impact, provided it complies with long-term State environmental goals, such as reducing GHG emissions, and relevant plans, such as the SCAG RTP/SCS. The Project supports long-term environmental goals as an in-fill residential project that provides housing near commercial and employment areas. The Project is also aligned with the SCAG RTP/SCS because the Project is partially within a HQTA and provides housing development in a TAZ with downward trending VMT per capita, which is consistent with the RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s potential impacts concerning VMT and consistency with State CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b), would not be cumulatively considerable.

Hazardous Geometric Design Features
The Project does not propose any geometric design features or incompatible uses that would substantially increase hazards. A potentially cumulative impact would occur if the Project would combine with a related project to create or substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. There are no related projects adjacent to where the Project’s proposed railroad improvements are proposed. Additionally, the related projects would be required to provide their respective on-site and site-adjacent improvements and driveways, which would be subject to review/approval prior to construction, thereby reducing the potential for the improvements to create hazardous geometric features. Additionally, the Project’s residential use istypical of the surrounding suburban area and would not introduce incompatible uses. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s potential impacts concerning hazardous geometric design features would not be cumulatively considerable.

Emergency Access
The proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Primary vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via multiple driveways and a fire access lane throughout the townhome portion of the Project site, which would provide emergency access. The related projects would be required to show that they would not propose any features that would inhibit emergency access to nearby areas and would be subject to review/approval prior to construction Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

on a site-by-site basis. Further, subsequent projects would be required to comply with Gardena Public Safety Plan policies. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project would not cause a considerable impact concerning emergency access.

4.13.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning transportation have been identified.

4.13.8 REFERENCES
City of Gardena. (2020). Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022. Circulation Plan Update.

City of Gardena. (2022). Public Safety Plan. Retrieved from https://cityofgardena.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/Gardena_Public-Safety-Element_FINAL-FOR-ADOPTION.pdf.

Fehr and Peers. (2022). South Normandie Avenue Specific Plan Project (16911 South Normandie Avenue) CEQA Transportation Impact Assessment. San Diego, CA; see Appendix 4.13-1:

CEQA Transportation Impact Assessment.

Fehr and Peers. (2023). Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Local Transportation Assessment.

San Diego, CA; see Appendix 4.13-2: Local Transportation Assessment.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation

This page intentionally left blank.

Kimley>>>Horn

4.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

4.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to tribal cultural resources, identify potential impacts that could result from Project implementation, and as necessary, recommend mitigation to avoid or reduce the significance of impacts.

Information in this section is based primarily on in the following sources:
 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Development at 16911 South Normandie Avenue Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, California (Archeological Assessment); see Appendix 4.2-1: Archaeological Resources Assessment.  Tribal Cultural Resources Review for the 16911 South Normandie Avenue Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, California (Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment); see Appendix 4.14-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment.

BRC Consulting LLC conducted a third-party review of the Project’s tribal cultural resources analysis on behalf of the City; see Appendix 4.14-1. The third-party review concluded the analysis meets the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Additional resource information was obtained from available public resources, including among others, the Gardena General Plan 2006 (GGP). Additionally, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) letter in response to the Project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP), which is provided in Appendix 1.0-1: Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters, provides guidance on Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 compliance.

Tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §21074, include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant. A cultural landscape that meets these criteria is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. Historical resources, unique archaeological resources, or non-unique archaeological resources may also be tribal cultural resources if they meet these criteria.

4.14.1 EXISTING SETTING
Ethnographic Overview
See also Tribal Cultural Resources Review for the 16911 South Normandie Avenue Project, City of Gardena, California (SWCA 2022 [Appendix 4.14-1]) for the Cultural Resources Setting, and as summarized in this EIR section.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

The Project site is in an area historically occupied by the Gabrielino. Surrounding Native groups included the Chumash and Tatataviam/Alliklik to the north, the Cahuilla to the east, Serrano to the northeast, and the Luiseño/Juaneño to the south and southeast. In the post-European contact period, Mission San Gabriel included Natives of the greater Los Angeles area, as well as members of surrounding groups such as Kitanemuk, Serrano, and Cahuilla. There is little evidence that the people we call Gabrielino had a broad term for their group; rather, they identified themselves as an inhabitant of a specific community with locational suffixes (e.g., a resident of Yaanga was called a Yabit, much the same way that a resident of New York is called a New Yorker).

Native words suggested as labels for the broader group of Native Americans in the Los Angeles region include Tongva (or Tong-v) and Kizh (Kij or Kichereno), although there is evidence that these terms originally referred to local places or smaller groups of people within the larger group that we now call Gabrielino. Nevertheless, many present-day descendants of these people have taken on Tongva as a preferred group name because it has a Native American rather than Spanish origin. The term Gabrielino is used in the remainder of this report to designate Native American people of the Los Angeles Basin and their descendants.

The Gabrielino subsistence economy was centered on gathering and hunting. The surrounding environment was rich and varied, and the tribe took advantage of resources in the mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, riparian, estuarine, and open and rocky coastal eco-niches. The Gabrielino used a variety of tools and implements to gather and collect food resources. These included the bow and arrow, traps, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks. Groups residing near the ocean used oceangoing plank canoes and tule balsa canoes for fishing, travel, and trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands. Gabrielino people processed food with a variety of tools, including hammer stones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Food was consumed from a variety of vessels. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels.

At the time of Spanish contact, the basis of Gabrielino religious life was the Chinigchinich cult, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Chinigchinich gave instruction on laws and institutions, and also taught the people how to dance, the primary religious act for this society. The religion spread south into the southern Takic groups even as Christian missions were being built and may represent a mixture of Native and Christian belief and practices.

Deceased Gabrielino were either buried or cremated, with inhumation more common on the Channel Islands and the neighboring mainland coast, and cremation predominating on the remainder of the coast and in the interior. Remains were buried in distinct burial areas, either associated with villages or without apparent village association. Cremation ashes have been found in archaeological contexts buried within stone bowls and in shell dishes, as well as scattered among broken ground stone implements. Archaeological data such as these correspond with ethnographic descriptions of an elaborate mourning ceremony that included a Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

variety of offerings, including seeds, stone grinding tools, otter skins, baskets, wood tools, shell beads, bone and shell ornaments, and projectile points and knives. Offerings varied with the sex and status of the deceased.

Native American Communities in Greater Los Angeles
In general, it has proven very difficult or impossible to establish definitively the precise location of Native American villages occupied in the Ethnohistoric period. Native American place names referred to at the time of Spanish contact did not necessarily represent a continually occupied settlement within a discrete location. Instead, in at least some cases, the communities were represented by several smaller camps scattered throughout an approximate geography, shaped by natural features subject to change over generations. Many of the villages had long since been abandoned by the time ethnographers, anthropologists, and historians attempted to document any of their locations, at which point the former village sites were affected by urban and agricultural development, and Native American lifeways had been irrevocably changed.

Alternative names and spellings for communities, and conflicting reports on their meaning or locational reference, further confound efforts at relocation. Even with archaeological evidence, it can be difficult to conclusively establish whether any given assemblage represents the remains of the former village site.

Existing Tribal Cultural Resources
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File (NAHC) The NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) search conducted December 2021 indicated negative results (no tribal resources at the Project site); see Appendix B of the Tribal Cultural Resources Review for the 16911 South Normandie Avenue Project, City of Gardena, California, in Appendix 4.2-2.

California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) No tribal cultural resources were identified within the Project site as a result of the CHRIS records search. Although the precise location of any given village is subject to speculation, it is clear the greater Los Angeles area once contained many Gabrielino villages, including several concentrated along the banks of major waterways.

The closest ethnographically documented village to the Project site may be Amupubit, which is estimated to have been located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. Jautibit, another named ethnographic Native American settlement, has been mapped approximately 1.7 miles northeast and east-northeast of the Project site. Aside from the ethnographic evidence suggesting the location of these villages, little direct, indisputable archaeological evidence for the location of Native American villages has been produced to date. The Project site is in the vicinity of at least one previous Native American trade route (named “New Salt Road 1848–1878”) to the north of the site. A portion of the 1769 Portolá Expedition route is located approximately 10.7 miles north of Project site.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

Historical land uses at the Project site and surrounding area consisted primarily of ranching associated with the operation of Rancho San Pedro during the Spanish, Mexican, and Early American Periods. Ranching transitioned to agricultural land uses by the end of the 19th century, which included development of irrigation infrastructure. No evidence for specific intensive land uses at the Project site were identified in archival sources before the 1920s. By 1927, aerial photographs show the site developed with structures in the north and south that appear associated with agricultural land uses. The central portions of the site appear to have been subject to plow agriculture. These land uses are all likely to have disturbed the surface and nearsurface sediments, which would have destroyed or displaced Native American objects that may have once been present. Between the 1940s and 1960s, the Project site was more intensively developed as buildings, structures, and various hardscaping elements were constructed, further altering the physical setting and reducing the likelihood of any tribal cultural resources being preserved in the near-surface.

Archaeological remains associated with prehistoric or historic-era Native Americans can exist below paved surfaces within developed urban settings. While the CHRIS records search results did not identify any such Native American archaeological resources within the Project site or its immediate vicinity, most of the site was not inspected for archaeological resources because of the developed nature of the property. The site has been subject to multiple episodes of ground disturbance. As a result, archaeological material once located on the surface or in shallow deposits is unlikely to have been preserved, and although more deeply buried deposits could exist, the sensitivity for prehistoric and historic Native American archaeological resources is low to moderate.

Deeply buried archaeological deposits can exist within alluvium below historic period disturbances and may also be intermixed with historic period debris. Alluvial deposits in the Los Angeles Basin can be massive, extending hundreds of feet below the surface and containing sediments deposited long before human presence in North America. Most accumulations of alluvial sediments were formed by a combination of high- and low-energy depositional events.

High-energy events are less likely to have preserved any material remains left on the surface by Native Americans, whereas low-energy floods tend to produce more favorable environments for the preservation of cultural materials. There is no absolute measure of depth below the surface in which sediments with these properties occur and site-specific conditions must be considered.

Although such soil conditions are an indicator of a setting favorable for preservation, the presence of such soils alone is not an absolute indicator of the presence of tribal cultural resources. Qae alluvium, dating to greater than 12,500 years BP, is mapped within the Project site. Given the age of this formation, intact, naturally buried archaeological resources are not expected. Additionally, site disturbance associated with historic period developments and the fact that most of the Los Angeles Basin is composed of alluvium from this time period, suggest decreased levels of sensitivity. Based on the above, the sensitivity for tribal cultural resources at the Project site is considered low to moderate.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

See Section 4.2: Cultural Resources for further information on Non-Native American Resources.

4.14.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Enacted in 1966 and amended in 2000, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) declared a national policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the federal, state, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer and provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assisted Native American tribes to preserve their cultural heritage and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

State
California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to PRC §21084.2, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”
PRC §21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources” as either:
“(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of § 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of § 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.”
PRC §21074(b) states that a “cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

A unique archaeological resource (PRC §21083.2(g) or a nonunique archaeological resource (PRC §21083.2(h) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of PRC §21074(a).

Assembly Bill 52
On July 1, 2015, California AB 52 of 2014 was enacted and expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC §21084.2).

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be released. AB 52 requires that lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: (1) the California Native American tribe requested to the Lead Agency, in writing, to be informed by the Lead Agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.

Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe.

The parties must consult in good faith, and consultation is deemed concluded when either the parties agree on measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource (if such a significant effect exists) or when a party concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Traditional Tribal Cultural Places Act (Senate Bill 18) Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code §65352.3) requires local governments to consult with Native American tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to the adoption and amendment of general plans and specific plans. The consultation process requires (1) that local governments send the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) information on a proposed project and request contact information for local Native American tribes; (2) that local governments then send information on the project to the tribes that the NAHC has identified and notify them of the opportunity to consult; (3) that the tribes have 90 days to respond on whether they want to consult or not, and (4) that consultation begins if requested by a tribe and there is no statutory limit on the duration of the consultation. If issues Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

arise and consensus on mitigation cannot be reached, SB 18 allows a finding to be made that the suggested mitigation is infeasible.

California Government Code §§ 6254(r) and 6254.10
California Government Code § 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.” § 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports, maintained by, or in the possession of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the SHRC, the State Lands Commission, the NAHC, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a Native American tribe and a state or local agency.”
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5
California Health and Safety Code (CHS) § 7050.5 requires that, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or site disturbance or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined that the remains are not subject to the provision of California Government Code § 27491 or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner, and cause of death. If the coroner determines that the remains are that of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours.

California Public Resources Code § 5097.98
Public Resources Code §5097.98 stipulates that whenever the NAHC receives notification concerning discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner pursuant to CHS §7050.5, it shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the landowner’s permission, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the Native American remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with the appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The NAHC would designate the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for any future human remains found in the project area.

Local
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

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

4.14.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning tribal cultural resources. Criteria under CEQA states that if a project causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
 Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k) (see Impact

4.14-1), or
 A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe (see Impact 4.14-1).

According to PRC §21084.2, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. While what constitutes a “substantial adverse change” to a tribal cultural resource is not defined in the section, guidance on what constitutes a substantial adverse change under CEQA can be drawn from State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b). Although applicable specifically to historical resources (as defined in §15064.5(a)), an analogy can be drawn when assessing if there has been a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource. State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(1) defines a substantial adverse change as the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings, resulting in material impairment of the historical resource. According to State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(2), the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
 Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

 Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC §5020.1(k) or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC §5024.1(g), unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the Project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
 Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

In drawing an analogy, a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource could be considered to be the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings, resulting in material impairment of the tribal cultural resource.

Similarly, material impairment could include:
 Demolition or material alteration in an adverse manner those characteristics of a tribal cultural resource that justify its eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC §5020.1(k); or  Demolition of material alteration in an adverse manner those characteristics of a tribal cultural resource that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

PRC §21084.3 provides guidance on addressing impacts to tribal cultural resources and states that:
 Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.
 If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process provided in § 21080.3.2, the following are examples of mitigation measures that, if feasible, may be considered to avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts:
o Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.  Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; (b) protecting the traditional use of the resource; and (c) protecting the confidentiality of the resource.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

o Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
o Protecting the resource.

State CEQA Guidelines §15370 provides additional guidance on the types of mitigation that may be considered, and includes the following: avoiding impacts altogether; minimizing impacts; rectifying impacts through repair, rehabilitation, or restoration; reducing impacts through preservation; and compensating for impacts by providing substitute resources.

PRC §21082.3(b) indicates that if a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the agency’s environmental document shall discuss whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource and whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures avoid or substantially less the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource.

PRC §21080.3.2 indicates that as part of the consultation pursuant to §21080.3.1, California Native American tribes may propose mitigation measures, including, but not limited to, those recommended in §21084.3, capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource. Also, the lead agency may incorporate changes or additions to a project even if not legally required to do so.

4.14.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.14-1:

Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Tribal Cultural Sites
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

No tribal cultural resources were identified at the Project site as a result of the CHRIS records search or the NAHC’s SLF search. The closest ethnographically documented village to the Project site is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. Aside from the ethnographic evidence suggesting the location of this village, little direct, indisputable archaeological evidence for the location of Native American villages has been produced to date. The Project site is in the vicinity of at least one previous Native American trade route (named “New Salt Road 1848– 1878”) to the north and a portion of the 1769 Portolá Expedition route is located approximately

10.7 miles to the north.

Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known tribal cultural resource site, feature, place, or cultural landscape as no such resources have been identified within the Project site. Additionally, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known tribal cultural resource which is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources or a resource determined by the lead agency as no such resources have been identified within the Project site.

However, archaeological remains associated with prehistoric or historic-era Native Americans can exist below paved surfaces within developed urban settings. While the CHRIS records search results did not identify any such Native American archaeological resources within the Project site or its immediate vicinity, most of the site was not inspected for archaeological resources due to the developed nature of the property. The site has been subject prior ground disturbance such that any archaeological material once located on the surface or in shallow deposits is unlikely to have been preserved. More deeply buried deposits could exist; the sensitivity for prehistoric and historic Native American archaeological resources is considered low to moderate.

Notwithstanding and as discussed below, the Kizh Nation provided tribal archive information to the City to identify high cultural sensitivity of the Project location and why they have concerns for subsurface ground disturbance activities that may impact tribal cultural resources.

Pursuant to AB 52 requirements, on March 9, 2022, the City of Gardena notified the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project’s geographic area and that have requested notification of projects being considered by the City, pursuant to PRC §21080.3.1.

The following tribal contacts were informed:
 Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation  Mr. Charles Alvarez of the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
 Mr. Sam Dunlap of the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

The letters included a description of the Project, a map depicting the Project location, and the City’s contact information. Recipients were requested to respond within 30 days should they wish to consult under AB 52.

On August 17, 2022, the City received one request for consultation under AB 52 from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation). Tribal representatives expressed concerns should subsurface activities be associated with the Project. The Kizh Nation provided their knowledge of the Project site vicinity, including information about the natural environment and the area’s general history, and known villages and trade routes in the larger area. During the consultation call and in subsequent email communication, the Kizh Nation indicated that the Project site has a high sensitivity for the presence of unknown, subsurface archaeological resources; also see Section 4.3: Cultural Resources, for a discussion of the potential for encountering subsurface archaeological resources during ground disturbance. The Kizh Nation provided tribal archive information to the City to identify high cultural sensitivity of the Project location and why they have concerns for subsurface ground disturbance activities that may impact tribal cultural resources, which are included in Appendix 1.0-1 of this EIR.

During the consultation, the Kizh Nation representatives did not identify any known tribal cultural resources (as defined in PRC §21074) at the Project site, nor did they provide substantial evidence to support an impact. Notwithstanding, the Applicant agreed to the imposition of a mitigation measure requiring monitoring during construction. In subsequent correspondence dated August 17, 2022, the Kizh Nation provided mitigation recommendations. On June 15, 2023, the City accepted the proposed mitigation measures and concluded the consultation.

The Kizh Nation identified measures to mitigate potential impacts to as-yet undiscovered tribal cultural resources. The mitigation measures include requirements for retaining a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities (MM TCR-1), procedures in the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains and associated funerary objects (MM TCR-2), and procedures for burials and funerary remains (MM TCR-3). Following compliance with MMs TCR-1 through TCR-3, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. With mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.

Senate Bill 18 Consultation
On March 9, 2022, the City notified the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, California Native American Tribes that are on the Tribal Consultation List maintained by the California NAHC. In compliance with SB 18 requirements, and as Lead Agency, the City extended an invitation to consult on the Project. This consultation was intended to assist with identifying and/or preserving and/or mitigating potential Project impacts to Native American cultural places.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

Letters were sent by certified mail and email to the following:
 Mrs. Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair of the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians  Mr. Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation  Mr. Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians  Mr. Joseph Ontiveros of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians  Mr. Charles Alvarez of the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
 Mrs. Christina Conley, Tribal Consultant and Administrator of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
 Mr. Robert Dorame, Chairperson of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
 Mr. Sam Dunlap of the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
 Ms. Sandonne Goad, Chairperson of the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation  Mr. Anthony Morales, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
The letters included a description of the Project, a map depicting the Project location, and the City’s contact information. Recipients were requested to respond within 90 days should they wish to consult under SB 18. No responses were received requesting consultation. As previously noted, consultation was conducted with the Kizh Nation as a part of AB 52 consultation.

Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource site, feature, place, or cultural landscape.

Additionally, with incorporation of mitigation the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource which is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources or a resource determined by the lead agency.

Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of GroundDisturbing Activities:

A. The Applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “grounddisturbing activity” for the subject Project at all Project locations (i.e., both onsite and any off-site locations that are included in the Project description/definition and/or required in connection with the Project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a grounddisturbing activity.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground- disturbing activities, soil types, culturalrelated materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the Applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation to the monitor from a designated point of contact for the Applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the monitor to the Applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the Project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

E. Upon discovery of any TCRs or archaeological resources, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the monitor and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983).
• If the resources are Native American in origin, the Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
• If the archaeologist determines that the resource contains a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation shall be made available. The treatment plan shall Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. If not left in place, any historic or archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society for educational purposes.

MM TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code § 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the Project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease within 200 feet of the discovery. Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code § 5097.98 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods found with such remains shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code § 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the Project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the monitor determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the Project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f).)
E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

MM TCR-3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains. This mitigation measure shall only apply if the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation is designated the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”) by the NAHC:

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

A. The Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.

B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.

D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the Project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.

E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the Applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the Project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the Project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.

F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the Project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

4.14.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For purposes of the tribal cultural resources impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development within a 0.5-mile radius for tribal cultural resources, according to the related projects; see Table 3-2: Geographic Context for Cumulative Analysis. As indicated in Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects and depicted in Exhibit 3-1: Cumulative Project Locations, there are five related projects within the geographic context for the cultural resources analysis:

Related Project No. 2 (a multi-family condominium approximately 0.14 mile to the northeast); Related Project No. 3 (a small lot subdivision with three-story dwelling units approximately 0.08 mile to the northeast); Related Project No. 12 (a self-storage/warehouse development approximately 0.30 mile to the south); Related Project No. 15 (a townhome development approximately 0.50 mile to the south); and Related Project No. 16 (a mixed use development, including apartments and commercial retail and office space, approximately 0.30 mile to the north). As concluded above, the Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined in PRC §21074, as none are present on the Project site.

Therefore, no cumulative impact concerning tribal cultural resources would occur.

As concluded above, the potential exists for undiscovered tribal cultural resources to be adversely impacted during Project construction. With implementation of MMs TCR 1 through 3, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of these resources; a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated would occur in this regard.

Future cumulative development projects could encounter tribal cultural resources during ground disturbing activities. Thus, the potential exists for cumulative development to result in the adverse modification or destruction of tribal cultural resources. Potential tribal cultural resource impacts associated with the individual developments would be specific to each site. As with this Project, all cumulative development in the area would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA, AB 52, and SB 18, to evaluate the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources. All cumulative development would be subject to compliance with the existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning the protection of tribal cultural resources on a project-by-project basis, including consultation with tribes to identify whether a site may contain tribal cultural resources and if so, what mitigation measures may be required. Additionally, implementation of site-specific mitigation measures would reduce Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources

potential project impacts to as-yet unidentified tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels.

Similarly, all future development with the potential to impact tribal cultural resources would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable federal and state regulatory requirements, including General Plan goals and policies of the affected jurisdiction, intended to reduce and/or avoid potential adverse environmental effects. As such, cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would be mitigated on a project-by-project level, and in accordance with the established regulatory framework, through the established regulatory review process.

Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with the Project’s incremental effects and those of the cumulative projects would be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated.

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

4.14.7 REFERENCES
City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006. Retrieved from https://www.cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/generalplan7.pdf.

Salas, A. (2022). Personal communication, August 17, 2022.

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

SWCA. (2022). Tribal Cultural Resources Review for the 16911 South Normandie Avenue Project, City of Gardena, California; see Appendix 4.14-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment.

Kimley>>>Horn

4.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

4.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing utility and service system-related environmental and regulatory settings and evaluate the Project’s potential to result in significant environmental effects due to relocation or construction of new or expanded utilities or service systems (i.e., water, wastewater, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities), the relocation or construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development; result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the Project; generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity local infrastructure; and/or conflict with solid waste management and reduction strategies and regulations. 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 utilities and service systems data provided in the following documents:
 Water and Wastewater Technical Report (Fuscoe Engineering, April 4, 2023); see Appendix 4.15-1: Water and Wastewater Technical Report.  Water Resources Technical Report (Fuscoe Engineering, April 4, 2023); see Appendix 4.7-1: Water Resources Technical Report, and
 Energy Assessment (Kimley-Horn, May 17, 2023); see Appendix 4.3-1: Energy Assessment.

Information in this section is also based on readily available public resources, including among others, annual reports, and average usage information from utility providers whose service area includes the Project site.

It is noted that Kimley-Horn conducted a third-party review on behalf of the City of Gardena (“City”) of the Project’s Water and Wastewater Technical Report and Water Resources Technical Report on behalf of the City; see Appendix 4.15-1 and Appendix 4.7-1, respectively. The thirdparty review concluded the analyses meet the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

4.15.1 EXISTING SETTING
Water
Golden State Water Company (GSWC) supplies water to the Project site. The Project site is within GSWC’s Southwest system service area (GSWC Southwest). GSWC Southwest serves the cities of Gardena and Lawndale, as well as portions of the cities of Carson, Compton, El Segundo, Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, and Inglewood and unincorporated County of Los Angeles (County).

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Water Supply and Demand
Various water supply sources are available to GSWC to serve GSWC Southwest: adjudicated groundwater supplies, leased or purchased groundwater supplies, purchased water from Central Basin Municipal Water District (“CBMWD”) and West Basin Municipal Water District (“WBMWD”), and recycled water. GSWC Southwest also maintains emergency connections with neighboring agencies that allow it access to additional water sources or water in emergency conditions.

Adjudicated Groundwater Supplies
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. The Southwest System is supplied by two active, GSWC-owned Central Subbasin wells, and 12 active, GSWC-owned West Coast Subbasin wells. The West Coast [Sub]Basin was adjudicated in 1961 (Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No 506806). The West Coast Basin Judgment (West Judgment) limits the amount of groundwater each party can extract annually from the West Coast [Sub]Basin.

Groundwater producers held by the West Judgment have the right to annually pump the volume of water as decided in the adjudication. These limits are monitored by a court-appointed Watermaster.

Leased or Purchased Groundwater Supplies
GSWC purchases water from Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) and West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD). CBMWD is a wholesale water agency that purchases potable water supplies from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and recycled water supplies from Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) to distribute both within and outside the CBMWD service area. The WBMWD imports water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and delivers these supplies to investor-owned utilities, municipalities, a county waterworks district, and a groundwater agency to supplement locally available supplies.

Recycled Water Supplies
The GSWC Southwest system service area currently receives recycled water from the WBMWD as part of the district’s West Basin Recycled Water Project. The recycled water produced by WBMWD is used throughout the region for uses such as landscape irrigation, industrial applications, and other purposes such as groundwater injections to control seawater intrusion.

WBMWD owns all of the existing recycled water pipelines that fall within the boundaries of the GSWC Southwest service area, and WBMWD is planning to expand its distribution system to continue offsetting potable water demands.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Existing Onsite Water Demand
The Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and minimal landscaping Table 4.15-1: Estimated Existing Water Demand presents the Project site’s estimated existing water demand and indicates it totals 12,732 gallons per day (gpd).

Table 4.15-1: Estimated Existing Water Demand
Land Use Building Square
Footage1
Average Daily Water
Demand Factor2
(gpd per 1,000 SF)
3 Total Average Daily
Water Demand (gpd)
Industrial4 106,100 120 12,732
Total Existing Water Demand 12,732
Notes:
1 See Table 2-1: Existing Onsite Structure Summary.
2 Based on 120% of the wastewater generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works as the water meter records from the water purveyor (GSWC) was unable to provide this data. 3 Gpd = gallons per day; SF = square feet.
4 The specific industrial/warehouse occupancy type does not exist within the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document; therefore, the “Commercial Shops and Stores” factor was used as the basis of design.

Source: Appendix 4.15-1, Table 1.

Future Water Demands and Supplies
GSWC’s Final Urban Water Management Plan – Southwest 2020 (UWMP) is written as a water resource planning tool to effectively manage water supply, reliability, and demand. The UWMP draws on local, regional, and statewide inputs presents data and analyses as required by the California Department of Natural Resources and the CWC since 2015.1 Table 4.15-2: Normal and Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Through 2045 (AFY) and Table 4.15-3: Five Consecutive Dry Years Water Supply and Demand Through 2045 (AFY) present the Southwest System’s normal year, single dry-year, and multiple dry-year water demands through 2045. UWMP water demand forecasts are based on adopted general plans.

UWMP Tables 5-2 and 5-3 show that water supplies would meet the service area’s water demands for normal, single-dry, and multiple dry-year conditions through 2045. GSWC would meet future water demand through purchasing water from CBMWD and WBMWD. 1 Golden State Water Company. (2020). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Southwest Service Area. Page 1-2.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Table 4.15-2: Normal and Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Through 2045 (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year
Service Area Supply 26,939 27,347 27,761 28,181 28,608
Service Area Demand 26,939 27,347 27,761 28,181 28,608
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Single Dry Year
Service Area Supply 5,620 5,668 5,716 5,764 5,813
Service Area Demand 5,620 5,668 5,716 5,764 5,813
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Golden State Water Company. (2021). Southwest Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 5-2.

Table 4.15-3: Five Consecutive Dry Years Water Supply and Demand Through 2045 (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Year 1
Service Area Supply 29,633 30,082 30,537 31,000 31,469
Service Area
Demand 29,633 30,082 30,537 31,000 31,469
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Year 2
Service Area Supply 29,722 30,172 30,629 31,093 31,469
Service Area
Demand 29,722 30,172 30,629 31,093 31,469
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Year 3
Service Area Supply 29,812 30,263 30,721 31,187 31,469
Service Area
Demand 29,812 30,263 30,721 31,187 31,469
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Year 4
Service Area Supply 29,902 30,354 30,814 31,280 31,469
Service Area
Demand 29,902 30,354 30,814 31,280 31,469
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Year 5
Service Area Supply 29,992 30,446 30,907 31,375 31,469
Service Area
Demand 29,992 30,446 30,907 31,375 31,469
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Golden State Water Company. (2021). Southwest Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 5-3.

Water Infrastructure
GSWC-Southwest is located in southwestern Los Angeles County and serves the Cities of Gardena and Lawndale; parts of the cities of Carson, Compton, El Segundo, Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, and Inglewood; and the adjacent unincorporated communities of Athens, Del Aire, El Camino Village, Lennox, and Gardena Heights.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

The Project site is currently served by a public GSWC 8-inch water line that runs within the South Normandie Avenue right-of-way (ROW), east of the Project site. There is also an existing 8-inch water line along West 170th Street, south of the Project site and an existing 4-inch water line on Brighton Way, west of the Project site.

There are two fire hydrants in the Project’s vicinity: one hydrant is near the West 169th Street at South Normandie Avenue intersection; and the second hydrant is along South Normandie Avenue, approximately 245 feet north of West 170th Street. These two existing fire hydrants are serviced by the 8-inch main water line in South Normandie Avenue.

Wastewater
Local Wastewater Facilities. The City provides sewer services to its residential, commercial, and industrial customers within City limits. The City’s wastewater collection system includes over 88 miles of gravity sewer lines, among other facilities. The City’s local sewers discharge at over 100 locations along various LACSD interceptors. City of Gardena Sewer Master Plan Figure ES.1:

Existing Collection System depicts and Table ES.3: Detailed Capital Improvement Program describes the existing wastewater collection system within City limits. Asindicated, there are two sewer lines within the South Normandie Avenue ROW along the Project site’s eastern frontage:
an 8.0-inch diameter City/local sewer gravity main pipeline; and a LACSD regional trunk sewer (i.e., Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer). Additionally, there are three existing sewer house laterals at the Project site, which connect to the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer,2 but not to the City’s 8.0-inch diameter local sewer gravity main pipeline. See also LACSD Wastewater Facilities Section below.

LACSD Wastewater Facilities. The Project site is within the jurisdictional boundaries of LACSD, which consist of 24 districts that encompass 78 cities, including Gardena, and unincorporated County areas. The Project site is within LACSD District No. 5. LACSD operates and maintains facilities that collect and treat domestic and industrial wastewater (i.e., sewage). LACSD operates and maintains the regional wastewater collection system, which includes approximately 1,400 miles of sewers, 49 pumping plants, and 11 wastewater treatment plants.3 As previously mentioned, there are three existing sewer house laterals connecting from the Project site to LACSD’s Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer, which has a 17.1-inch diameter, with total capacity of 2.2 million gallons per day (mgd) and a peak flow of 1.7 mgd when last measured in 2017.
4 The Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer continues underneath South Normandie Avenue to the south and then connects to a network of sewer lines that ultimately convey wastewater to LACSD’s Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP).

The JWPCP, which is in the City of Carson approximately 5.8 miles south of the Project site, currently processes an average wastewater flow of 243.1 mgd and has a total permitted capacity 2 Fuscoe Engineering. (April 2023). Water And Wastewater Technical Report: Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project at 16911 S Normandie Ave, Gardena, California 90247. Page 8; see Appendix 4.15-1. 3 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. (No Date). Our Agency. Retrieved from: https://www.lacsd.org/about-us/who-we-are/our-agency , accessed May 2023. 4
Huffman, Mandy, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, personal communication, June 7, 2023.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

of 400 mgd.5 LACSD’s 2019 Annual Report notes that a pilot project to provide up to 500,000 mgd day of recycled water for indirect potable reuse was implemented at the JWPCP, with plans for full implementation in the future.

Existing Wastewater Generation
Table 4.15-4: Estimated Existing Wastewater Generation identifies the Project site’s estimated existing wastewater generation and indicates it totals approximately 10,610 gpd, with an estimated daily peak flow that totals 26,525 gpd.

Table 4.15-4: Estimated Existing Wastewater Generation
Land Use Building Square
Footage: 2030
Estimated Average Daily
Sewage Flow Factor
(gal/1000 SF gross area)1
Total
Wastewater
generation (gpd)
Estimated Daily
Peak Flow (gpd)2
Industrial 106,100 100 10,610 26,525
Total Existing Wastewater Generation 10,610 26,525
Note:
1 Based on the wastewater generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works. Because the Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies document does not specifically identify “warehouse” as an occupancy type, the Commercial Shops and Stores occupancy type was used as the basis of design. 2 Estimated Daily Peak Flow (gpd) = Average Daily Flow * 2.5 Source: Appendix 4.15-1, Table 2.

Stormwater and Drainage
See Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, for existing conditions concerning stormwater and drainage facilities.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides Electric power to the Project area and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas. Various companies provide telecommunications including AT&T, Direct TV, Dish Network, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and ViaSat. SCE, SoCalGas, and local telecommunications companies operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area, inclusive of the Project site.

Electric Power – Existing Demand and Infrastructure
The site is currently served by overhead power lines on the west side of South Normandie Avenue, West 170th Street, and Brighton Way that are owned and maintained by SCE.

Table 4.15-5: Estimated Existing Electrical Demand presents the Project site’s estimated existing electrical power demand and indicates it totals 875,071 Kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. 5 Ibid.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Table 4.15-5: Estimated Existing Electrical Demand
Land Use Electricity (kWh/year)1.2
Refrigerated Warehouse Rail 147,806
Unrefrigerated Warehouse Rail 323,613
Unrefrigerated Warehouse No Rail 84,173
Operational Water 319,479
Total Estimated 875,071
Notes: 1 CalEEMod was used to calculate the electrical power demand based on the existing industrial land use. 2 Kilowatt hours (kWh) Source: Appendix 4.3-1.

Natural Gas – Existing Demand and Infrastructure
The Project site is currently served by natural gas and there is existing infrastructure owned and maintained by SoCalGas on the Project site. There is a 20-inch transmission line in West 190th Street approximately 1.3 miles south of the Project site.6 Table 4.15-6: Estimated Existing Natural Gas Usage presents the Project site’s estimated existing natural gas demand and indicates it totals 392,942 thousand British thermal units per year (kBTU/yr).

Table 4.15-6: Estimated Existing Natural Gas Usage
Land Use Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)1.2
Refrigerated Warehouse Rail 6,042
Unrefrigerated Warehouse Rail 307,038
Unrefrigerated Warehouse No Rail 79,862
Total Estimated 392,942
Notes: 1 CalEEMod was used to calculate the natural gas demand based on the existing industrial land use. 2 Thousand British thermal units per year (kBTU/yr) Source: Appendix 4.3-1.

Solid Waste
Waste Resources of Gardena (Waste Resources) provides solid waste and recycling services for the City’s residential, commercial, and industrial customers, including the existing onsite land uses. Waste Resources uses the Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill for non-recyclable municipal solid waste disposal by way of its transfer station Waste Resources Recovery, at 357 West Compton Boulevard, in the community of West Rancho Dominguez. Construction and demolition debris are sent either directly to a recycling partner or to California Waste Services for sorting and recycling.7 The solid waste is disposed of at the Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill (Chiquita). 6 Southern California Gas Company. (2023). Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map – Los Angeles. Retrieved from: Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map - Los Angeles (arcgis.com) , accessed May 2023. 7 City of Gardena. (2022). Amended and Restated Agreement Between City of Gardena and Waste Resources of Gardena for Integrated Solid Waste Management Services
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

The Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill is a 639-acre landfill in Castaic, California. This facility accepts only non-hazardous solid waste for disposal. Solid waste received at this facility consists of municipal solid waste, residential and commercial waste, including yard waste, green waste (for composting or for recycling), clean fill soil and construction/demolition debris.8 CalRecycle reports Chiquita has a maximum permitted throughput of 12,000 tons per day (tpd) and a maximum permitted capacity of 110,366,000 cubic yards.9 Chiquita’s remaining capacity was estimated to total 60,408,000 cubic yards, as of August 24, 2018.

4.15.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Water Supply
Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act
The U.S. EPA administers the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the primary federal law that regulates drinking water quality and establishes standards to protect public health and safety.

The Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water State Department of Health Services (DHS) implements the SDWA and oversees public water system quality statewide. The DHS State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) establishes legal drinking water standards for contaminants that could threaten public health. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503, Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge establishes standard for the final use or disposal of sewage sludge generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Title 23 California Code of Regulations (CCR), and standards established by the Regional Water Boards coordinate to regulate the disposal of biosolids. RCRA Title 42 of the United States Code §6901 et seq. contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills.

State
Water Conservation Act of 2009
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (often referred to as “SB X7-7” or the “20 by 2020 law”) requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita water use by 20 percent by 2020, with an interim goal of a 10 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2015. Effective in 2016, urban retail water suppliers who do not meet the water conservation requirements established by this bill are not eligible for state water grants or loans. SB X7-7 requires that urban water retail suppliers determine baseline water use and set reduction targets according to specified standards; it also requires that agricultural water suppliers prepare plans and implement efficient water management practices. 8 Waste Connections, Inc. (2019). About Chiquita Canyon. Retrieved from: https://chiquitacanyon.com/about/, accessed May 2023. 9 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2019). Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates, accessed May 2023.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

California Urban Water Management Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code [CWC] Division 6, Part 2.6, §§10610-10656) addresses several state policies regarding water conservation and the development of water management plans to ensure the efficient use of available supplies. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act also requires water suppliers to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (“UWMP”) every five years to identify short-term and long-term water demand management measures to meet growing water demands during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. Specifically, municipal water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or provide more than 3,000 AFY of water must adopt an UWMP. GSWC is operating based on their 2020 UWMP, which was adopted on July 15, 2021.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Three bills collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) were passed in 2014: Assembly Bill (AB) 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley).10 These bills provided a framework for sustainable groundwater management, which is defined as “management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.” 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. The latest basin prioritization project, SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization, was completed in December 2019.

SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization identified 94 basins/sub-basins as high or medium priority. The Project site is in a very low priority basin.11
SGMA also empowers local agencies to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to manage basins sustainably and requires those GSAs to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for crucial groundwater basins in California. The Southwest System where the Project site is located is supplied by two active, GSWC-owned wells in the Central Basin, and 12 active, GSWCowned wells in the West Coast Basin. GSWC monitors well capacity, status, and water quality.

Under the SGMA, the Central Basin and West Coast Basin are exempt from the requirement to form a GSA, since they are adjudicated basins. See also Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
In California, the SWRCB is responsible for ensuring the highest reasonable quality of waters of the state, while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. The 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, codified in the CWC, authorizes the SWRCB to implement programs to control polluted discharges into state waters. This law implements the 10 State Water Resources Control Board. (2023). Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Development. Retrieved from What is SGMA? | California State Water Resources Control Boardl , accessed May 2023. 11 California Department of Water Resources. (2020). Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Retrieved from https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bpdashboard/final/ , accessed May 2023.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Pursuant to this law, the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is required to establish the wastewater concentrations of a number of specific hazardous substances in treated wastewater discharge. The Los Angeles RWQCB regulates wastewater discharges and water quality in the southern/coastal portions of Los Angeles County, including the Project site.

On May 2, 2006, the SWRCB adopted statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and a Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) for sanitary sewer systems. The regulations were in response to growing public concern about the water quality impacts of sanitary sewer overflows, particularly those that cause beach closures, adversely affect other bodies of water, or pose serious health and safety or nuisance problems. The MRP underwent revision in 2013; a summary of revisions incorporated into the final revised MRP is provided at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/docs/fs_wqo20130058.pdf.

California Code of Regulations Title 20 (Public Utilities and Energy) California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20 includes federal and state minimum efficiency requirements for energy and water use in regulated appliances. These appliances include, but are not limited to, water heaters, furnaces, heat pumps, air conditioners, refrigerators, pumps, lamps and ballasts, computers, spray sprinkler bodies and showerheads. In addition, the following Title 20 regulations require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in structures:

CCR Title 20 §1604(h) – Plumbing Fittings. This regulation establishes efficiency standards that give the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, sink faucets, and tub spout diverters.

CCR Title 20 §1606(i) – Plumbing Fixtures. This regulation prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with established efficiency regulations.

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 is comprised of 12 "Parts." The CBSC Parts relevant to utilities and service systems are described below.

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

Title 24 Part 5 - California Plumbing Code. The California Plumbing Code (CPC) contains plumbing design and construction standards. The CPC also ) promotes water conservation.

Title 24 Part 6 - California Energy Code. The California Energy Code contains energy conservation standards applicable to all residential and non-residential buildings throughout California, including schools and community colleges.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Title 24 Part 11 - California Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code contains standards applicable to residential and non-residential buildings throughout California, including schools and community colleges. The CALGreen Code) is intended to improve public health, safety, and public welfare through sustainable construction practices. The sustainable practices are applied to planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The CALGreen Code provides a waste reduction requirement of 65 percent of nonhazardous C&D waste.

California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code §17921.3(b) requires: (1) All water closets sold or installed in California to use no more than an average of 1.6 gallons per flush. On and after January 1, 2014, all water closets, other than institutional water closets, sold or installed in California are required to be high-efficiency water closets; and (2) All urinals sold or installed in California to use no more than an average of one gallon per flush. On and after January 1, 2014, all urinals, other than blowout urinals, sold or installed in California are required to be high-efficiency urinals.

Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606
AB 1668 and SB 606 created a new foundation for long-term improvements in water conservation and drought planning. SB 606 and AB 1668 establish guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for implementation and oversight of the new standards, which was required to be in place by 2022. The two bills include the following provisions:
 Establishing water use objectives and long-term standards for efficient water use that apply to urban retail water suppliers, composed of indoor residential water use; outdoor residential water use; commercial, industrial, and institutional irrigation with dedicated meters; water loss; and other unique local uses;
 Providing incentives for water suppliers to recycle water;  Identifying small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability and providing recommendations for drought planning; and
 Requiring both urban and agricultural water suppliers to set annual water budgets and prepare for drought.

Senate Bill 610
Senate Bill 610 codified in California Public Resources Code (PRC) §21151.9, requires the preparation of “water supply assessments” (WSA) for large developments to ensure that longterm water supplies are sufficient to meet the project’s demands in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years for a period of 20 years for all projects that propose at least the following:

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

 A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units (DU);  A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;  A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
 A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area; or
 A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in the above bullets.

These assessments, prepared by public water systems responsible for service, address whether adequate existing or projected water supplies are available to serve proposed projects, in addition to urban and agricultural demands and other anticipated development in the service area in which the project is located.

Where a WSA concludes that insufficient supplies are available, it must describe steps that would be required to obtain the necessary supply. The content requirements for the WSA include identification of existing and future water suppliers and quantification of water demand and supply by source in five-year increments over a 20-year projection. This information must be provided for average normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. The absence of an adequate current water supply does not preclude project approval but does require a lead agency to address a water supply shortfall in its project approval findings.

Local
Gardena General Plan 2006
The Gardena 2006 General Plan (GGP) Community Resources Element provides a Conservation Plan with the following goal and policies for enhancement and maintenance of water supply.

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.
 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.

Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) §8.70 – Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 8.70 provides an overview of the City’s regulations concerning stormwater and runoff pollution control. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

public health, welfare, and safety and to reduce the quantity of pollutants being discharged to the waters of the U.S. through:

A. The elimination of non-stormwater discharges to the municipal stormwater system; B. The elimination of the discharge of pollutants into the municipal storm drain system; C. The reduction of pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable; D. The protection and enhancement of the quality of the waters of the United States in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Clean Water Act.12 Wastewater
Federal
Clean Water Act/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 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 Project is within jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The City 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 Section 402
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the SWRCB to issue NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit (Water Quality Order 99‐08‐DWQ), referred to as the “Construction Stormwater General Permit.” Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the Construction Stormwater General Permit provided they:

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;
12 City of Gardena. (2020). Gardena Municipal Code, Chapter 8.70 Stormwater Runoff and Pollution Control. Retrieved from https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gardena/#!/html/Gardena08/Gardena0870.html, accessed May 2023.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

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 adopted 2022 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 Section 303(d)
CWA Section 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 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 Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

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 Section 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.

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 Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

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, which 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 will 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 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
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

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.

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 Los Angeles County Flood Control District (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.

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)13 (LID Standards Manual) to comply with NPDES MS4 Permit requirements for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from 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 13 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 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

improving water quality and mitigating potential water quality impacts from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. The City has adopted the County LID standards.

Local
City of Gardena General Plan
The 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.

This section 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 This section specifies that “no Grading Permit would be issued to construction projects that disturb 1.0 or more acres of soil without obtaining a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit [Construction Stormwater General Permit] from the SWRCB.

GMC §8.70.110.B.2 - Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation. This section 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) LID BMPs; (b) source control BMPs; and (c) structural and nonstructural BMPs for specific types of uses.

City of Gardena Sewer Master Plan
The City’s Sewer Master Plan, which was adopted May 2023, provides a plan to operate and improve the City’s sewer system through 2045. The Sewer Master Plan provides guidance for collection system operations, existing pipelines and pump stations, and rehabilitation and replacement projects through implementation of the City’s capital improvement program.

Additionally, the Plan identifies short- and long-term wastewater flow management measures to meet increased wastewater flows created from future development and population growth in the City. See the Environmental Setting – Wastewater Section above for further discussion concerning existing wastewater facilities in the Project area.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

The City’s Sewer Master Plan capacity analysis identifies lines which do not meet the specified performance criteria; these are depicted on Sewer Master Plan Figure ES.2: Recommended Improvements, and listed in Sewer Master Plan Table ES.3: Detailed Capital Improvement Program. None of the City gravity main pipelines near the Project site shown in Sewer Master Plan Figure ES.2 where capacity-related improvements are proposed connect with the Project site. As previously noted, the three existing sewer house laterals at the Project site connect to the LACSD Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer, but not to any City pipeline.

Sewer Master Plan Figure 2.4: Planned Developments depicts the planned developments that the Sewer Master Plan assumes will be developed by 2045 and identifies the Project site as a planned development at 16911 South Normandie Avenue.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Federal
There are no federal regulations concerning electricity, natural gas, or telecommunications that are applicable to the Project.

State
Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The Renewables Portfolio Standard Program requires retail sellers of electricity to increase their purchases of electricity generated by renewable sources and establishes a goal of having 20 percent of California’s electricity generated by renewable sources by 2017. In 2010, the CARB extended this target for renewable energy resource use to 33 percent of total use by 2020 (CARB 2010). Subsequent legislation requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources by 2030. Increasing California’s renewable supplies is anticipated to diminish the state’s heavy dependence on natural gas as a fuel for electric power generation.
100 Percent Clean Energy Act
Senate Bill (SB) 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018, makes it a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.

California Electrical Code
The California Electrical Code is codified in Title 24, CCR, Part 3. The Electrical Code contains regulations including, but not limited to, electrical materials, electrical wiring, overcurrent protection, grounding, and installation.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

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

Gardena Municipal Code
Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 15.04 - General Building Provisions. This chapter adopts the California Electrical Code in its entirety.

Solid Waste
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Title 40, Part 258 of the Code of Federal Regulations), contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills State
Assembly Bill 75
Assembly Bill (AB) 75 was passed in 1999, and the State Agency Model Integrated Waste Management Act (Chapter 764, Statutes of 1999, Strom-Martin) took effect on January 1, 2000.

The State Agency Model Integrated Waste Management Act requires state agencies to develop and implement an integrated waste management plan. The Act also mandates community service districts to provide solid waste services report disposal and diversion information to the city, county, or regional agency in which the community service district is located. Additionally, the Act requires all state agencies and large state facilities to divert at least 50 percent of solid waste from landfills after 2004, and that each state agency and large facility submit an annual report to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) summarizing its yearly progress in implementing waste diversion programs.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Assembly Bill 939 – Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 The State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) to improve solid waste disposal management with respect to (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, and (3) environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. AB 939 mandates jurisdictions to meet a diversion goal of 50 percent by 2000 and thereafter.

AB 939 requires that all counties and cities develop a comprehensive solid waste management program that includes a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to address waste characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, solid waste facility capacity, education and public information, funding, special waste (asbestos, sewage sludge, etc.), and household hazardous waste. It also requires counties to develop a Siting Element that addresses the need for landfill/transformation facilities for 15-year intervals; and it also mandates, all cities and counties to prepare and submit Annual Reports that summarize the jurisdictions' progress in reducing solid waste. Oversight of these activities was set up under the aegis of the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The duties and responsibilities of CIWMB were transferred to CalRecycle as of January 1, 2010.

Diversionary actions required by AB 939 were continued through subsequent legislation including SB 1322, which established state programs and further reinforced the state’s procurement of recyclable materials. Assembly Bill 1826 further increases recycling efforts by requiring the contract or work agreement between a business and a gardening or landscaping service to require the organic waste generated by those services to comply with the requirements of this act.

Assembly Bill 1327
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (AB 1327), passed on October 11, 1991, required “CalRecycle” to develop a model ordinance for adoption of recyclable materials in development projects by March 1, 1993. Local agencies were then required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, governing adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects by September 1, 1993. If, by that date, a local agency had not adopted its own ordinance, the model ordinance adopted by the CalRecycle took effect and shall be enforced by the local agency. Subsection F of GMC §18.20.110:

Containers/bins details the requirements for container enclosures.

Senate Bill 1374 – Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements SB 1374 was signed into law in 2002 and requires the range of diversion rates of construction and demolition (C&D) waste material from 50 to 75 percent at the local level. CALGreen mandates locally permitted new residential and non-residential building construction, demolition and certain additions and alteration projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum 65 percent of the nonhazardous C&D debris generated during the project (CALGreen §§4.408, 5.408, Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

301.1.1 and 301.3).14 The Gardena City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1797 to comply with state law. SB 1374 called for preparation of a model C&D diversion ordinance by March 1, 2004, and a model ordinance was adopted by CalRecycle on March 16, 2004. SB 1374 also required that jurisdictions include in their annual AB 939 report a summary of the progress made in diverting C&D wastes.

Assembly Bill 341 – California’s 75 Percent Initiative
AB 341, which took effect on July 1, 2012, was designed to help meet California’s recycling goal of 75 percent by the year 2020. AB 341 made “…a legislative declaration that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020…” AB 431 requires a business, defined to include a commercial or public entity that generates more than four cubic yards (CY) of commercial solid waste per week or a multifamily residential dwelling of 5 DU or more to arrange for recycling services. Such business/residential development must: 1) source separate recyclable materials from the solid waste they are discarding, and either self-haul or arrange for separate collection of the recyclables; and 2) subscribe to a service that includes mixed waste processing that yields diversion results comparable to source separation.

California Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code)
The 2019 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code sets standards for new buildings and development project with the objective of minimizing the state’s carbon output (California Building Standards Commission, 2019). The 2019 CALGreen Code has new and revised provisions that require new buildings to reduce water consumption, increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. Local jurisdictions also retain the administrative authority to exceed the CALGreen standards. The 2022 CALGreen Code went into effect statewide on January 1, 2023.

Local
Gardena General Plan 2006
The GGP Community Resources Element provides a Conservation Plan with the following goals and policies concerning solid waste:
 CN Goal 3: Reduce the amount of solid waste produced in Gardena. o Policy CN 3.1: Comply with the requirements set forth in the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element.

Gardena Municipal Code
14 CalRecycle.(2020). Construction and Demolition (C&D) Diversion Informational Guide. Retrieved from https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/library/canddmodel , accessed May 2023.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 8–20 - Solid Waste And Recyclable Collection And Disposal. This chapter provides an overview of the City’s solid waste and recyclable collection and disposal requirements. Subsection G: Requirement for Collection of C&D Wastes of GMC §8.20.060: Solid Waste Disposal and Diversion states that “All construction and demolition waste as defined by this chapter that result from construction work shall be collected by a solid waste collection enterprise duly authorized by the city of Gardena. No C&D wastes can be carted by a nonauthorized firm or individual unless the materials carted are recyclable solid waste as defined by this chapter, and collected without fee, or sold or donated by the owner/occupant. One hundred percent of organic waste must be diverted. One hundred percent of asphalt, concrete, dirt, and rock must be diverted.”

4.15.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning utilities and service systems. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been used as thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, the Project would create a significant environmental impact if it would:

Require or result in the relocation or construction of the following new or expanded facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects:
 Water facilities (see Impact 4.15-1);
 Wastewater facilities (see Impact 4.15-2);
 Stormwater facilities (see Impact 4.15-3);
 Electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities (see Impact 4.15-4); o Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (see Impact 4.15-5);
o Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments (see Impact

4.15-6);
o Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals (see Impact 4.15-7);
o Fails to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste (see Impact 4.15-8)
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

4.15.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.15-1:

Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Construction and Operations
GSWC would supply water to the Project site via the existing public GSWC 8-inch water main that runs underneath South Normandie Avenue. The Project would connect a domestic water line, a fire line, and irrigation line to the existing water main within the South Normandie Avenue ROW.

The existing water main within South Normandie Avenue would not need to be upsized to accommodate the Project. The Project would be subject to all pertinent local, regional, and statelevel regulations concerning any new connections, laterals, or trenching. Additionally, the Project would utilize two existing fire hydrants along the eastern property line on South Normandie Avenue. The existing fire hydrants are served by the 8.0-inch water main within the South Normandie Avenue ROW.

The Project would require construction of new onsite water facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. As such, the Project would result in construction of water facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new onsite water facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site, thus, their construction would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed water facility improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this EIR. As concluded in these EIR sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Given the proposed water facilities’ nature and scale, their constructionrelated noise impacts are not considered significant. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed water facilities.

Mitigation Measures
See MM GEO-1, MM CUL-1, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, MM NOI-3, MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Impact 4.15-2:

Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance/wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Construction and Operations
The Project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 86,500 gpd, or approximately 75,890 gpd (0.08 mgd) over existing conditions; see Table 4.15-7: Estimated Project Wastewater Generation.

Wastewater flow originating from the Project site would discharge to the three existing sewer house laterals that connect from the Project site to LACSD’s Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer within South Normandie Avenue. From the Gardena Trunk Pump Sewer, the Project’s wastewater would be conveyed to the JWPCP for treatment; see Impact 4.15-6 below Table 4.15-7: Estimated Project Wastewater Generation
Land Use Dwelling Units Average Generation
Factor (gpd/DU)
1 Total Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Apartments
68 Units – (Studio) 150 10,200
194 Units – ( 1-BR) 200 38,800
66 Units – (2-BR) 250 16,500
Townhomes
10 Units – (4-BR) 300 3,000
35 Units – (3-BR) 300 10,500
30 Units – (2-BR) 250 7,500
Total Project 86,500
Total Existing2 -10,610
Net Project +75,890 (0.08 mgd)
Note:
1 Based on the sewer generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works. 2 See Table 4.15-4.

Source: Appendix 4.7-1, Table 4.

The Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer has an existing total capacity of 2.2 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 1.7 mgd (when last measured in 2017). Inclusive of the Project, the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer would convey a peak flow of 1.78 mgd, with a remaining capacity of 0.42 mgd. As such, sufficient capacity exists in the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer to serve the Project and County sewer lines would not need to be upsized to accommodate the Project. The Project would be subject to compliance with all pertinent local, regional, and state-level regulations concerning any new connections, laterals, or trenching. The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) empowers the LACSD to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to the LACSD’s Sewage System for increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. The LACSD may require payment of a connection fee before the Project is permitted to discharge to the LACSD’s Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

sewerage system. It is also noted, the Project does not propose to connect to the City’s existing local sewer line within the South Normandie Avenue ROW along the Project site’s eastern frontage.

The Project would require construction of new onsite wastewater conveyance facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. As such, the Project would result in construction of wastewater conveyance facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new onsite wastewater conveyance facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing LACSD facilities near the Project site, thus, their construction or relocation would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed wastewater improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this EIR. As concluded in these EIR sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Given the proposed wastewater facilities’ nature and scale, their construction-related noise impacts are not considered significant. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed wastewater facilities.

As concluded in Impact 4.15-6, adequate capacity exists to serve the Project’s wastewater treatment demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments at JWPCP. Therefore, the Project would not result in construction of wastewater treatment facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
See MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, COA HAZ-1, COA HAZ-2, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3.

Impact 4.15-3:

Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Construction and Operations
The Project proposes onsite drainage improvements by diverting existing stormwater flows and increasing the site’s permeability. The Project proposes landscaped areas throughout the site that would result in a decrease in the existing impervious surfaces from 99.7 percent to

85.9 percent. Stormwater would be captured by a series of drains and discharged directly to Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

ground level, where they join surface-level sheet flows and discharge to a catch basin on Brighton Way. From Brighton Way, stormwater runoff would flow to the public storm drain system. The Project was analyzed under 10-year, 25-year, and 50-year design storm peak flow and demonstrated that the Project would not impact the Capital Flood conveyance capabilities of any drainage systems.15 The Project’s proposed drainage patterns are further discussed in Section 4.7: Hydrology and Water Quality.

The Project would require construction of new onsite stormwater facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. Any new connections, laterals, or trenching required as a part of Project construction would be subject to compliance with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) requirements, as detailed in the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual (January 20026) and the Low Impact Development Standards Manual (February 2014)16 (LID Standards Manual). The Project would also be subject to compliance with GMC Title 8 Chapter 7: Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control requirements.

As such, the Project would result in construction of stormwater facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new stormwater facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site, thus, their construction or relocation would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed stormwater facility improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this EIR. As concluded in these EIR sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Given the proposed stormwater facilities’ nature and scale, their construction-related noise impacts are not considered significant. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed stormwater drainage facilities.

Mitigation Measures
See MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, COA HAZ-1, COA HAZ-2, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3.

Impact 4.15-4:

Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
15 Appendix 4.7-1. 16 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 May2023.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Construction and Operations
Electric Power Facilities. Table 4.15-8: Estimated Project Electric Power Demand provides the Project’s estimated electric power demand and indicates it totals 4,017,999 kWh per year (approximately 11,008 kWh per day), or approximately 3,142,928 kWh/yr over existing conditions.

Table 4.15-8: Estimated Project Electric Power Demand
Land Use Dwelling Units Electricity (kWh/year)1,2
Apartment Mid Rise 328 2,092,880
Townhome Style Units 75 645,198
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 754,120
Water Energy 525,801
Total Project 4,017,999
Total Existing -875,071
Net Project +3,142,928
Notes: 1 CalEEMod was used to calculate the electricity demand based on land use. 2 Kilowatt hours (kWh) Source: Appendix 4.3-1.

SCE provides electric power to the Project site and operates and maintains transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area. Although the Project’s estimated electricity demand would increase by approximately 3,142,928 kWh/yr over existing conditions, this demand comprises less than 0.005 percent of the typical annual electricity usage in the County and SCE has confirmed they have sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project.17 The Project would require construction of new onsite electric power facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. As such, the Project would result in construction of electric power facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects.

Natural Gas Facilities. The Project site is currently served by natural gas and there is existing infrastructure owned and maintained by SoCalGas. However, pursuant to the 2022 Energy Code, the Project would be all-electric and would not include connections to natural gas supply. Project construction would also not use natural gas. As such, the Project would not construct natural gas facilities or cause environmental effects in this regard.

Telecommunication Facilities. Various companies provide telecommunications including AT&T, Direct TV, Dish Network, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and ViaSat. The Project proposes to connect to the existing telecommunication infrastructure at the Project site. The Project would require construction of new onsite telecommunication facilities, as well as limited connections to existing offsite/adjacent infrastructure. As such, the Project would result in construction of telecommunication facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. 17 Appendix 4.3-1.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Conclusion. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new electric power and telecommunication facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site, thus, their construction or relocation would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed electric power and telecommunication facility improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Section 4.1 through Section 4.16 of this EIR. As concluded in these EIR sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and with mitigation incorporated, except concerning construction noise, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Given the nature and scale of the proposed electric power and telecommunication facilities, their construction-related noise impacts are not considered significant. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed electric power and telecommunication facilities.

Concerning natural gas, the Project would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities. Therefore, the Project would not cause significant environmental effects from construction of natural gas facilities. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
See MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, COA HAZ-1, COA HAZ-2, MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2, MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3.

Impact 4.15-5:

Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction and Operations
The Project’s estimated water demand would total approximately 158,211 gpd, or approximately 145,479 gpd over existing conditions; see Table 4.15-9: Estimated Project Water Demand. The Project would include all state-mandated water-saving features, including water-efficient faucets, shower heads, and toilets.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Table 4.15-9: Estimated Project Water Demand
Land Use Units Average Demand
Factor (gpd/DU)1
Total
Water Demand (gpd)
Apartments
68 Units – (Studio) 180 12,240
194 Units – ( 1-BR) 240 46,560
66 Units – (2-BR) 300 19,800
Townhomes
10 Units – (4-BR) 360 3,600
35 Units – (3-BR) 360 12,600
30 Units – (2-BR) 300 9,000
Pool(s)2
1 Unit @ - L1 Courtyard 13,614 13,614
1 Units @ - L1 Courtyard 2,693 2,693
1 Unit @ - L3 Courtyard 35,904 35,904
Landscaping 30,891 SF ETWU Method3, 4 2,200
Total Project 158,211 (177.2 AFY)
Total Existing5 -12,732
Net Project +145,479 (+163 AFY)
Note:
1 Based on 120% of the sewer generation factors from the “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” document from LA County Public Works. See Golden State Water Company 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Southwest Service Area, page 1-2. 2 Pools vary in size: therefore, pools have different water consumption values per unit. 3 Demand based on Estimated Total Water Use equation: (Eto*plant factor*landscaped area* 0.62)/irrigation efficiency. Utilizing CIMIS Reference Evapotranspiration Zones Map ET of 46.6 in/yr, and a conservative plant factor of 0.7 and irrigation efficiency of 0.81 proposed condition.
4 The Project’s proposed landscaping was updated to total 30,205 SF (See Section 3.0: Project Description) after completion of this analysis.

Because the Project’s updated landscaping would generate less water demand, this analysis conservatively assumes 30,891 SF of proposed landscaping for purposes of determining water demand.
5 See Table 4.15-1.

Source: Appendix 4.15, Table 3.

UWMP water demand forecasts are based on adopted general plans. The General Plan’s assumed existing land use for the Project site is “Industrial,” with an estimated maximum development capacity of approximately 228,690 SF; see Table 4.8-2: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations. Therefore, the UWMP assumed industrial uses for the Project site. Because the Project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the Project site’s land use designation from Industrial to Specific Plan, and the Project’s estimated water demand would exceed the UWMP’s assumed water demand for the Project site, the Project’s water demand was not accounted for in the UWMP. However, GSWC analyzed the Project to determine if sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources.

GSWC confirmed water service would be available to serve the Project from GSWC’s Southwest System.18 The UWMP projects that the service area’s water demands will increase from 37,318 AFY in 2025 to 39,840 AFY in 2045 for both normal and dry years representing an increase in demand of 2,522 AFY. The Project’s increase in water demand of 145,479 gpd (163 AFY) represents approximately 6.5% of the UWMP’s forecast increase in demand between 2025 and 18 Zhao, Joseph, Golden State Water Company, personal communication, December 7, 2021.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

2045. GSWC provides conservation programs along with incentives to conserve water in the City.

Although the GSWC service area population is expected to increase, the overall baseline potable demand in AFY is expected to decrease due to further water use efficiency and recycled water programs. The UWMP also projects adequate supplies to meet all future demands.19 The GSWC’s UWMP indicates water supplies would meet the service area’s water demands for normal, singledry, and multiple dry-year conditions through 2045; see Table 4.15-2.

Therefore, GSWC would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

Impact 4.15-6:

Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction and Operations
As discussed above, the Project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 86,500 gpd, or approximately 75,890 gpd (0.08 mgd) over existing conditions; see Table 4.15-7.

The Project’s wastewater flow would be conveyed to the JWPCP for treatment. The JWPCP currently processes an average wastewater flow of 243.1 mgd and has a total permitted capacity of 400 mgd. JWPCP’s capacity is based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

The Project’s estimated wastewater generation of 75,890 gpd (0.076 mgd) comprises less than

0.06 percent of JWPCP’s remaining available capacity of 156.9 mgd. As such, sufficient capacity exists at JWPCP to serve the Project and no JWPCP expansion/modification would be required to accommodate the Project. Therefore, the JWPCP has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s estimated wastewater treatment demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
19 Golden State Water Company. (2021). Southwest Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Impact 4.15-7: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Impact 4.15-8: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Level of Significance: Less Than significant Impact
The Project proposes to remove all existing onsite structures and surface parking lot and construct/operate a 403 DU (i.e., 328 DU apartment building and 75 townhome) multi-family residential development. State law requires a 65 percent diversion rate for Construction and Demolition (C&D) projects. The Gardena City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1797 to comply with state law. Each C&D project for which a Building/Demolition Permit is applied for and approved must achieve the waste diversion performance standard or show a good faith effort to achieve that standard. Thus, the Project would be subject to compliance with Ordinance No. 1797, which would achieve compliance with state law.

Waste Resources of Gardena would provide the Project’s solid waste pickup services. The trash pickup locations would be coordinated with Waste Resources. CalRecycle provides multi-family residential solid waste generation rates from various sources(i.e., five sources), which range from

3.6 pounds per DU per day (lbs/DU/day) to 8.6 lbs/DU/day, and average 5.1 lbs/DU/day.20 Based on 403 DU and 5.1 lbs/DU/day, the Project would generate approximately 2,056 lbs/day (approximately 1.03 tons per day). Project implementation would increase solid waste disposal demands over existing conditions. As previously noted, Chiquita’s maximum permitted throughput is 12,000 tons per day.
23 The Project’s estimated solid waste generation of
approximately 1.03 tons per day comprises less than one-tenth percent of Chiquita’s maximum permitted daily throughput. Chiquita’s remaining and maximum capacities are approximately

60.4 million cubic yards and approximately 110.4 million cubic yards, respectively. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient remaining permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, Chiquita could accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. Operational activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under CALGreen and AB 939.

The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, in excess of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning solid waste, and no mitigation is required.
20 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2019). Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates, accessed May 2023.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

4.15.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The context for assessing cumulative environmental impacts associated with utilities is the service area associated with each of the utility and service system (i.e., water, wastewater, wastewater treatment, electric power, telecommunications, and solid waste) service providers to the Project. The cumulative analysis regarding electric power and natural gas demands is included in Section 4.3: Energy. The cumulative impacts analysis evaluates whether the provision of utilities and service systems for the growth projected to occur in the future, along with the proposed Project, would exceed the capacity of existing or planned utility infrastructure, requiring the construction of new infrastructure that could cause significant environmental impacts not already addressed as part of the Project or otherwise anticipated in conjunction with each agency’s growth plans.

Water
The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of water is the GSWC Southwest service area.

The Project would result in an increased demand for water supplies. There would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Also, the Project would require relocation/ construction of new water facilities, but these would not cause significant environmental effects.

Related projects also could result in water supply impacts, and incrementally increase the longterm demand for water supply, similar to the Project. Further, all cumulative projects would be required to assess whether adequate water infrastructure and supply exist to serve their demand, and whether additional or expanded water infrastructure would be required. All projects would be required to construct water infrastructure improvements in order to adequately serve the projects, if necessary. Individual assessments of water services would be prepared, and mitigation would be provided if necessary to reduce a potential impact. Further, SB 610 requires a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for all cumulative projects that are both subject to CEQA and considered a project under the California Water Code §10912.21 Any relocated/new water facilities for cumulative projects would undergo separate environmental review to determine if they would cause environmental effects, and require compliance with all applicable County and City water supply ordinances, laws, and regulations. Each applicant also must fund the cost of the water-related infrastructure needed to serve the particular site.

Consequently, the Project combined with other cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning water. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning water supply and facilities. 21 A project under the California Water Code §10912 means any of the following: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

Wastewater
The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of wastewater is the LACSD service area, as except three existing sewer house laterals, the Project would not connect to City sewer facilities.

The proposed Project could be adequately served by existing LACSD facilities. The Project would require relocation/construction of new wastewater facilities, but these would not cause significant environmental effects.

Other cumulative projects within the LACSD’s service area could result in increased wastewater generation and demand for wastewater treatment services. There are seven related projects (i.e., Related Project Nos. 2, 3, 4, 12, 15, 16, and 22) within one mile of the proposed Project. There is the potential for these seven project to also connect to the Gardena Pump Trunk Sewer in South Normandie Avenue. However, inclusive of the proposed Project, the trunk sewer has a remaining capacity of 0.42 mgd. Additionally, the JWPCP plant currently operates below its design capacities and has a remaining capacity of approximately 157 mgd. Thus, cumulative development would not exceed JWPCP’s capacity. To further ensure development would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment system, all cumulative development projects would be required to obtain a Will Serve Letter from LACSD, or equivalent, to ensure there is available trunk sewer and treatment plant capacities for the proposed development project. LACSD has confirmed the Project could be adequately served by existing facilities; see Appendix 4.15-1. All relocated/new sewer facilities proposed or necessitated by cumulative projects would be subject to applicable CEQA review to determine if they would cause environmental effects, and all projects would be required to comply with the other applicable laws and regulations protecting environmental resources. Adherence to the regulatory framework would ensure that cumulative projects would result in demand for wastewater treatment services that exceed the existing entitlements and resources for wastewater services. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s potential impacts from relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities would not be cumulatively considerable.

Stormwater Drainage
See Section 4.7: Hydrology for cumulative impacts to stormwater drainage facilities.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications is the service area of the various service providers. The proposed Project would not use natural gas nor construct natural gas facilities and thus, would not cause an environmental effect in this regard. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new electric power and telecommunications facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site, thus, their relocation/construction would not cause significant environmental effects.

Because the Project would not cause significant environmental effects from construction of natural gas facilities, no cumulative impact would occur in this regard. The Project and cumulative Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

projects would result in an increase in the construction of additional electric and telecommunications equipment, all of which are readily available. The equipment would be installed on each related site. Similar to the Project, the cumulative projects would be required to coordinate their respective projects, sites, and requirements with the service provider to ensure that connectivity is not disturbed and that proper conduits are installed relative to their respective projects. All new electric power and telecommunication facilities proposed or necessitated by cumulative projects would undergo separate environmental review to determine if their construction or relocation would cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development, the Project’s potential impacts concerning electric power and telecommunication facilities would not be cumulatively considerable.

Solid Waste
The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of solid waste is County of Los Angeles and Chiquita Canyon Landfill service area. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, in excess of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The projections of future landfill capacity based on the entire projected waste stream going into these landfills is used for cumulative impact analysis. The 2,056 lbs, or 1.03 tons, of solid waste per day generated by the Project is less than one-tenth percent of the daily capacity of the landfills. Due to this small percentage, the increase in solid waste from the proposed Project would be less than cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.

4.15.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning utilities and service systems have been identified.

4.15.7 REFERENCES
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). (2019). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details – Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3574?siteID=1037, accessed May 2023.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2019). Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates, accessed May 2023.

California Department of Water Resources. (2020). Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Retrieved from https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ , accessed May 2023.

CalRecycle. (2020). Construction and Demolition (C&D) Diversion Informational Guide. Retrieved from https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/library/canddmodel, accessed May 2023.

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

City of Gardena. (2020). Gardena Municipal Code, Chapter 8.70 Stormwater Runoff and Pollution Control. Retrieved from
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gardena/#!/html/Gardena08/Gardena0870.html, accessed May 2023.

City of Gardena. (2022). Amended and Restated Agreement Between City of Gardena and Waste Resources of Gardena for Integrated Solid Waste Management Services Huffman, Mandy, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, personal communication, June 7, 2023.

Fuscoe Engineering. (April 2023). Water And Wastewater Technical Report: Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project at 16911 S Normandie Ave, Gardena, California 90247, page 8. See Appendix 4.15-1: Water and Wastewater Technical Report.

Fuscoe Engineering. (April 2023). Water Resources Technical Report: Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project at 16911 S Normandie Ave, Gardena, California 90247. See Appendix 4.7-1:

Water Resources Technical Report.

Golden State Water Company. (2021). Southwest Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2023). Energy Assessment; see Appendix 4.3-1: Energy Data.

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. (No Date). Wastewater Treatment Process at JWPCP.

Retrieved from: https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/jointwater-pollution-control-plant/wastewater-treatment-process-at-jwpcp, accessed May 2023.

Southern California Gas Company. (2023). Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map – Los Angeles. Retrieved from: Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map - Los Angeles (arcgis.com), accessed May 2023.

State Water Resources Control Board. (2020). Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Development. Retrieved from
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sgma/development.html, accessed May 2023.

Waste Connections, Inc. (2019). About Chiquita Canyon. Retrieved from:
https://chiquitacanyon.com/about/, accessed May 2023.

Zhao, Joseph, Golden State Water Company, personal communication, December 7, 2021.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Serivce Systems

This page intentionally left blank.

Kimley>>>Horn

4.16 AESTHETICS
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

4.16 AESTHETICS
The purpose of this section is to examine the aesthetic and other visual resources present on the Project site and its surroundings and evaluate whether the Project would adversely impact such resources. Aesthetic and other visual resources include both natural and built-up environments.

Information in this section is based primarily on information obtained from available public resources, including the Gardena General Plan 2006 (GGP) and the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan (NCSP).

4.16.1 VISUAL RESOURCES TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS
When viewing the same landscape, people may have different responses to that landscape and any proposed visual changes, based upon their values, familiarity, concern, or expectations for that landscape and its scenic quality. Because each person’s attachment to and value for a landscape is unique, visual changes to that landscape inherently affect viewers differently.

However, generalizations can be made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. Recreational users (e.g., hikers, equestrians, tourists, and people driving for pleasure) are expected to have high concern for scenery and landscape character. People commuting daily through the same landscape generally have a moderate concern for scenery, while people working at industrial sites generally have a lower concern for scenic quality or changes to existing landscape character. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is affected by the viewing distances at which it is seen, such as close-up or far away. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is also affected by the travel speed at which a person is viewing the landscape (high speeds on a highway, low speeds on a hiking trail, or stationary at a residence).

The same project feature can be perceived differently by people depending on the distance between the observer and the viewed object. When a viewer is closer to a viewed object in the landscape, greater detail is visible, and there is greater potential influence of the object on visual quality because of its form or scale (relative size of the object in relation to the viewer). When the same object is viewed at background distances, details may be imperceptible but overall forms of terrain and vegetation are evident, and the horizon and skyline are dominant. In the middle ground, some detail is evident (e.g., the foreground), and landscape elements are seen in context with landforms and vegetation patterns (e.g., the background).

The following terms and concepts are used in the discussion below to describe and assess the aesthetic setting and Project impacts.

Scenic Vista. An area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a federal, state, or local agency. Scenic vistas usually provide expansive, elevated views.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

Scenic Highway. Any stretch of public roadway that is designated as a scenic corridor by a federal, state, or local agency.

Sensitive Receptors. Viewer responses to visual settings are inferred from a variety of factors, including distance and viewing angle, types of viewers, number of viewers, duration of view, and viewer activities. The viewer type and associated viewer sensitivity are distinguished among project viewers in recreational, residential, commercial, military, and industrial areas. Viewer activities can range from a circumstance that encourages a viewer to observe the surroundings more closely (such as recreational activities) to one that discourages close observation (such as commuting in heavy traffic). Viewers in recreational areas are considered to have high sensitivity to visual resources. Residential viewers generally have moderate sensitivity but extended viewing periods. Viewers in commercial, military, and industrial areas are considered to have low sensitivity.

Viewshed. A project’s viewshed is defined as the surrounding geographic area from which the Project is likely to be seen, based on topography, atmospheric conditions, land use patterns, and roadway orientations. “Project viewshed” is used to describe the area surrounding a project site where a person standing on the ground or driving a vehicle can view the Project site.

Visual character typically consists of the landforms, vegetation, water features, and cultural modifications that impart an overall visual impression of an area’s landscape. Scenic areas typically include open space, landscaped corridors, and viewsheds. Visual character is influenced by many different landscape attributes including color contrasts, landform prominence, repetition of geometric forms, and uniqueness of textures among other characteristics.

Lighting effects are associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors passing through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, architectural building illumination, security lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape lighting, and signage). Light introduction can be a nuisance. Uses such as residences and hotels are considered light sensitive, since occupants have expectations of privacy during evening hours and may be subject to disturbance by bright light sources. Light spill is typically defined as the presence of unwanted light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated. With respect to lighting, the degree of illumination may vary widely depending on the amount of light generated, height of the light source, presence of barriers or obstructions, type of light source, and weather conditions.

Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light on highly polished surfaces such as window glass or reflective materials and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of light-colored surfaces. Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially objectionable sensation as observed by a person as they look directly into the light source of a luminaire. Daytime glare generation is common in urban areas and is typically associated with buildings with exterior facades largely or entirely comprised of highly reflective glass. Glare can Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by the reflection of artificial light sources such as automobile headlights. Glare generation is typically related to either moving vehicles or sun angles, although glare resulting from reflected sunlight can occur regularly at certain times of the year. Glare-sensitive uses include residences, hotels, transportation corridors, and aircraft landing corridors.

4.16.2 EXISTING SETTING
Regional Setting
Natural Setting
The City of Gardena is landlocked and located in a relatively flat area of the greater southwest Los Angeles area, with the Santa Monica Mountains located approximately 15 miles to the north, the San Gabriel Mountains located approximately 25 miles to the northeast, the Palos Verdes Peninsula located approximately 7 miles to the southwest 1, and the Pacific Ocean about five miles to the west. Because of this dense urban environment, there are no identifiable scenic vistas within the City, except those that may be afforded by parkland/open space within the City including Rowley Park − the largest City park− and the natural Willows Wetland, a protected natural habitat that occupies eight acres in the City’s southeast portion.2 The City is bordered by existing development in the cities of Hawthorne, Torrance, and Los Angeles, and unincorporated Los Angeles County.

Scenic Vistas
Appendix A: NOP and Initial Study of the Gardena General Plan’s (GGP) Final EIR (FEIR) states that the City is not located within an area known to be a “scenic vista.”3 Scenic Highway
GGP’s FEIR Appendix A states that the City is not located along a City, County, or State designated scenic highway or corridor. It also adds that “As stated in the existing Circulation and Scenic Highway Element, due to the physical features of the local streets, highways, and surrounding cityscapes and landscapes, no potential exists within the foreseeable future for satisfying the criteria necessary for scenic highways.”4
1 City of Gardena. (2005). Final Environmental Impact Report City of Gardena General Plan 2006. Appendix A: NOP and Initial Study.

Retrieved from https://www.cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/General-Plan-Update-2006-Final-EIR.pdf. 2 City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006: Community Resources Element, Open Space Plan, updated 2022. Page OS-2. Retrieved from https://www.cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/generalplan6.pdf. 3 City of Gardena. (2005). Final Environmental Impact Report City of Gardena General Plan 2006. Appendix A: NOP and Initial Study.

Retrieved from https://www.cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/General-Plan-Update-2006-Final-EIR.pdf. 4 Ibid.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

Visual Character
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 bordered by West 169th and West 170th Streets on the north and south, and South Normandie Avenue and Brighton Way on the east and west.

The Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and minimal pervious areas. The existing industrial buildings are blighted, and the property is inadequately maintained and devoid of landscaping. The Project site is framed by contorted slatted, barbed wire fencing that is in disrepair on all sides, except for the site’s northeastern portion. Additionally, a portion of one of the six industrial buildings is in a dilapidated condition and is not unoccupiable or currently being used.

The greater Project area is fully developed, and generally bordered by single- and multi-family residential uses (see Table 2-3: Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning). A three-story multi-family structure is located north of West 169th Street. A UPRR track borders the Project site to the east.

East of South Normandie Avenue there are one- and two-story single-family residences and twoand three-story condominiums. One-story single-family residences are located along West 170th Street to the south and Brighton Way to the east. Limited ornamental trees are provided on the east side of South Normandie Avenue and adjacent to the Project site on West 170th Street and West 169th Street. There are no landforms, open space, landscaped corridors, or viewsheds within the Project area.

Light and Glare
The Project site and surrounding area is primarily built out and is typical of that found in urban environments. Ambient light from urban uses in the area includes building lighting (exterior and interior), streetlights, parking lot lights, and night lighting for recreational uses. Another source of nighttime light is vehicle headlights along surrounding roadways.

The Project site is adjacent sensitive use on all sides. The distance from the Project site’s northern property line to the nearest adjacent sensitive use is 76 feet. The distance from the Project site’s southern property line to the nearest sensitive use line is 50 feet. The distance from the Project site’s eastern property line to the nearest sensitive use property line is 80 feet. Excluding the abutting single-family residential structure, the distance from the Project site’s western property line to the nearest sensitive use property line is 25 feet.

As discussed above, existing uses still occur on the site. Glare from daytime operations from mobile sources (cars and trucks) and nighttime sources such as security lights, streetlights, and mobile sources occur on a normal basis. In addition, there are two onsite billboards by the site entrance on South Normandie Avenue; however, based on desktop research, both are unlighted and therefore, do not contribute to any substantial light or glare at night.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

4.16.3 REGULATORY SETTING
State
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the Scenic Highway Program, which is intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. State laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in Streets and Highways Code §§260 to 263. A highway may be designated as scenic based on certain criteria, including how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the landscape’s scenic quality, and the extent to which development intrudes on the traveler’s scenic view enjoyment. The Program’s Scenic Highway System List identifies scenic highways that are either eligible for designation or have already been designated as such. As previously stated, there are no State designated scenic highways within the Project site vicinity.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, consists of regulations to control building standards throughout the State. The following Title 24 components include standards related to sign lighting:

The California Green Building Standards Code, which is Part 11 of Title 24, is commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code. Paragraph A4.106.10, Light Pollution Reduction, recommends that residential outdoor lighting comply with the following:
 The minimum requirements in the California Energy Code for Lighting Zones 1-4, as defined in California Administrative Code Chapter 10, as noted above;  Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG) ratings defined in IES TM-15-11;  Allowable BUG ratings not exceeding those shown in Table A4.106.10; and  A local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to § 101.7, whichever is more stringent.

Lighting Zone Designation LZ3
The Project site and surrounding properties are urban, mixed use, commercial, and residential zones with nighttime uses. Current best practices for lighting standards recognize the unique issues related to nighttime use adjacent to residences. The CEC includes designations for LZ 1 through 4 which correspond to the IESNA 10th Edition Handbook, Table 26.4 Light Trespass recommendations.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

All California urban areas are designated LZ 3, as default under the CEC, which limits the Light Trespass to 8 lux (0.74 footcandles). Per the CEC, California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, § 10-114, pages 40, 41, the designations for outdoor lighting zones in urban areas are as follows:
“The default for urban areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, is Lighting Zone 3. Local AHJs (Authorities Having Jurisdiction) may designate areas to Lighting Zone 4 for high intensity nighttime use, such as entertainment or commercial districts or areas with special security considerations requiring very high light levels.”
The existing conditions at and surrounding the Project site and along South Normandie Avenue, West 169th Street, Brighton Way, and 170th Street are consistent with the definition of LZ 3 noted above. In addition, the IESNA defines LZ 3 as:
“areas of human activity where the vision of human residents and users is adapted to high light levels. Lighting is generally considered necessary for safety, security and/or convenience and it is mostly uniform or continuous.” IESNA Table 26.5, lists a Pre-curfew 8 Lux (0.74 footcandles) maximum at the location where trespass is under review for LZ 3. The CEC standard is well defined and supported by the IESNA and ASHRAE, and other independent lighting organizations such as the International Dark Sky Organization and U.S. Green Building Council.

Local
City of Gardena General Plan
The GGP Community Development Element provides a Community Design Plan that focuses on the aesthetic qualities of existing and future developments in the City and its relationship to the surrounding environment. The following goals and policies are relevant to aesthetic resources:
 DS Goal 1: Enhance the visual environment and create a positive image of the City. o Policy DS 1.3: Promote a stronger design review process to ensure that public and private projects comply with best design practices and standards. o Policy DS 1.4: Provide a sense of arrival to Gardena through entry monument signs, landscaping features, architectural and motifs at key gate-way locations. o Policy DS 1.8: Encourage neighborhood district identity.  DS Goal 2: Enhance the aesthetic quality of the residential neighborhoods in the City. o Policy DS 2.1: Provide stronger design guidelines for residential development, including both new construction and additions to existing single-family units or multifamily dwellings.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

o 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.
o Policy DS 2.3: Encourage a variety of architectural styles, massing, floor pans, color schemes, building materials, façade treatments, elevation and wall articulations. o 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.
o Policy DS 2.8: Ensure that new single-family residential buildings or additions are designed and constructed with sensitivity for the privacy of adjacent residential properties and the value and quality of existing homes. o Policy DS 2.9: Integrate new residential developments with the surrounding built environment. In addition, encourage a strong relationship between the swelling and the street.
o 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. o 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.
o Policy DS 2.12: Provide well-designed and safe parking areas that maximize security, surveillance and efficient access to building entrances. o Policy DS 2.13: Encourage lot consolidation for multi-family development projects in order to produce larger sites with greater project amenities. o Policy DS 2.14: Require design standards to be established to provide for attractive building design features, safe egress and ingress, sufficient parking, adequate pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and proper signage.
o Policy DS 2.15: Promote innovative development and design techniques, new material and construction methods to stimulate residential development that protects the environment.

City of Gardena Municipal Code
The Project is subject to compliance with Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 18.39 – Specific Plans. Per Subsection B of §18.39.010: Intent and Authority, the regulations established in a specific plan zone would allow residential, commercial, or industrial land uses and development standards created specifically for the Project area, while ensuring compliance with Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

the spirit, intent, and provisions of GMC Titles 17 and 18, the Gardena General Plan, and other applicable laws. Guidelines, regulations and development standards incorporated in any specific plan zone are intended to achieve the following:

1. Respond sensitively to the natural and built environment and increase amenities to serve the inhabitants and surrounding community and neighborhood area;

2. Minimize the alterations of existing landforms and preserve significant natural features and vegetation unique to the city;

3. Conserve the historic, cultural and scenic assets of the city;

4. Provide an enriched environment with aesthetic cohesiveness and harmonious massing of structures within a framework of natural and landscaped open space through the utilization of superior land planning and architectural design;

5. Minimize the intrusion of new development into environmentally sensitive areas;

6. Protect new development from adverse visual impacts and excessive noise from nearby off-site structures and transportation corridors.

The GMC regulates lighting with respect to light trespass (i.e., the spillover of light onto adjacent light-sensitive properties). The City also enforces the building code requirements of the California Building Code, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), and the California Electrical Code, as adopted by the City.

4.16.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions concerning aesthetics. 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:
 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (see Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant);
 Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway (see Section 7.0:

Effects Found Not to be Significant)
 If the Project is in an urbanized area, impacts may be significant if the Project conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality (see Impact 4.16- 1); and/or
 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (see Impact 4.16-2)
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

Methodology and Assumptions
The Project and proposed Specific Plan Design Guidelines are evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning aesthetics. In addition to the design characteristics of future development, this analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact.

Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

This analysis of impacts on aesthetic resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects-based significance criteria/threshold’s application, outlined above. For each criterion, the analyses address both temporary (construction) and operational impacts, as applicable. Each criterion is discussed in the context of Project components that share similar characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

The existing conditions and impact analyses are based on a desktop review5 including review of Project maps and drawings; Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards, analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on scenic resources or visual character considers the site’s aesthetic resource value and the Project’s individual component visual impact (e.g., the nature and duration of the impact). In other words, new conspicuous structures or visual changes in areas with a low aesthetic resource value may not necessarily result in substantial adverse effects on visual resources.

Visual sensitivity can be described as viewer awareness of visual changes in the environment and is based on the viewers’ perspective while engaging in activities from public areas near a project site. The Project site is visible to various users, primarily from local roadways and businesses. The sensitivity of those users to changes within a project site varies with the type of use, length of time that the viewer would be within a project site’s zone of visual influence (ZVI), and the viewer’s distance from a project site. Viewers of a project site typically include nearby residents, and recreational users, travelers, and commuters within a project’s ZVI. 5 A "desktop review” is a limited-scope evaluation that does not include a site inspection visit.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

4.16.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.16-1:

If an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion/Analysis
The Project site is in an urbanized area. The Project site is in the City’s southeast portion and is bordered by roadways, a railroad spur, and single- and multi-family residential uses. The Project site is fully developed with six industrial buildings constructed and remodeled between 1952 and 1979. The existing industrial buildings are blighted and a portion of one of the six industrial buildings is in a dilapidated condition and is not unoccupiable or currently being used. The property is inadequately maintained, devoid of landscaping, and is framed by contorted slatted, barbed wire fencing that is in disrepair on all sides, except the site’s northeastern portion. The onsite UPRR spur is no longer in use. The Project proposes to remove all existing on-site improvements and construct a 7-story apartment building with 403 multi-family dwelling units:
328 units and 75 townhomes. The apartment building’s maximum height would be 90 feet as measured from the finished floor (i.e., the level of the finished floor on the ground level) of the roof’s highest point, including non-habitable projections (including without limitation, architectural features, elevator shafts mechanical equipment, stairwells, canopies, or shade structures). The townhomes would be three-stories at a maximum height of 40 feet as measured from the finished floor of the roof’s highest point, including non-habitable projections.

The existing zoning for the Project site is identified in Table 4.8-3: Existing Zoning in Section 4.8:

Land Use and Planning. The regulations specified in Table 4.8-3 do not include standards governing scenic quality. While the GMC does not include regulationsspecifically regarding scenic quality, the City does have a standard for urban design for residential uses set forth in GMC §18.42.120.

Of the 5.25-acre site, approximately 1.32 acres (Parcels 1, 2, and 3) are zoned General Industrial Zone (M-1) and 3.93 acres (Parcel 4) are zoned General Industrial Zone (M-2). Parcels 1, 2, and 3 have a Housing Overlay 4 (HO-4), which allows a density of 21-30 dwelling unit per acre (DU/AC).

Project implementation requires the following zone changes:
 A zoning map amendment to change the zones from (1) Industrial (M-1) with a High Density 30 Overlay and (2) General Industrial (M-2) to Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Zone;
 At 16964 West 179th Street, rezone from General Industrial (M-2) Zone to Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zone;
Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

 Concerning the Union Pacific Railroad parcel immediately adjacent and east of the Project site, rezone from General Industrial (M-2) to Official (O); and  A GMC zoning text amendment to add Normandie Crossing Specific Plan.

NCSP Chapter 6: Design Guidelines includes architecture, landscape, and streetscape design standards per GMC §18.39.010(b), which would govern Project development and promote aesthetic quality. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning governing scenic quality.

Further, as determined in Table 4.8-4: Gardena General Plan 2006 Analysis, the Project would not conflict with Policy LU 1.1, Policy LU 1.2, Policy LU 1.5, Policy DS 1.4, Policy DS 2.1, Policy DS

2.2, Policy DS 2.3, Policy DS 2.7, Policy DS 2.9, Policy DS 2.10, Policy DS 2.11, Policy DS 2.12, Policy DS 2.14, and Policy DS 2.15, all of which govern scenic quality. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.16-2:

Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion/Analysis
The seven-story buildings would be visible from surrounding areas that also create lighting. The proposed Project would create lighting from two primary sources: lighting from building interiors that would pass through windows and lighting from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting associated with offsite improvements, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). Future development within the NCSP area would be subject to the light and glare regulations specified in GMC §18.42.150: Security and Lighting Plan, which the City requires to ensure that safety and security issues are addressed in the development’s design, and that an average of one footcandle is provided for all the public/common areas. NCSP Section 6.3:

Lighting Standards requires that open spaces and pedestrian areas be illuminated. The Project’s outdoor lighting would be subject to compliance with GMC §18.42.150.

The City would also review new lighting for conformance with the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) (2022 Standards) (CCR Title 24 Part 11) in effect at the time that building plans are submitted, such that only the minimum amount of lighting is used, and no light spillage occurs. Additionally, NCSP Section 6.3 requires that light fixtures be designed and located in a manner that does not allow spillover onto adjacent properties. Consistent with City Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

requirements, required landscaping may also help buffer and minimize light effects on adjacent land uses.

With respect to materials used for the construction of the apartment and townhome buildings, reflective or shiny materials would not be used. The materials that would be used for Project construction would not create any significant light or glare within the Project area.

Because the Project site and surrounding area are developed, the Project’s proposed lighting would not substantially increase light and glare within the site or its surroundings. With adherence to GMC standards, the NCSP, and California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, the Project’s lighting and glare impacts would be less than significant and potential light spill would not occur on surrounding land uses or roadways.

Light and glare impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.16.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, several factors must be considered. The cumulative study area for aesthetic impacts is the viewshed that includes the Project area and its surrounding areas. The context in which a project is being viewed would also influence the significance of the aesthetic impact. The contrast a project has with its surrounding environment may be reduced by the presence of other cumulative projects. If most of an area is or is becoming more urbanized, the contrast of a project with the natural surrounding may be less since it would not stand out in contrast as much. In order for a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the proposed elements of the cumulative projects would need to be seen together or in proximity to each other. If the projects were not near each other, the viewer would not perceive them in the same scene.

Ongoing development within the Project area would alter the area’s existing character and quality. Future development projects would have the potential to increase the amount of light and glare. Each development in the Project area would be required to comply with policies and regulations set out by the GGP and GMC. Compliance with these policies, plans, and regulations would ensure that proposed future development in the surrounding areas would be compatible with the City’s urban development.

Therefore, compliance with policies and regulations set out by the proposed NCSP, the GGP, and GMC would not cumulatively contribute to the cumulative impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 4.16
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

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

4.16.8 REFERENCES
City of Gardena. (2006). Gardena General Plan 2006, updated 2022. Retrieved from https://www.cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/generalplan7.pdf.

City of Gardena. (2023). Gardena Municipal Code. Retrieved from Chapter 18.42 GENERAL PROVISIONS (codepublishing.com).

City of Gardena. (2022). Normandie Crossing Specific Plan.

Kimley>>>Horn

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED
State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c) requires that the EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less than significant levels. The Project’s environmental effects are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this EIR. Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts for the following topical issues:
cultural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Implementation of the City’s standard Conditions of Approval (COA) and specified mitigation measures (MMs) provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 would reduce these potential impacts to levels considered less than significant, except concerning construction-related noise impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below.

5.0.1 NOISE
As specified in Gardena Municipal Code §8.36.080: Exemptions, construction activities are exempt from the City’s noise standards, provided that construction activities do not take place between the hours of 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 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.

Project construction activities would result in a temporary significant unavoidable constructionrelated noise impact due to the increase in ambient noise levels and given the extended construction period, building height, and construction-related noise levels exceeding the City’s standard by more than 10 dBA despite MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2. As such, it is conservatively concluded that the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL

CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE

PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
According to State CEQA Guidelines §15126(c), an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should a proposed project be implemented.

As stated in State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d):

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

“…..uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter likely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.”
The Project would use limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. This use would occur during Project construction and operations. Project construction activities would require a commitment of resources that would include: (1) building materials; (2) fuel and operational materials/resources; and (3) the transportation of goods and persons to and from individual construction sites. Construction would require the consumption of resources that are not renewable or which may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources would include the following construction supplies: lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt; metals; and water. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed to power construction vehicles and equipment.

The resources that would be committed during future Project operations would be similar to those used by residential operations, including electricity, water, and fossil fuels for vehicle and delivery trips.

The Project site is fully developed with industrial uses and would require demolition activities to accommodate the proposed residential development. The demolition activities would be subject to compliance with the established regulatory requirements to ensure that any asbestoscontaining materials, lead-based paints, and volatile organic compounds are not released into the environment. Compliance with the established regulatory framework and recommended mitigation would protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials.

In summary, Project implementation would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these resource quantities for future generations or for other uses during the Project’s life. However, use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale in a regional context. Although irreversible environmental changes would result from Project implementation, such changes would not be considered significant.

5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(e) requires that EIRs include a discussion of ways in which a project could induce growth. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as “growth-inducing” if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations

housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from a commercial or industrial development and new population from a residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.

Therefore, the Project would have a growth-inducing impact if it would:
 Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing;
 Remove obstacles to population growth;
 Require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
 Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, the potential for growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental nor necessarily beneficial, and neither is it automatically considered to be of little significance to the environment.

5.0.1 DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOSTER ECONOMIC OR POPULATION

GROWTH, OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING
The Project site is developed with six industrial buildings, asphalt surface parking lots, hardscapes, and landscaping. The Project would remove all onsite uses to develop a 403-DU multi-family residential development with 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 at the Project site’s southern portion and along the western site boundary. When implemented, the Project would increase population in the City. The Project’s forecast population growth of 1,088 persons is anticipated to increase the City’s existing 2023 population to 60,897 persons, representing an approximately 1.8 percent increase in population; see Table 4.10-7: Existing Plus Project Growth Projections. Therefore, the Project would induce direct population growth through the construction of additional housing. The Project is a residential development, which would have minimal employees that may include management and maintenance staff during operation. It is unlikely that the minimal number of potential employees would indirectly induce the need for the construction of additional housing.

Additionally, the Project does not propose to extend roads or other infrastructure, thus, would not indirectly induce population growth in the City. Although the Project would directly increase the City’s population, this growth is not considered substantial. Therefore, although the Project would induce unplanned direct population growth in the City through new homes, this impact is considered less than significant.

Kimley>>>Horn
Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project Section 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations