Agenda packet — Gardena City Council, February 25, 2025 (part 2 of 7)

BACKGROUND
In May of 2020, the Gardena City Council held a study session to hear from a development group known as Insite Property Group, on the potential development for a 6.33-acre site near the southwest corner of Artesia Blvd and Normandie Ave. At the meeting the developer discussed a conceptual proposal to redevelop the site into a new self-storage facility with office space and an outdoor community park. After hearing from the council and the community, the developer formally submitted a proposal in December of 2021 to establish the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan to develop the land with a new 268,000 square foot (-sf) commercial/industrial mixed-use building for self-storage, office and industrial uses, and to allow the site for outdoor community event space.

The subject site currently comprises six separate parcels with multiple addresses, with the main and largest parcel that includes existing structures, located at 1450 Artesia Blvd. The eastern portion of the property is commonly referred to as the Gardena Sumps. In the 1980s, the State’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found hazardous materials on the Gardena Sumps, leading to several action orders. The area was then covered with geosynthetic liners, asphalt, and concrete, and the site was fenced, which remains its current state. The remainder of the project site is currently developed with several small businesses, including a Uhaul rental agency, a metal fabricating shop, a sandblasting and painting company and an auto repair shop.

In June 2022, the DTSC approved a Final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Remedial Design to ensure the proper management of the Gardena Sumps site is in compliance with state requirements. At that time, the property was owned by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC), which was identified as the responsible party for carrying out the actions outlined in the RAP.

Throughout the process, the developer collaborated closely with ARC and state agencies to support the potential future development of the site. The Final RAP specifies the excavation of contaminated soils and the necessary actions ARC must take to remediate the Gardena Sumps site for commercial and industrial use standards.

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project's development, the City initiated the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by entering into a consultant agreement with Dudek, an environmental consulting firm. Dudek assisted with the preparation of the report and provided peer review of the studies submitted by the Applicant. Together with City staff, Dudek initiated the EIR process by first conducting an initial study, which allowed for a 30-day review period and included a public scoping meeting.

Once the Draft EIR (DEIR) was completed, a Notice of Availability was prepared and the DEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period, from August 1, 2024 through September 16, 2024. A Final EIR (FEIR) was prepared, incorporating responses to comments received during the public comment period and revisions made to the document. This version was then presented to the Planning Commission for consideration, along with the Applicant's requests for entitlements, on February 4, 2025.

Attached for the City Council's consideration is the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission, dated February 4, 2025, (Attachment 1), that provides further details relating to the proposed project. The 1450 Artesia Specific Plan also outlines the specific details regarding the intended uses, development standards, as well as the goals and policies for the area.

Page 3 of 6 ends

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
The Applicant requests the following entitlements to establish the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan and the redevelopment of approximately 6.3 acres of land near the corner of Artesia Blvd and Normandie Ave:

1. Specific Plan (SP #1-23): Adoption of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan to provide new zoning and development standards to allow the redevelopment of 6.3 acres with a mixeduse commercial/industrial development consisting of a 268,000 gross square foot (GSF) building with an approximate height of 75 feet. The project will feature self-storage (186,000 GSF, 1,480 units), industrial warehousing (72,000 GSF, 10 loading docks), and office/retail space (10,000 GSF mezzanine);

2. Site Plan Review (SPR #5-21): Approving the physical design of the development; and

3. Development Agreement (DA #1-21): Approving an agreement between the City and developer that guarantees the right to build the development as set forth in this Specific Plan for a period of 10 years and provides community benefits to the City including monetary contribution and space to hold community events.

Administrative Approval

1. Lot Merger (LM #1-21): To merge six lots into one single parcel for the site development.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the demolition of all existing structures and the development of a new commercial/industrial mixed-use project. The project will include the following components:
• A 268,000-sf building with associated surface parking, landscaping, and circulation improvements.
• A three-level self-storage facility totaling 186,000-sf, with 1,480 storage units. • An industrial warehouse with one level totaling 72,000-sf, including 10 loading docks. • An office/retail space with a mezzanine totaling 10,000-sf.

Additional project improvements will include perimeter fencing, on-site and perimeter landscaping, lighting, exterior sidewalks, and two curb cuts along Artesia Boulevard, one for right-turn in and one for right-turn out driveways. The site will also feature 124 automobile parking spaces, including 5 accessible spaces, 6 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and 25 EV-ready spaces.

Special events, such as food truck gatherings, farmers markets, car shows, and live entertainment, would be determined by the Recreation and Human Services Director. As previously, mentioned the developer initially considered developing a public park facility on the site over the Gardena Sumps, however, due to the remediation requirements by the State’s Department and the site's unique location, the plan was later revised to accommodate outdoor City events instead.

Page 4 of 6 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
On February 4, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 1450 Artesia Blvd Specific Plan project and FEIR. The following resolutions were adopted by the Planning Commission by a 5-0 vote:
• Resolution No. PC 2-25 (Attachment 2), Recommending to the City Council to certify the FEIR and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings Relating to Alternatives and Mitigation Measures, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for purposes of the project; and
• Resolution No. PC 3-25 (Attachment 3), Recommending to the City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 1879 adopting the 1450 Artesia Blvd Specific Plan (SP# 1-23), Site Plan Review #5-21 and Development Agreement #1-21.

The Applicant’s request involves legislative action and is therefore being presented to the City Council for adoption.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
As previously noted, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts of the project in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The Draft EIR identified several areas of concern as significant but manageable, with mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. The only impact that could not be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level is construction noise, which remains unavoidable. However, efforts will be made to mitigate this impact as much as possible through specific measures during construction, as listed in the MMRP. Additional summary information on the EIR can be found in the staff report under Attachment 1.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Applicant's request includes a Development Agreement, which will secure the right to construct the development outlined in the Specific Plan for a period of 5 years, with the option for a 5-year extension at the request of either party. In exchange, the Applicant will provide benefits to the City, including granting exclusive access to a section of the parking for periodic City events and making a monetary contribution of one million dollars.

NOTICING/PUBLIC COMMENTS
The public hearing notice for the project was published in the Gardena Valley News and mailed via first-class mail to property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site, as well as to individuals who have previously submitted public comments or spoken at a public hearing, on February 13, 2025. A copy of Proof of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing are on file in the office of the Community Development Department, Room 101, City Hall, and are considered part of the administrative record.

Page 5 of 6 ends

During the Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 2025, three comments were received regarding the project, which are included in Attachment 4. Immediately prior to the Planning Commission meeting, a comment letter from the Los Angeles County Unified School District (LAUSD) was received. The comments raised concerns about the project's potential impact on nearby school facilities. During the public hearing, the City’s environmental consultant addressed these concerns. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the City’s consultant has prepared a formal response to the comments, which is included in Attachment 5, and made an exhibit to Resolution No. 6693.

CONCLUSION:

Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, receive public testimony with each speaker allowed three (3) minutes, and then close the public hearing.

Following this, the City Council will consider the adoption of Resolution No. 6693 and introduction of Ordinance No. 1879, to approve the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Applicant has prepared an economic analysis (Attachment 6), outlining the overall benefits the project would bring to the City, which includes a monetary contribution of one million dollars to the City’s General Fund.

Submitted by: ______ Amanda Acuna_______________ Date: 2/20/2025 ATTACHMENTS TO STAFF REPORT (hyperlinked)

1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 4, 2025

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2-25 recommending certifying the EIR in accordance with CEQA, without Exhibits

3. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 3-25 recommending adoption of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan and Development Agreement, without Exhibits

4. Public Comments received for February 4, 2025 Public Hearing

5. Response to LAUSD Comment Letter

6. Economic Analysis

Page 6 of 6 ends

RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION
RESOLUTION NO. 6693, Certifying an Environmental Impact Report, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and making CEQA Findings Relating to the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project.
o Exhibit A – Draft EIR, dated July 2024
o Exhibit B – Final EIR, dated January 2025
o Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program o Exhibit D – Response to LAUSD Comment Letter
ORDINANCE NO. 1879: Adopting the Specific Plan and Approving the Development Agreement Relating to the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project. o Exhibit A – 1450 Artesia Specific Plan
o Exhibit B – Project Plans
o Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval
o Exhibit D – Development Agreement

CITY OF GARDENA

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment #9-21 (SCH 2023060263), Specific Plan #1-23, Site Plan Review #5-21, and Development Agreement #1-21
AGENDA ITEM #7.A
DATE: February 4, 2025
TO: Chair Henderson and Members of the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission
FROM: Greg Tsujiuchi, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Amanda Acuna, Community Development Manager APPLICANT: 1450 Artesia Acquisition Company LLC (Representative: Brian Sorensen)
LOCATION: 1440, 1450, 1462, 1472 Artesia Boulevard, (APN: 6106-036-010, - 012, -034, -035, -036, -037)
REQUEST: The Applicant requests the following entitlements for the redevelopment of approximately 6.3 acres of land:
• Specific Plan (SP #1-23): Adoption of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan to provide new zoning and development standards to allow the redevelopment of 6.3 acres with a mixed-use commercial/industrial development consisting of a 268,000 gross square foot (GSF) building with an approximate height of 75 feet. The project will feature self-storage (186,000 GSF, 1,480 units), industrial warehousing (72,000 GSF, 10 loading docks), and office/retail space (10,000 GSF mezzanine); • Site Plan Review (SP #5-21): approving the physical design of the development; • Development Agreement (DA #1-21): between the City and developer that guarantees the right to build the development as set forth in this Specific Plan for a period of 10 years and provides community benefits to the City including monetary contribution and space to hold community events.

Administrative Approval
• Lot Merger (LM #1-21): to merge six lots into one single parcel for the site development.

Approval of these items requires certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EA # 9- 21), adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 2 of 19 ends

BACKGROUND
Site History
In May of 2020, the Gardena City Council held a study session to hear from a development group known as Insite Property Group (the “Applicant”), on the potential development for a 6.33-acre site near the southwest corner of Artesia Blvd and Normandie Ave (Figure 1: Vicinity Map). At the meeting the developer discussed a conceptual proposal to redevelop the site into a new self-storage facility with office space and an outdoor community park. After hearing from the council and the community, the developer formally submitted a proposal in December of 2021 to establish the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan to develop the land with a new 268,000 square foot (-sf) commercial/industrial mixed use building for self-storage, office and industrial uses, and to allow the site for outdoor community event space.

The subject site currently comprises six separate parcels with multiple addresses, with the main and largest parcel that includes existing structures, located at 1450 Artesia Blvd.

The eastern portion of the property is commonly referred to as the Gardena Sumps. The remainder of the site is currently developed with several small businesses, including a Uhaul rental agency, a metal fabricating shop, a sandblasting and painting company and an auto repair shop. The structures for the businesses were originally constructed between the 1920s to 1950s (see Figures 2.a-2.d). There is also an unoccupied residential building at the southwest corner of the site, originally built in 1963. The current conditions of the site also include the storage of several trailers and shipping containers, and parked commercial trucks.

The subject property was originally used for industrial purposes, including clay mining.

Later multiple sumps on the property were constructed and used to collect waste materials like refinery byproducts and acids. These sumps are now known as the Cooper and Haack properties, and as indicated above, are commonly referred to as the Gardena Sumps. In the 1980s, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (then known as the Department of Health Services) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified the presence of hazardous materials on the site, resulting in the issuance of several action orders. Following these agency actions, the sumps were covered with geosynthetic liners, asphalt, and concrete, and the site was fenced.

Currently, multiple monitoring wells and a cap are located on the Gardena Sumps portion of the site as an engineering control, limiting redevelopment options. To facilitate the site's development, efforts have been ongoing between the Applicant and Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC), the responsible agency for the site's cleanup with the State’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to prepare a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). This plan outlines the detailed steps and strategies required to address environmental contamination on the portion of the site that the Gardena Sumps covers.

On June 30, 2022 DTSC approved a Final RAP, outlining the excavation of contaminated soils, their relocation, and response actions that ARC must undertake to remediate the Gardena Sumps site to commercial/industrial use standards. Additionally, the RAP Figure 1: Vicinity Map
included a legal land-use covenant that restricts future site usage to commercial and industrial purposes, as the site cannot be remediated to a level suitable for permanent residential use. The RAP specifies that remediation must be completed before project construction begins.

Additionally, over the years, the City’s Code Enforcement Division has initiated several cases concerning the property due to violations of municipal and State health and safety codes. Since 2012, at least 22 cases have been opened, addressing issues such as zoning violations, operating without proper business permits, property maintenance problems like overgrown vegetation, and animal nuisances. In 2018, the Community Development Department issued a notice of violation citing numerous building and safety code violations, which resulted in some of the structures on the site ultimately being red tagged.

Zoning History
In 2006, the City updated the General Plan, changing the land use and zoning designation for properties along Artesia Boulevard between Normandie Ave and Western Ave from Industrial to General Commercial. Later that year, in July 2006, the City adopted the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan to encourage revitalization along this corridor, supporting a mix of residential and commercial uses. The project site was included within the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan, designated under Plan Areas 4 and 5, along the eastern end of the specific plan with a land use category of commercial and mixed-use (Figure 3: Artesia Corridor Specific Plan Land Use Map). Mixed use residential and commercial has been developed within parts of the Artesia Corridor. However, the project site was never developed per the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan. At no time was a viable commercial project brought forward for the property.

In 2023, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element and updated the Land Use Plan, which involved amending the General Plan, Zoning Code, and rescinding the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan. Despite this change, the project site retained its Specific Plan land use designation (Figure 4: Current Zoning Map). The new zoning, known as the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan, allows for both industrial and commercial development, pending the adoption of a specific plan to establish the development standards for the site.

The Applicant, in collaboration with City staff, has prepared the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan, which is now being presented for consideration. The City Council will make the final decision on its adoption. At this stage, the Planning Commission will be reviewing the plan and making a recommendation to the Council.

Figure 2: Existing Conditions

2.a – Exiting Warehouse structures 2.b – Back view of existing U-Haul office February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 6 of 19 ends

2.c – Building at the south end of the property 2.d – View of front Buildings along Artesia Blvd Figure 3: Artesia Corridor Specific Plan Land Use Map
Figure 4: Current Zoning Map
February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 8 of 19 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the demolition of all existing structures and the development of a new commercial/industrial mixed-use project, as shown in Figure 5: Site Plan. The project will include the following components:
• A 268,000-sf building with associated surface parking, landscaping, and circulation improvements.
• A three-level self-storage facility totaling 186,000-sf, with 1,480 storage units. • An industrial warehouse with one level totaling 72,000-sf, including 10 loading docks.
• An office/retail space with a mezzanine totaling 10,000-sf.

Additional project improvements will include perimeter fencing, on-site and perimeter landscaping, lighting, exterior sidewalks, and two curb cuts along Artesia Boulevard—one for right-turn in and one for right-turn out driveways. The site will also feature 124 automobile parking spaces, including 5 accessible spaces, 6 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and 25 EV-ready spaces.

In addition, the Applicant proposes to allow the City to host special events on approximately 36,000-sf (0.8 acres) of the site, utilizing around 63 parking spaces. A storage building will be located along the eastern edge of the truck area for storing event furniture and equipment. Special events, such as food truck gatherings, farmers markets, car shows, and live entertainment, would be determined by the Parks and Recreation Director. Initially, the Applicants considered developing a public park facility. However, due to the State’s remediation requirements and the site's specific location, a public park was determined to be unsuitable. As a result, the developers have proposed a community space in place of the park.

The building and site design incorporates engineering controls outlined in the approved Final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Remedial Design to ensure the project site is safe for use and occupancy for its intended commercial and industrial purposes, while protecting human health and the environment.

Figure 5: Site Plan
CLICK HERE to View Full Set of Project Plans

PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
As it currently sits, the project site does not have any zoning regulations that would apply to the site for new development since the rescinding of the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan.

In order to allow for the proposed development, the Applicant is requesting the adoption of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan that has been structured to the specific development design standards of the project. The following sections provide an overview of the all the various entitlements being requested. The Planning Commission is being asked for their recommendation on the following entitlements to the City Council:
• Specific Plan (SP #1-23): Redeveloping a mixed-use property with a 268,000 GSF building, including surface parking, landscaping, and circulation upgrades.

The project will feature self-storage (186,000 GSF, 1,480 units), industrial warehousing (72,000 GSF, 10 loading docks), and office/retail space (10,000 GSF mezzanine);
• Site Plan Review (SP #5-21): approving the physical design of the development; • Development Agreement (DA #1-21): between the City and developer that guarantees the right to build the development as set forth in this Specific Plan for a period of 10 years and provides community benefits to the City including monetary contribution, and space to hold community events.

Administrative Approval
• Lot Merger (LM #1-21): to merge six lots into one single parcel for the site development.

In addition, as part of the project the City, through its environmental consultant, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a separate recommendation on the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, that has been prepared by staff.

ANALYSIS
SECTION 1: SPECIFIC PLAN #1-23
The 1450 Artesia Specific Plan includes information for City staff, the community, and the Planning Commission on how the project site will be developed and how it is consistent with the City of Gardena General Plan. A Specific Plan is a regulatory document prepared pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code sections 65450 through 65457 and provides a framework for development of the project site, including permitted uses and development standards. Upon approval of the legislative actions, the Specific Plan will prevail over the City’s Zoning Ordinance, establishing its own regulatory requirements. The following tables provide a summary of the development standards February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 11 of 19 ends

proposed in the Specific Plan. Development standards not covered by the Specific Plan will be regulated by the Gardena Municipal Code.

Table 1 – Development Standards for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan

STANDARD REQUIREMENT
Permitted Uses - Warehouse and Distribution
- Self-Storage
- Ancillary sales
- Commercial Office/ Retail (Max. 10,000-sf)
- Special Events
Prohibited Uses - Cold Storage
- Fulfillment Center
Minimum Lot Size 6.33 acres
Maximum Building Height 75 feet
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 1.0
Setbacks Front (Artesia Blvd): 86 feet
Rear: 48 feet
Side (Eastern): 300 feet
Side (Western): 40 feet
Minimum Landscape 32,473-sf
Parking Warehouse 1 / 1,000 SF
Office / Retail (Mezzanine) 1 / 400 SF
Self-Storage 1.65 / 100 Units
Parking Dimensions Standard: 9’ x 18’
No compact spaces
DU= Dwelling Units AC= Acres -sf= Square feet
A. SETBACKS
In accordance with the 1450 Specific Plan, no buildings or structures are permitted within the designated building setbacks. The property's frontage along Artesia Blvd is set back by at least 86 feet, which includes a 30-foot landscaping area spanning the entire frontage, excluding the two driveway access points. Within the overall project area, the Specific Plan requires the proposed structure to maintain setbacks of 86 feet from the front property line along Artesia Blvd, 48 feet from the rear property line, 300 feet from the eastern property line (which will primarily be used for parking), and a 40-foot setback from the western property boundary.

B. HEIGHT
The specific plan calls for the buildings not to exceed a maximum of 75 feet in height as measured from the finished floor (i.e., the level of the finished floor on the ground level) to the highest point on the roof, including non-occupiable projections (including, without February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 12 of 19 ends

limitation, architectural features, elevator shafts mechanical equipment, stairwells, canopies, or shade structures).

C. LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE
All the lighting fixtures within the development have been designed and positioned to prevent light spillovers onto adjacent properties. Glaring or flashing lights are prohibited.

Additionally, all exterior lighting fixtures will be architecturally consistent with the building's design. As part of the project conditions, the Applicant will be required to submit a lighting plan ensuring an average of 2-foot candles of light, with a minimum of 1-foot candle for all public and common areas.

The 1450 Artesia Blvd Specific Plan does not include specific provisions for signage on the property. Therefore, signage will be governed by the City’s Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 18.58. As part of the project conditions, the Applicant will be required to submit a master sign program, including identification and wayfinding signage throughout the Specific Plan Area, to the Community Development Director for review and approval.

D. ACCESS/PARKING/CIRCULATION
Parking for the project will be located along the northeastern portion of the site. The plan includes 124 automobile parking spaces and 10 dock doors within the building, with additional space available for truck parking and staging within the secured truck parking area. No parking will be permitted around the perimeter access loop.

The 1450 Artesia Specific Plan establishes the following minimum parking requirements for industrial and accessory uses:
• Warehousing areas: One parking space per 1,000 square feet • Office areas: One parking space per 400 square feet of gross leasable space (GLA)
• Self-storage buildings: 1.65 vehicles per 100 storage units Additionally, the project will comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which includes requirements for bicycle parking, designated parking for clean air vehicles, EV charging stations, and other parking-related standards specified by CALGreen.

Truck Access and Circulation
The proposed building will feature up to 10 dock doors, positioned to face east, away from residential areas. Truck access will be designed similarly to vehicle access, with entry at the northwest corner of the site. Trucks will circulate along the western and southern edges of the property, reaching the loading docks. After loading, trucks will exit the dock area, traveling north through the parking lot and egressing via the northwest corner of the February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 13 of 19 ends

site. This truck circulation plan is designed as a loop around the building to facilitate smooth onsite traffic flow (see Figure 6: Circulation Plan - Truck Access) Figure 6: Circulation Plan - Truck Access
E. CITY EVENTS/STORAGE
To support occasional City events held at the site, the specific plan includes the construction of a City storage building. This building will be made of CMU blocks, built on a slab-on-grade foundation, and equipped with a steel door and LED motion sensor lights inside. The design of the storage building will complement the overall project and will be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval.

During special events, parking will be restricted to the designated Special Event Area, as shown in Figure 6. During these City special events, trucks must exit the loading area in the same direction they entered and are prohibited from driving along the eastern and northeastern sides of the property. To enforce this, the City will install a temporary physical barrier along the eastern and northern boundaries to prevent traffic flow in these areas. Additionally, the City may install temporary barriers to block access to drive aisles near the event, as long as access to parking for self-storage remains available.

February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 14 of 19 ends

SECTION 2: SITE PLAN REVIEW #5-21
Normally the Planning Commission approves the site plan, subject only to a call for review or an appeal to the City Council. However, in this case the Specific Plan and its regulations have been tailored around the specific site plan that is being proposed and the site plan is embedded within the Specific Plan. Therefore, the City Council will consider the approval of the Site Plan Review along with the Specific Plan, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Site plan review approval requires the following findings to be made after considering all of the various factors relating to the site plan:

1. The physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are consistent with applicable standards; The project is consistent with the applicable standards as the standards are set forth in the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan and the Project implements this Plan.

2. The development is consistent with the intent and general purpose of the general plan and provisions of this code;
The Land Use Designation for the Property is Specific Plan and the zoning is 1450 Artesia Specific Plan. As the development implements the Specific Plan, it is consistent with both the General Plan land use designation and the zoning. Additionally, the development implements numerous other goals and policies of the Specific Plan as outlined therein.

3. The health and safety services (police and fire) and public infrastructure are sufficient to accommodate the new development;
The development has been reviewed by the Gardena Police Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Neither Department has raised any issues regarding the ability to provide services. Additionally, the project has received will serve letters from the various utilities.

4. The project is compatible with the surrounding sites and neighborhoods; and The Specific Plan allows for the development of up to 268,000 square feet (SF) and an approximate height of 75 feet. The Project is designed to be compatible with adjacent and anticipated land uses and to redevelop parcels that are underutilized due to impacts from former releases of hazardous substances and waste. The Specific Plan regulates project buildout in a manner that is consistent with applicable State law.

5. The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or the appropriate environmental document has been completed and required findings have been made.

February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 15 of 19 ends

An EIR was prepared by the City’s environmental consultants in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. This EIR evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with planning, constructing, and operating the proposed 1450 Artesia Blvd Specific Plan project. The findings within the EIR are discussed below.

SECTION 3: LOT MERGER
As previously mentioned, the project site comprises six parcels. The two larger lots, approximately 2.5 and 3 acres each, are situated to the north and have public right-ofway access via Artesia Blvd. The smaller lots, each around 10,000-sf (0.23 acres), are located at the southwest corner of the site and lack direct public right-of-way access.

These smaller lots were previously home to multiple residential structures, most of which have been demolished due to health and safety concerns. One structure still stands, but it is currently unoccupied.

When the Applicant acquired all six parcels, the intent was to develop the entire site as a single project. As a result, the Applicant has requested to formally merge the lots.

According to the Subdivision Map Act (SMA), Section 66451, local agencies can merge sub-standard lots. The merger of adjacent lots is typically managed through a lot merger process, and in cases involving multiple properties like this one, it is standard practice to prepare a parcel map to formally merge the lots. This will streamline the process, simplify the legal description, and ensure proper monumentation of the property. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to submit a parcel map prepared by a qualified California civil engineer or licensed surveyor, in compliance with the SMA and Title 17 of the Gardena Municipal Code.

SECTION 4: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the Development Agreement Statutes which authorizes the City to enter into binding agreements with persons having a legal or equitable interest in real property, to provide for the development of such property and to vest certain development rights therein. In exchange, the City may obtain benefits that it would not otherwise be able to get.

Development Agreement #1-21, is an agreement between the City and developer that guarantees the right to build the development as set forth in the Specific Plan for a period of 5 years with one 5-year extension available at the request of either party. In return, the Applicant has to provide benefits to the City in the way of allowing exclusive access to a portion of the parking for periodic City events and providing a monetary contribution of one million dollars. The City currently does not have any relevant development impact fees when it comes to commercial or industrial projects such as this one. Therefore, the Applicant’s monetary contribution would be additional revenue to the City. Additionally, the City will receive the benefit of, a local hiring/local buying program for construction.

February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 16 of 19 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
An EIR is generally prepared for projects where there is a fair argument that there may be a significant impact on the environment, and the impacts may not be mitigated below a level of significance. EIRs are generally used for larger and more complex projects.

In November 2021, the City entered into a consultant agreement with Dudek to prepare the required EIR and to provide peer review of Applicant provided studies.

The EIR process starts with the preparation of an Initial Study and then a Notice of Preparation during which there is a 30-day review period for people and public agencies to comment on what should be studied in the document. There is also a public scoping meeting during this time. The Notice of Preparation public review period for this period ran from June 8, 2023 through July 10, 2023. On June 22, 2023, the City held a scoping meeting on the project.

Once the Draft EIR (DEIR) is completed, a Notice of Availability is prepared and the DEIR is circulated for a 30 or 45-day public review period. The DEIR was made available for a 45-day public review period from August 1, 2024 through September 16, 2024.

Prior to the release of the DEIR and in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City sent notices to the list of Native American Tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Council. Only one tribe requested consultation: the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The City engaged in consultation and mitigation measures have been included in the EIR as a result of the consultation.

The Draft EIR identified the below topic areas as significant, but able to be mitigated below a level of significance:
• Air Quality relating to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This will be mitigated below a level of significance by Mitigation Measure (MM) – AQ-1 requiring clean construction equipment, MM-AQ-2 requiring electric cargo handling equipment, and MM-GHG-1 establishing on-site solar power.
• Cultural Resources relating to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource. This impact will be mitigated below a level of significance by MM-CUL-1 which requires a Workers Environmental Awareness Program, MM-CUL-2 which requires the retention of an on-call qualified archaeologist if there is an inadvertent discovery, and MM-CUL-3 which requires a work stoppage within 100 feet of the find.
• Geology and Soils relating to destroying a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature. This impact will be mitigated below a level of significance by MMGEO-1 which requires steps to be taken in case of an inadvertent discovery of a resource.

February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 17 of 19 ends

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions relating to generating greenhouse gas emissions or conflicting with a plan, policy, or regulation to reduce the emissions. These impacts will be mitigated below a level of significance by both the project design features (PDF) of the project being designed to be all-electric and MM-GHG-1 establishing on-site solar power and MM-AQ-2 requiring electric cargo handling equipment. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials relating to: the routine transport, use, or disposal of material; the release of hazardous materials into the environment or within ¼ mile of a school, and being included on a list of hazardous material sites. These impacts will be mitigated by which will be mitigated by PDF-HAZ-1 implementing the final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approved by DTSC, MM-HAZ-1 relating to pre-demolition hazardous materials abatement, andMM-HAZ-2 requiring a soil management plan, and PDF-HAZ-2 installing a vapor intrusion barrier. It is specifically recognized that include info on being on a hazardous site, the RAP, etc. • Noise relating to: City-sponsored special events which will be mitigated by MM-NOI2 which requires the City to follow certain requirements relating to time of events and amplification; and excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels which will be mitigated by MM-NOI-3 requiring a construction vibration management plan. • Tribal Cultural Resource relating to a change in the significance of a TCR as defined in Public Resources Code section 5024.1 which will be mitigated by: MM-TCR-1 requiring Native American monitoring; MM-TCR-2 implementing steps if there is an unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resource objects; MM-TCR-3 and MM-TCR4 implementing steps if there is an unanticipated discovery of human remains and funerary objects. The Cultural Resources measures will also mitigate this impact.

The only impact which could not be mitigated below a level of significance and is unavoidable is construction noise. This impact will be mitigated to the extent possible by the imposition of MM-NOI-1 which requires installation of a sound barrier along the western project boundary.

In accordance with CEQA, the EIR examined three alternatives to the project in addition to the required “no project” alternative. The Alternatives are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of the EIR. The purpose of looking at alternatives is to try and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project while still attaining most of the basic objectives. The alternatives studied were:
• “No Project” Alternative;
• “Reduced Density” Alternative;
• “Self-Storage Only” Alternative; and
• “Truck-Storage Lot” Alternative.

The No Project Alternative would retain the project site in its current condition with decades-old buildings on site which do not conform to current development standards.

This alternative does not implement any of the project’s improvements and would not meet any of the project’s objectives. Because the Remedial Action Plan to clean-up the February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 18 of 19 ends

site would still go forward, two structures would still have to be demolished. No Citysponsored special events would occur. The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the development footprint by 50 percent. City-sponsored special events would still occur.

This Alternative would meet the objectives of the project, but not to the same degree; it would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact.

The Self-Storage Only Alternative would have the same footprint, with less space for office uses. City-sponsored special events would still occur. This Alternative would meet the objectives of the project, but not to the same degree; it would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact. The Truck-Storage Lot Alternative would replace the building with a truck parking and storage lot. No City-sponsored special events would occur. This alternative would meet some, but not all, of the project objectives but would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact.

When a project has a significant impact which cannot be mitigated, the decision-making body is required to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against the unavoidable impacts in determining whether to approve the project.

This is accomplished by the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In the present case, the project has a number of benefits, including: revitalization of a site with dilapidated structures, providing a one-time monetary contribution to the City of one million dollars, agreeing to use best efforts to hire locally-based construction workers and use materials from local sources, providing the City with a space of approximately 36,000 square feet to host special events up to 36 times per year on the weekends, and constructing a 200 square foot storage building for the City to use for items related to the special events. Additionally, the project would generate revenue for the City through construction, operations, and tax benefits, as demonstrated by the economic analysis prepared by the Applicant (see Attachment C).

Once the public review period has closed, a Final EIR (FEIR) is prepared. The FEIR is required to include, among other things, all written comments received on the DEIR, responses to comments, and revisions necessitated due to the comments. The City received and reviewed comments on the DEIR and prepared responses to those comments which are incorporated into the FEIR. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and all Appendices thereto and that separate document, incorporating the written comments and responses thereto, as well as the changes to the DEIR.

NOTICING
The public hearing notice for the project was published in the Gardena Valley News and mailed first class to owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site on January 9, 2025. A copy of Proof of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing are on file in the office of the Community Development Department, Room 101, City Hall, and are considered part of the administrative record.

In addition, the Applicant held a community meeting on May 20, 2024, to provide the community an opportunity to further comment on the project.

February 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
1450 Artesia Specific Plan

Page 19 of 19 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission to:
1) Conduct the public hearing;
2) Receive testimony from the public;
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC 2-25 recommending to the City Council to certify the FEIR and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings Relating to Alternatives and Mitigation Measures, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for purposes of the project; and
4) Adopt Resolution No. PC 3-25 recommending to the City Council to Recommend to the City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 1879 adopting the 1450 Artesia Blvd Spceific Plan (SP# 1-23), Site Plan Review #5-21 and Development Agreement #1-21.

ATTACHMENTS – Hyperlinked
A - Resolution No. PC 2-25
• Draft City Council Resolution No. 6693
o Exhibit A – Draft EIR, dated July 2024
o Exhibit B – Final EIR, dated January 2025
o Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B - Resolution No. PC 3-25
• Draft City Council Ordinance No. 1879
o Exhibit A – 1450 Artesia Specific Plan
o Exhibit B – Project Plans
o Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval
o Exhibit D – Development Agreement
C – Economic Analysis
1 RESOLUTION NO. PC 2-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

GARDENA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL

CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING

A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MAKING
CEQA FINDINGS RELATING TO THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE 6.33 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST

CORNER OF ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND NORMANDIE AVENUE
WHEREAS, On May 11, 2021 an application was received from Brian Sorensen on behalf of Insite Property Group LLC to develop a building consisting of warehouse and self-storage uses on property located on a 6.33 acre site near the southwest corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue and consisting of APNs 6106-036-010, -012, -034, -035, -036, and -037 (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, The eastern portion of the Project Site is known as the Gardena Sumps; and
WHEREAS, On June 17, 2022 the Department of Toxic Substances Control approved a Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) for the former owner of the Gardena Sumps to remediate the property; and
WHEREAS, The development, as analyzed, consists of 268,000 square foot building consisting of 186,000 gross square feet of self-storage units, 72,000 gross square feet of industrial warehouse/distribution use, and a 10,000 square foot office/retail area (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Gardena held a duly, noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time it considered all evidence presented, both written and oral.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GARDENA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

The Planning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) dated July 2024 and adopt a Mitigation Wright-Scherr, Langley, Sherman, Kanhan and Henderson
None
None
1 Resolution No. PC 3-25

A RESOLUTION AN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

GARDENA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE 1450 SPECIFIC PLAN AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE 6.33 ACRE PROPERTY

LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARTESIA

BOULEVARD AND NORMANDIE AVENUE
(APNS 6106-036-010, -012, -034, -035, -036, -037)
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2021 an application was received from Brian Sorensen on behalf of Insite Property Group LLC to develop a building consisting of warehouse and self-storage uses on property located on a 6.33 acre site near the southwest corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue and consisting of APNs 6106-036-010, -012, -034, -035, -036, and -037 (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the eastern portion of the Project Site is a contaminated site known as the Gardena Sumps; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2022 the Department of Toxic Substances Control approved a Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) for the former owner of the Gardena Sumps to remediate the property; and
WHEREAS, August 27, 2021, the City entered into a consulting agreement with Dudek to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, the City Council adopted ordinance No. 1848 which rezoned the Project Site to 1450 Artesia Specific Plan and added section 18.08.015 to the Gardena Municipal Code providing that no development could occur in the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan zone until a specific plan was adopted; and WHEREAS, the development, as analyzed, consists of 268,000 square foot building consisting of 186,000 gross square feet of self-storage units, 72,000 gross square feet of industrial warehouse/distribution use, and a 10,000 square foot office/retail area (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Gardena, California held a duly noticed hearing on this Project at which time it considered all evidence presented, both written and oral; and
Wright-Scherr, Langley, Sherman, Kanhan and Henderson
None
None
From: Richard Drury
To: City Clerk; Public Comment; Amanda Acuna
Subject: Comment on FEIR, 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (SCH No. 2023060263) Date: Sunday, February 2, 2025 3:44:35 PM
Attachments: 2025.02.02.FEIR ComLtr-1450 Artesia.pdf-2.pdf Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Honorable Members of the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission, This comment is submitted on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) prepared for the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (SCH No. 2023060263), which proposes the construction of a mixed-use commercial/industrial development with a total building area of 268,000 square feet, located at the corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue in the City of Gardena (“Project”).

We have reviewed the Final EIR and believe that it adequately addresses all concerns raised by commenters, including SAFER, on the Draft EIR. We believe that the City has proposed adoption of feasible mitigation measures to address the Project’s environmental impacts.

Therefore, SAFER supports the Project and urges the City to approve the Project and certify the FEIR
--
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 836-4200
[email protected]
Public Comment #1
Item 7.A
PEQC Meeting Date: February 4, 2025
Via Email
February 2, 2025
Planning and Environmental Amanda Acuna
Quality Commission Community Development Manager
City of Gardena City of Gardena
1700 West 162nd Street 1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247 Gardena, California 90247
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Re: Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report, 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (SCH No. 2023060263)
Honorable Members of the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission, This comment is submitted on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) prepared for the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (SCH No. 2023060263), which proposes the construction of a mixed-use commercial/industrial development with a total building area of 268,000 square feet, located at the corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue in the City of Gardena (“Project”).

Sincerely,

Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
From: Fernandez, Bryan
To: Public Comment
Cc: Amanda Acuna; GODEK, GWENN (Contract Professional); Mitchell, Desilisa; Davies, Frank Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT Item 7.A
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 11:27:33 AM
Attachments: LAUSD Comment Letter 1450 Artesia Specific Plan.pdf Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

The District is submitting the attached comments regarding Item 7.A. in tonight's Planning and Environmental Quality public hearing agenda. The project site is north of several District properties including the Gardena Early Education Center, Gardena High School, and Sage Park Apartments.

Sincerely,
Bryan Ramos Fernandez, AICP
CEQA Project Manager
Contract Professional
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS)
333 S Beaudry Ave., 21st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: (213) 241-4210
[email protected]
Public Comment #2
Item 7.A
PEQC Meeting Date: February 4, 2025
Los Angeles Unified School District
Office of Environmental Health and Safety
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 21st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 241-3199 • Fax (213) 241-6816 Our Mission: To ensure a safe and healthy environment for students to learn, teachers to teach, and employees to work.

Our Vision: To eliminate all environmental health and safety risks at schools.

February 4, 2025
Amanda Acuna
Long Beach Community Development Department
411 W Ocean Blvd., Fl 3
Long Beach, CA 90802
PROJECT: 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2023060263 Presented below are comments submitted on behalf of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LA Unified or District) regarding the subject project located at 1450 Artesia Boulevard in the City of Gardena. LA Unified is concerned about the potential negative impacts of the project on our students, staff, and residents in the following schools and apartments on District-owned property and intended for District employees:
• Gardena Early Education Center, 1350 W. 177th Street, Gardena, Calif., 457 feet south of the Project site
• Gardena High School, 1301 W. 182nd Street, Gardena, Calif., 703 feet south of the Project site with 1,408 Grades 9-12 students
• Sage Park Apartments, 1310 177th Street, Gardena, Calif., 588 feet south of the Project site with 90 units.

The proposed Project would involve the construction and operation of a mixed-use development with a total building area of 268,000 square feet and an approximate height of 75 feet, including a self-storage use (three levels totaling 186,000 gross square feet [GSF] with 1,480 storage units over ground floor warehouse/distribution use and a 1,000-square-foot leasing office), a warehouse/distribution use (one level totaling 72,000 GSF with 10 loading docks), and an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF). The Project’s proposed 72,000 GSF of warehouse/distribution use includes 10,000 GSF of potential future square footage to account for the potential future acquisition of a 0.23-acre parcel currently occupied by a single residential dwelling unit. Additionally, proposed associated facilities and improvements include perimeter fencing, on-site and perimeter landscaping, lighting, exterior sidewalks, and pavement for on-site parking spaces. Under the Specific Plan, the parking lot area would be used periodically for City-sponsored outdoor events outside of the Project’s warehouse/distribution component operating hours. The Project includes construction of a 200 GSF, non-habitable structure on the eastern side of the Project site for storage of special event-related materials by the City. The Applicant is coordinating with the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC), which is a responsible party working under the direction of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) by installing an engineered cap, soil vapor probes, and associated infrastructure on part of the Project site before the Applicant commences construction of the proposed Project.

The District requests that our students be recognized as sensitive receptors and that the Project specifically address potential impacts. Based on the extent/location of the proposed development, it is our opinion that significant environmental impacts on the surrounding community may occur. Since the project may have ALBERTO M. CARVALHO
Superintendent
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 21st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 241-3199 • Fax (213) 241-6816 Our Mission: To ensure a safe and healthy environment for students to learn, teachers to teach, and employees to work.

Our Vision: To eliminate all environmental health and safety risks at schools. an environmental impact on LA Unified schools and housing site, recommended conditions designed to help reduce or eliminate potential impacts are included in this response.

Work with LA Unified
Project applicants should coordinate any construction activities with LA Unified to ensure safety of students and their families and minimize disruptions to school activities and access to campus. Effective strategies for avoiding significant impacts on school operations include:
• Completing construction activities such as demolition and excavation when the schools are not in session (summer and winter breaks, holidays, weekends, and after hours). • Including school and District representatives to review construction management plans, construction outreach plans, and participation in weekly construction meetings. • Obtaining prior authorization from the District for any easements and project activities on surrounding District properties.
• Working with the District in identifying appropriate construction mitigation programs.

Air Quality
District students, school staff, and residents should be considered sensitive receptors to air pollution impacts. To ensure that effective measures are applied to further reduce construction air pollutant impacts, we ask that the City incorporate into the project’s conditions of approval or mitigation measures the following language:
• Implement all applicable provisions of Rule 403 for fugitive dust control during construction of the Project.
• Utilize low emission “clean diesel” equipment with new or modified engines manufactured to meet Tier 4 specifications or retrofitted to comply with CARB’s verified diesel emission control strategy (VDECS).
• Construction vehicles shall not idle in excess of five minutes. • Ensure that construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
• Water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto the transportation trucks. • Water/mist and/or apply surfactants to soil placed in transportation trucks prior to exiting the site. • Minimize soil drop height into transportation trucks or stockpiles during dumping. • Cover the bottom of the excavated area with polyethylene sheeting when work is not being performed.
• Place stockpiled soil on polyethylene sheeting and cover with similar material. • Place stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds. • Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweepers).
• Install wheel washers (or steel shaker plates) where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph).
• Excavation and transportation of soil known to contain hazardous substances should be limited to periods when school is not in session.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Project has the potential to transport hazards and hazardous materials during construction and operation. We ask that the City incorporate into the project’s conditions of approval or mitigation measures the following language:
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 21st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 241-3199 • Fax (213) 241-6816 Our Mission: To ensure a safe and healthy environment for students to learn, teachers to teach, and employees to work.

Our Vision: To eliminate all environmental health and safety risks at schools. • During construction, ingress/egress routes to the construction site should be designed to ensure that trucks and construction vehicles carrying hazards and hazardous materials are routed away from District school sites. Additional recommendations are provided in this letter under the Transportation/Traffic section.

Noise
Noise created by construction activities may affect the schools in proximity to the development. These construction activities include grading, earth moving, hauling, and use of heavy equipment.

LA Unified established maximum allowable noise levels to protect students and staff from noise impacts generated in terms of Leq. These standards were established based on regulations set forth by the California Department of Transportation. LA Unified’s exterior noise standard is 67 dBA Leq and the interior noise standard is 45 dBA Leq. A noise level increase of 3 dBA or more over ambient noise levels is considered significant for existing schools and would require mitigation to achieve levels within 2 dBA of pre-project ambient level. To ensure that effective measures are employed to reduce construction related noise impacts on the campus, we ask that the City incorporate into the project’s conditions of approval or mitigation measures the following language:
• Provisions shall be made to allow the school and or designated representative(s) to notify the project applicant when noise impacts to the schools exceed the District’s noise standards. • All pile driving equipment shall be equipped with noise control devices and/or shall implement noise buffers with minimum quieting factor of 10dBA, to the extent feasible. If possible, drilled piles are preferred to driven piles.
• Demolition activities shall be scheduled for when school is not in session.

Traffic/Transportation
LA Unified’s Transportation Branch must be contacted at (213) 580-2950 regarding the potential impact upon existing school bus routes. The Project Manager or designee will have to notify the LA Unified Transportation Branch of the expected start and ending dates for various portions of the project that may affect traffic within nearby school areas. To ensure that effective conditions are employed to reduce construction and operation related transportation impacts on District sites, including the net increase of 1,000 or more daily vehicle trips, we ask that the City incorporate into the project’s conditions of approval or mitigation measures the following language:
• School buses must have unrestricted access to schools. • During the construction phase, truck traffic and construction vehicles may not cause traffic delays for our transported students.
• During and after construction, changed traffic patterns, lane adjustment, traffic light patterns, and altered bus stops may not affect school buses’ on-time performance and passenger safety. • Construction trucks and other vehicles are required to stop when encountering school buses using red-flashing-lights must-stop-indicators per the California Vehicle Code. • Contractors must install and maintain appropriate traffic controls (signs and signals) to ensure vehicular safety.
• Parents dropping off their children must have access to the passenger loading areas.

Pedestrian Safety
Construction activities that include street closures, the presence of heavy equipment and increased truck trips to haul materials on and off the project site can lead to safety hazards for people walking in the vicinity of the construction site. To ensure that effective conditions are employed to reduce construction and operation related pedestrian safety impacts on District sites, we ask that the City incorporate into the project’s conditions of approval or mitigation measures the following language:
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 21st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 241-3199 • Fax (213) 241-6816 Our Mission: To ensure a safe and healthy environment for students to learn, teachers to teach, and employees to work.

Our Vision: To eliminate all environmental health and safety risks at schools. • Contractors must maintain ongoing communication with LAUSD school administrators, providing sufficient notice to forewarn children and parents when existing pedestrian routes to school may be impacted.
• Contractors must maintain safe and convenient pedestrian routes to all nearby schools. • Contractors must install and maintain appropriate traffic controls (signs and signals) to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety.
• Haul routes are not to pass by any school, except when school is not in session. • No staging or parking of construction-related vehicles, including worker-transport vehicles, will occur on or adjacent to a school property.
• Funding for crossing guards at the contractor’s expense is required when safety of children may be compromised by construction-related activities at impacted school crossings. • Barriers and/or fencing must be installed to secure construction equipment and to minimize trespassing, vandalism, short-cut attractions, and attractive nuisances. • Contractors are required to provide security patrols (at their expense) to minimize trespassing, vandalism, and short-cut attractions.

The District’s charge is to protect the health and safety of students and staff, and the integrity of the learning environment. The comments presented above identify potential environmental impacts related to the proposed project that must be addressed to ensure the welfare of the students attending schools, their teachers and staff, as well as to inform parents and guardians of these students.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you need additional information, please contact me at (213) 241-4210 or at [email protected].

VIA E-MAIL
Amanda Acuna
Community Development Manager
City of Gardena
1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247
Re: 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Mixed-Use Project, SCH Number 2023060263 Dear Ms. Acuna:

On behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance ("GSEJA"), I am writing to you regarding the above-referenced project (the "Project").

GSEJA is withdrawing its comment letter and opposition to the Project. The Project's developer has addressed GSEJA's concerns about environmental mitigation.

Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
By
Joseph Bourgeois
Executive Director
Docusign Envelope ID: F4B862D6-2170-4361-A980-AB3686E8EE6E Public Comment #3 Item 7.A
PEQC Meeting Date: February 4, 2025

MEMORANDUM
To: Amanda Acuna, City of Gardena
From: Nicole Cobleigh, Dudek
Subject: 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project – Response to LAUSD Comment Letter, dated February 4, 2025
Date: February 17, 2025
cc: Lisa Kranitz, Assistant City Attorney
Attachment(s): LAUSD Comment Letter
On February 4, 2025, on the day of the Planning Commission hearing for the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (project or proposed project), Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) submitted a comment letter raising concerns about environmental issues. Although this letter came in far after the public review period, responses to comments raised by LAUSD in their letter, included as an attachment to this Memorandum, are provided below.

Air Quality
LAUSD comments that students at nearby Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High School, as well as residents at the Sage Park Apartments, be considered sensitive receptors. Additionally, LAUSD suggested 14 measures that should be incorporated into the project.

Construction Health Risks
Threshold AQ-3, within Section 3.1, Air Quality, of the EIR identifies students at both Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High School, as well as residents within a 1,080-foot radius from the project site as sensitive receptors. This is consistent with the request by LAUSD. The results of the analysis shown in Threshold AQ-3 demonstrate that during construction, even without mitigation measures, potential health risk impacts to sensitive receptors at the nearby schools would be less than significant. The only sensitive receptors for which thresholds would be exceeded are the live/work and multifamily residential units directly west of the project site. The schools are located to the southeast of the project site. However, with implementation of mitigation measure MM-AQ-1, which requires the use of Tier 4 Final construction equipment, all construction health impacts for all sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site would be less than significant.

Recommended Measures
LAUSD identified 14 measures that should be incorporated into the project to address potential impacts to students and surrounding sensitive receptors. All of the measures suggested by LAUSD are either existing mitigation measures, standard construction practices, requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District rules, or requirements of the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC)

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 1450 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT – RESPONSE TO LAUSD COMMENT LETTER, DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2025 13938 2
FEBRUARY 2025
as they implement the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) under the oversight of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

Hazards
LAUSD requested that trucks hauling contaminated materials be routed away from the Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High School. LAUSD also identified one recommendation that be incorporated into the project.

Truck Routes
Existing onsite contaminants associated with historic use of the project site will undergo remediation by ARC with oversight provided by DTSC. A RAP has been prepared and approved by DTSC that outlines the remediation effort. As discussed in the RAP, as well as within Chapter 2, Project Description, of the EIR, ARC will be installing an engineered cap, soil vapor probes, and associated infrastructure on part of the project site prior to the construction of the proposed project atop the engineered cap. No contaminated soil will be removed from or transported off the project site. A treatment system will be installed, and a cap will be placed over the existing soil on site. As such, no trucks hauling contaminated soil will be existing from the project site or traveling past the nearby schools.

Recommended Measures
The measure recommended by LAUSD has to do with truck ingress and truck egress for trucks carrying hazardous materials. For the reason discussed above, the incorporation of an additional measure is not required. However, the project is required to implement the following four measures, as explained in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the EIR:

PDF-HAZ-1: Remedial Action of the Gardena Sumps Site. ARC will coordinate with the Applicant to implement the Final RAP. The Final RAP includes: (a) excavation of degraded and soil-sludge mixture; (b) consolidation of this excavated mixture above the Cooper North and Cooper South Sumps; (c) grading for excavated areas; (d) grading and installation, maintenance, and repair of an engineered cap over the Cooper North and Cooper South sumps, including stabilization, foundation, low hydraulic conductivity and erosion resistance layers; (e) installation of a retaining wall system along the north side of the Haack sump; (f) installation, operation, maintenance and repair of a soil vapor control and monitoring system that will include soil vapor probes and associated infrastructure; (g) installation, operation, maintenance and repair of a groundwater monitoring system; and (h) restoration of vegetation and site conditions. The Final RAP will be implemented before the Applicant commences construction of the proposed Project. The portion of the proposed Project site that overlaps the sump areas and the top of the engineered cap will be paved and utilized as a parking lot. The Applicant will undertake measures to protect the remedy during site operation. As part of the Final RAP, a land use covenant will be established for the site to prohibit sensitive uses thereon, such as residential uses, but will permit the Proposed Project’s commercial

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 1450 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT – RESPONSE TO LAUSD COMMENT LETTER, DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2025 13938 3
FEBRUARY 2025
and industrial uses, as well as the City’s temporary uses. The Applicant will comply with all institutional controls that DTSC may require as part of the ongoing use of the site, except for those assigned to ARC as part of its Final RAP.

PDF-HAZ-2: Vapor Intrusion Mitigation. The Applicant will install a soil vapor barrier and ventilation systems beneath the proposed structure to protect building occupants against indoor soil vapor intrusion. Vapor barrier systems will meet guidelines described in the Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory published by DTSC and CalEPA in 2011 (VIMA). Vapor barriers will be designed to meet the standards outlined in the VIMA and will be in general conformance with General Construction, Membrane Installation, and Ventilation Trench for Passive Gas Control System Requirements of the Los Angeles County Methane Gas Mitigation Standards. The system will include a vapor barrier membrane and passive sub-slab venting system. The system will be designed by a Californialicensed engineer. Monitoring probes will be installed below the barrier system, to evaluate the effectiveness of the system. An OM&M Plan will be prepared to define the ongoing sampling required to confirm the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) is operating as designed. The OM&M Plan will include a decision tree and contingency plans in the event unexpected conditions are identified.

MM-HAZ-1 Pre-Demolition Hazardous Materials Abatement. Demolition or renovation plans and contract specifications shall incorporate abatement procedures for the survey and removal of materials containing asbestos, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and universal waste items. All abatement work shall be done in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, including those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (which regulates disposal), Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (which regulates employee exposure), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

MM-HAZ-2 Soil Management Plan. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed that addresses potential impacts in soil and soil vapor from releases on or near the Project site. The SMP shall include training procedures for identification of contamination. The SMP shall describe procedures for assessment, characterization, management, and disposal of contaminated soils in accordance with all applicable state and local regulations, including SCAQMD Rules 1466, 403, and 1166. The SMP shall include health and safety measures, which may include but are not limited to periodic work breathing zone monitoring and monitoring for volatile organic compounds using a handheld organic vapor analyzer in the event impacted soils are encountered during excavation activities. The Applicant or its designee shall implement the SMP during construction activities for the proposed Project. As the site is currently under regulatory oversight by DTSC and shall likely have a land use covenant in place at the time of construction, the SMP shall be submitted to DTSC for review and approval prior to earthmoving activities.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 1450 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT – RESPONSE TO LAUSD COMMENT LETTER, DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2025 13938 4
FEBRUARY 2025
Noise
LAUSD expressed concerns about noise increases at the nearby school sites and suggested three measures for incorporation into the project.

As discussed under Threshold NOI-1 within Section 3.9, Noise, of the EIR, potential noise impacts to the nearest school, Gardena Early Education Center, were evaluated. The school was Noise Receptor Location No. 1. Existing exterior ambient noise at the school was measured to be 59.8 dBA, which is below the 67 dBA threshold cited by LAUSD in their comment letter. As shown in Table 3.9-7 in Section 3.9, Noise, of the EIR, at the nearest sensitive receptor to the east of the project site (residential receptor), which is actually closer than Gardena Early Education Center, construction activities are not expected to result in dBA increases beyond the 10 dBA exterior noise threshold, and as such, noise increases to the east of the project site, including at the nearby schools, would not exceed noise thresholds.

The school will be notified in advance of the start of construction; however, it is infeasible to restrict demolition and construction activities to outside of school hours. Given that the impact analysis in Section 3.9 demonstrates that impacts would remain less than significant with implementation the 8-foot sound barrier wall, there is no need to place further limitations on noise-producing activities at the project site.

Transportation and Pedestrian Safety
LAUSD expressed concerns about traffic, access to school sites, and suggested six measures that should be incorporated to maintain access to the schools. Of the measures suggested by LAUSD, four are required to be followed by the law. These include ensuring school buses have unrestricted access to schools, not affecting school buses on-time performance and passenger safety and vehicles stopping when encountering school buses and ensuring parents dropping of their children have access to the passenger loading areas. One suggested measure is a standard construction practice; contracts must install and maintain appropriate traffic controls to ensure vehicle safety. And, regarding the potential for construction traffic to create delays, the level of service analysis included in the Local Transportation Assessment (Appendix J2 of the EIR) demonstrated that intersection and roadway conditions in the project and school vicinity would not deteriorate such that traffic delays for students would occur as a result of the proposed project.

LAUSD also suggested eight measures related to pedestrian safety and access. Of the measures suggested by LAUSD, six are standard construction measures and practices (maintaining ongoing communication, maintaining safe and convenient pedestrian routes to all nearby schools, installing appropriate traffic controls, no equipment staging or parking adjacent to school property, secured barriers and fencing around the project site, and security patrols to minimize trespassing and vandalism). Regarding the request that haul routes not pass by any school except when school is not in session, as discussed under Hazards above, no soil will be removed from or transported off the project site. All soils onsite will be capped so no hauling activities will occur, and thus no hauling past schools would occur. Regarding the need for additional crossing guards, no school crosswalks are

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 1450 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT – RESPONSE TO LAUSD COMMENT LETTER, DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2025 13938 5
FEBRUARY 2025
adjacent to the project site would be affected such that additional crossing guards would be warranted.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the comments received by the City immediately prior to the February 4, 2025 Planning Commission do not raise any new or different issues or concerns beyond what was already addressed in the EIR. Based on the responses to the comments provided by LAUSD, no new or more severe environmental impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation and pedestrian safety would occur.

Los Angeles Unified School District
Office of Environmental Health and Safety
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 21st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 241-3199 • Fax (213) 241-6816 Our Mission: To ensure a safe and healthy environment for students to learn, teachers to teach, and employees to work.

Our Vision: To eliminate all environmental health and safety risks at schools.

The District requests that our students be recognized as sensitive receptors and that the Project specifically address potential impacts. Based on the extent/location of the proposed development, it is our opinion that significant environmental impacts on the surrounding community may occur. Since the project may have ALBERTO M. CARVALHO
Superintendent
Attachment to Memorandum
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 21st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 241-3199 • Fax (213) 241-6816 Our Mission: To ensure a safe and healthy environment for students to learn, teachers to teach, and employees to work.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you need additional information, please contact me at (213) 241-4210 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Bryan Ramos Fernandez, AICP
CEQA Project Manager
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS)
333 S Beaudry Ave., 21st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017
1450 Artesia Acquisition Company LLC
2015 Manhattan Beach Blvd, Suite 104
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
January 9, 2025
Amanda Acuna
Community Development Manager
City of Gardena
1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247
Re: 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Mixed-Use Project: Economic Analysis Dear Ms. Acuna:

I provide as follows a summary analysis of the estimated revenues that the 268,000 square-foot self-storage space, industrial warehouse and office mixed-use project (the “Project”), proposed by 1450 Artesia Acquisition Company LLC (“Artesia”), would generate for the City of Gardena (the “City”) if the City certifies the Project’s Environmental Impact Report and approves its requested entitlements, and the Project is built and operated.

Artesia estimates the Project would generate approximately $781,878 in gross property tax revenue on an annual basis once the Project is constructed and the parcels forming the Project site, along with the Project’s improvements, are re-assessed based on the projected values of these improvements and real property. The current annual gross property tax revenue from these parcels and their improvements is $49,674, or $732,204 less than the estimated annual gross property tax revenue that the Project is estimated to produce. As can be seen, the Project would thus increase property tax revenues by over $7 million for the first ten years of its operational life, and by over $14 million in its first 20 years of operation.

The Project would also confer over $1,600,000 in financial benefits upon the City and the communities it serves comprised of:
• A payment by Artesia of $1,000,000 for the City’s General Fund under the proposed Development Agreement between the City and Artesia as a public benefit
• Construction and development-related fees of about $481,807 • School impact fees of approximately $120,960 that will be paid to the Los Angeles Unified School District
Please let us know if the foregoing summary satisfies the City’s request for information regarding estimated revenues that the Project would generate.

Sincerely,
Charles Brown, Chief Financial Officer
1450 Artesia Acquisition Company LLC
RESOLUTION NO. 6693

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDENA,

CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS AND MAKING CEQA FINDINGS RELATING TO THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE 6.33 ACRE PROPERTY

LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARTESIA

BOULEVARD AND NORMANDIE AVENUE
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2021 an application was received from Brian Sorensen on behalf of Insite Property Group LLC to develop a building consisting of warehouse and self-storage uses on property located on a 6.33 acre site near the southwest corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue and consisting of APNs 6106-036-010, -012, -034, -035, -036, and -037 (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the eastern portion of the Project Site is known as the Gardena Sumps; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2022 the Department of Toxic Substances Control approved a Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) for the former owner of the Gardena Sumps to remediate the property; and
WHEREAS, the development, as analyzed, consists of 268,000 square foot building consisting of 186,000 gross square feet of self-storage units, 72,000 gross square feet of industrial warehouse/distribution use, and a 10,000 square foot office/retail area (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Gardena, California held a duly noticed hearing on this Project at which time it considered all evidence presented, both written and oral; and
WHEREAS, after the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR for the Project, make the findings required by CEQA, and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as well as approve the entitlements required for the project; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR for the Project, at which time it considered all evidence presented, both oral and written;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDENA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. CEQA Procedures. The City Council of the City of Gardena does hereby find as follows:

RESOLUTION NO. 6693
2 A. In November 2021, the City entered into a consultant agreement with Dudek to prepare an EIR for the Project.

B. A Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Draft EIR and the Initial Study (“IS”) was timely distributed and the public comment period on the NOP was from June 8, 2023 through July 10, 2023.

C. On June 22, 2023, the City held a scoping meeting in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21083.9 and CEQA Guidelines § 15082(c).

D. The Draft EIR was made available for a 45-day public review period from August 1, 2024, through September 16, 2024. The Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was sent to a list of interested persons, agencies and organizations, adjacent property owners, and to anyone who had requested notice. The Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The DEIR and all the appendices were made available on the City’s website with directions to contact staff if help was needed in accessing the document.

E. Prior to the release of the DEIR and in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City sent notices to the list of Native American Tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Council. Only one tribe requested consultation: the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The City engaged in consultation and mitigation measures have been included in the EIR as a result of the consultation.

F. The City received and reviewed comments on the Draft EIR and prepared responses to those comments which were incorporated into that document entitled Final EIR and dated December 2024. The Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR and all Appendices thereto, incorporating the written comments and responses thereto, as well as the changes to the DEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

G. Responses were sent to the public agencies that commented on the DEIR and the Final EIR was made available for public review on January 31, 2025.

H. On February 4, 2025, the City received a late comment letter from the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”). A response was prepared by the environmental consultant.

I. None of the comments received, including the letter from LAUSD, or the revisions made resulted in any changes that necessitated recirculation of the DEIR. The comments did not disclose any significant information. The changes made to the document merely clarify/amplify and make insignificant modifications to the DEIR.

RESOLUTION NO. 6693
3 J. The City has complied with all procedural requirements relating to CEQA and other requirements of law. The Final EIR is adequate and complete and complies with all CEQA requirements.

K. In certifying the Final EIR, adopting the Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the City Council has exercised its independent judgement and analysis. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR, agenda reports, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record and reviewed this information prior to acting upon the Project.

L. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information in the findings which precede this section are based on the entire record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 2. CEQA Findings Regarding Impacts.

A. An Initial Study was prepared for the Project which determined that a number of topics were not required to be discussed in the EIR. The following topics were excluded from analysis based on the analysis therein: aesthetics; agricultural and forestry resources; biological resources; mineral resources; population and housing; public services; recreation; and wildfire. The Initial Study is included in Appendix A of the EIR.

The City Council finds that no additional analysis is required on these topics.

B. The impacts that are analyzed in the EIR are discussed in detail in Sections

3.1 through 3.12 and summarized in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR. In addition to the impacts found to be insignificant through the Initial Study, the following topics were found to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required for these topics as summarized below:

1. Air Quality relating to: conflicting with or obstructing an applicable air quality plan; cumulatively considerable new increase of any criteria pollutant where the region is non-attainment; and resulting in other emissions such as odors which would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

2. Cultural Resources relating to: causing a substantial change in a historical resource, and disturbing human remains.

RESOLUTION NO. 6693
4 3. Energy relating to: a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy; and conflicting with/obstructing a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

4. Geology and Soils relating to: rupture of earthquakes; the location of the project being on an unstable area or expansive soil.

5. Hydrology and Water Quality relating to: decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge; and altering the existing drainage patter of the site.

6. Land Use and Planning relating to conflicting with a plan, policy or regulation adopted for purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

7. Transportation relating to: conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system; inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines relating to VMT; and having a hazard geometric design feature.

8. Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) relating to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).

9. Utilities and Service Systems relating to: the need for the relocation or new construction of utilities; the ability to have a sufficient water supply; capacity for wastewater treatment; generation of excess solid waste; and management and reduction statutes and regulations relating to solid waste.

C. The EIR identifies the below topic areas as significant, but can be mitigated below a level of significance as summarized below.

1. Air Quality relating to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This will be mitigated below a level of significance by Mitigation Measure (MM) – AQ-1 requiring clean construction equipment, MM-AQ-2 requiring electric cargo handling equipment, and MM-GHG-1 establishing on-site solar power.

RESOLUTION NO. 6693
5 2. Cultural Resources relating to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource. This impact will be mitigated below a level of significance by MM-CUL-1 which requires a Workers Environmental Awareness Program, MM-CUL-2 which requires the retention of an on-call qualified archaeologist if there is an inadvertent discovery, and MM-CUL-3 which requires a work stoppage within 100 feet of the find.

3. Geology and Soils relating to destroying a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature. This impact will be mitigated below a level of significance by MM-GEO-1 which requires steps to be taken in case of an inadvertent discovery of a resource.

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions relating to generating greenhouse gas emissions or conflicting with a plan, policy, or regulation to reduce the emissions. These impacts will be mitigated below a level of significance by both the project design features (PDF) of the Project being designed to be all-electric and MM-GHG-1 establishing on-site solar power and MM-AQ-2 requiring electric cargo handling equipment.

5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials relating to: the routine transport, use, or disposal of material; the release of hazardous materials into the environment or within ¼ mile of a school, and being included on a list of hazardous material sites. These impacts will be mitigated by which will be mitigated by PDF-HAZ-1 implementing the final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approved by DTSC, MM-HAZ-1 relating to pre-demolition hazardous materials abatement, andMM-HAZ-2 requiring a soil management plan, and PDF-HAZ-2 installing a vapor intrusion barrier. It is specifically recognized that include info on being on a hazardous site, the RAP, etc.

6. Noise relating to: City-sponsored special events which will be mitigated by MM-NOI-2 which requires the City to follow certain requirements relating to time of events and amplification; and excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels which will be mitigated by MM-NOI-3 requiring a construction vibration management plan.

7. Tribal Cultural Resource relating to a change in the significance of a TCR as defined in Public Resources Code section 5024.1 which will RESOLUTION NO. 6693
6 be mitigated by: MM-TCR-1 requiring Native American monitoring; MM-TCR-2 implementing steps if there is an unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resource objects; MM-TCR-3 and MM-TCR-4 implementing steps if there is an unanticipated discovery of human remains and funerary objects. The Cultural Resources measures will also mitigate this impact.

D. The only impact which cannot be mitigated below a level of significance and is unavoidable is construction noise. This impact will be mitigated to the extent possible by the imposition of MM-NOI-1 which requires installation of a sound barrier along the western Project boundary.

SECTION 3. Alternatives.

A. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR both considered and rejected certain alternatives and examined four alternatives to the Project, all of which are discussed in Chapter 5.

B. The purpose of looking at alternatives is to try and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project while still attaining most of the basic objectives. As discussed in Section 3 above, the only impact of the Project that could not be reduced to a less than significant level is construction noise.

1. The No Project Alternative would retain the Project site in its current condition with decades-old buildings on site which do not conform to current development standards. This alternative does not implement any of the Project’s improvements and would not meet any of the Project’s objectives. Because the Remedial Action Plan to clean-up the site would still go forward, two structures would still have to be demolished.

No City-sponsored special events would occur.

2. The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the development footprint by 50 percent. City-sponsored special events would still occur. This Alternative would meet the objectives of the Project, but not to the same degree; it would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact.

3. The Self-Storage Only Alternative would have the same footprint, with less space for office uses. City-sponsored special events would still occur. This Alternative would meet the objectives of the Project, but not to the same degree; it would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact.

RESOLUTION NO. 6693
7 4. The Truck-Storage Lot Alternative would replace the building with a truck parking and storage lot. No City-sponsored special events would occur. This alternative would meet some, but not all, of the Project objectives but would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact.

C. An EIR is supposed to identify alternatives that were considered for analysis, but rejected. The following alternatives were rejected:

1. Residential Development – this alternative is infeasible due to the contamination of the site. Clean-up cannot achieve a safe level for residential development or other sensitive uses.

2. Avoid Significant Construction Noise – the only way to avoid this impact is to build on the eastern portion of the Project Site. However, because of the contamination, no building may take place on that location and this alternative is infeasible.

3. All Commercial Development – this alternative is infeasible because the market will not support such development. The site was identified under the former Artesia Corridor Specific Plan from July 2006 to February 2023, with no development being proposed.

Additionally, since the time the property was designated for commercial under the since repealed Artesia Corridor Specific Plan, the retail market has changed.

CEQA requires an identification of the environmentally superior alternative and if that alternative is one of the No Project alternatives, then an identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. In this case the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative as it would not result in significant noise impacts. Among the other alternatives, the Reduced Density Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, this Alternative would not reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact generated by the proposed Project.

SECTION 4. CEQA Section 15091 Findings.

CEQA Section 15091 provides that the City shall not approve a project when there are significant environmental effects unless certain findings are made. In accordance with Section 15091, the City Council makes the following findings:

RESOLUTION NO. 6693
8 A. The applicant has incorporated Project Design Features into the Project which will help avoid impacts relating to greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials, and transportation.

B. Mitigation Measures will be imposed on the Project which will reduce the impacts to as set forth in Section 3 above.

C. No mitigation measures were proposed for the Project which were rejected.

D. There is no alternative that would both eliminate the significant construction noise impact and achieve the objectives of the Project. Each of the alternatives is found to be infeasible due to the following reasons:

1. The No Project Alternative is rejected because it would not achieve any of the Project objectives. The Project Site would be left in a substandard, deteriorated condition with three structures remaining on the property. There would be no economic benefits from the construction, ongoing operations, and tax revenues from the project.

There would be no opportunity for the City to host periodic outdoor community events and would not provide any public benefit of a monetary donation to the City.

2. The Reduced Density alternative would achieve most of the objectives, but would still have significant construction noise.

Economic benefits to the city from the construction, ongoing operations, and tax revenues would be reduced. Additionally, there would be no ability for the applicant to provide a public benefit of a monetary donation to the City.

3. The Self-Storage Only Alternative would have the same construction impacts but would not meet the financial-related objectives as well as the proposed Project and there would be no ability for the applicant to provide a public benefit of a monetary donation to the City.

4. The Truck-Storage Lot Alternative would not completely eliminate the construction noise. This Alternative would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent, would provide less revenue to the City in terms of construction, operations, and tax benefits. There would be no opportunity for the City to host periodic outdoor community events and the alternative would not provide any ability for the RESOLUTION NO. 6693
9 applicant to provide the public benefit of a monetary donation to the City.

SECTION 5. CEQA Section 15093 Findings. Statement of Overriding Considerations.

CEQA requires decisionmakers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This statement sets forth the project benefits or reasons why the City Council is in favor of approving the Project, and weighs these benefits against the Project's environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant as identified in the Final EIR. In adopting this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds that while all of these benefits are important, each benefit on its own supports a sufficient reason why the benefits outweigh the significant impacts, of which only one cannot be mitigated below a level of significance and that impact is temporary in nature (construction noise).

A. The Project Site is currently in a dilapidated condition with three warehouses, and a variety of trailer-type storage structures on the building, as well as an old structure housing a U-Haul rental agency. The eastern portion of the Site is known as the Gardena Sumps and is subject to a Final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that will be implemented by the prior owner. The RAP includes provisions for a legal land use covenant to limit future use of the site as well as long-term monitoring and maintenance of an engineered cap and underlying groundwater. The Sump portion has had a temporary cap on it for over three decades. Until this application, no development proposals had been submitted to the City.

B. The proposed Project will revitalize this site with a use that has been approved by the Department of Toxic Substance Control. Development of the property will include measures that would complement the RAP and enhance the ability to achieve cleanup standards appropriate for commercial/industrial uses.

C. The Project will provide economic benefits as follows:

1. One-time monetary benefits in the form of permit and inspection fees.

2. Increased property taxes to the City.

3. Each contractor that does business in the City will be required to obtain and pay for a City business license.

D. In addition to the monetary benefits set forth above, the applicant will enter into a Development Agreement with the City which will provide additional benefits the RESOLUTION NO. 6693
10 City would not otherwise be entitled to including:

1. Providing a one-time monetary contribution to the City of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00);

2. Agreeing to use best efforts to hire locally-based construction workers and use materials from local sources;

3. Providing the City with a space of approximately 36,000 square feet to host Special Events up to 36 times per year on the weekends; and

4. Constructing a 200 square foot storage building for the City to use for items related to the special events.

SECTION 6. Certification. Based on the above, the City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project attached hereto as Exhibits A (Draft EIR) and B (Final EIR) and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C. The response letter to LAUSD, attached hereto as Exhibit D, shall be considered a part of the Final EIR as well.

SECTION 7. Custodian of Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information in the findings which precede this section are based on the entire record.

The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings and approval are based are located in the Community Development Department at City Hall, 1700 W. 162nd Street, Gardena, California 90247. The Custodian of Records is Greg Tsujiuchi, Community Development Director who can be reached at 310/217-9546 or [email protected].

SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage of this resolution.

RESOLUTION NO. 6693
11 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately.

Passed, approved, and adopted this 25th day of February, 2025.

TASHA CERDA, Mayor
ATTEST:

MINA SEMENZA, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CARMEN VASQUEZ, City Attorney
Exhibit A – Draft EIR, dated July 2024
Exhibit B – Final EIR, dated January 2025
Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit D – Response to LAUSD Comment Letter
Draft Environmental Impact Report
1450 Artesia Specific Plan
JULY 2024
Prepared for:

CITY OF GARDENA
1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, California 90247
Contact: Amanda Acuna
Prepared by:
225 South Lake Avenue
Suite M210
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Nicole Cobleigh
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 TOC-i
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Acronyms and abbreviations............................................................................................................. ACR-1 Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................ES-1 ES.1 Document Purpose .......................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Document Organization................................................................................................ES-1 ES.3 Project Location ............................................................................................................ES-3 ES.4 Project Description........................................................................................................ES-3 ES.4.1 Project Overview................................................................................................ES-3 ES.4.2 Project Objectives .............................................................................................ES-3 ES.5 Areas of Known Controversy ........................................................................................ES-4 ES.6 Required Permits and Approvals .................................................................................ES-4 ES.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................ES-5 ES.8 Summary of Project Alternatives............................................................................... ES-36 ES.8.1 Alternatives Evaluated................................................................................... ES-36 ES.8.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................... ES-37 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Summary of the Proposed Project.................................................................................1-1

1.2 CEQA Environmental Process.........................................................................................1-2

1.3 Organization of the EIR...................................................................................................1-4 2 Project Description......................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Overview..............................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Location ..............................................................................................................2-2

2.3 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................2-2

2.4 Project Objectives ...........................................................................................................2-4

2.5 Proposed Project.............................................................................................................2-5

2.5.1 Project Components ...........................................................................................2-5

2.5.2 Project Construction ...........................................................................................2-7

2.5.3 Daily Operations..................................................................................................2-7

2.5.4 City Special Events..............................................................................................2-8

2.5.5 Site Remediation Protections and Monitoring..................................................2-8

2.5.6 General Plan and Zoning ....................................................................................2-8

2.6 Intended Uses of this EIR ...............................................................................................2-9

2.7 References ................................................................................................................... 2-10 3 Environmental Analysis ..............................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Air Quality..................................................................................................................... 3.1-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 TOC-ii

3.1.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances..................................................... 3.1-6

3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 3.1-17

3.1.4 Methodology.................................................................................................. 3.1-19

3.1.5 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.1-27

3.1.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3.1-41

3.1.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 3.1-42

3.1.8 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3.1-42

3.1.9 References .................................................................................................... 3.1-43

3.2 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances..................................................... 3.2-4

3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 3.2-9

3.2.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.2-10

3.2.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3.2-12

3.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 3.2-13

3.2.7 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3.2-13

3.2.8 References .................................................................................................... 3.2-14

3.3 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 3.3-1

3.3.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 3.3-1

3.3.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances..................................................... 3.3-3

3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 3.3-9

3.3.4 Methodology.................................................................................................... 3.3-9

3.3.5 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 3.3-9

3.3.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3.3-14

3.3.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 3.3-14

3.3.8 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3.3-14

3.3.9 References .................................................................................................... 3.3-15

3.4 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................ 3.4-1

3.4.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.4.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances................................................... 3.4-10

3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 3.4-13

3.4.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.4-14

3.4.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3.4-16

3.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 3.4-17

3.4.7 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3.4-17

3.4.8 References .................................................................................................... 3.4-17

3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... .3.5-1

3.5.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances..................................................... 3.5-8

3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 3.5-25

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 TOC-iii

3.5.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.5-31

3.5.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3.5-39

3.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 3.5-39

3.5.7 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................ 3.5-39

3.5.8 References .................................................................................................... 3.5-40

3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ 3.6-1

3.6.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances................................................... 3.6-10

3.6.3 Project Design Features ............................................................................... 3.6-21

3.6.4 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 3.6-21

3.6.5 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.6-22

3.6.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3.6-26

3.6.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 3.6-27

3.6.8 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3.6-27

3.6.9 References .................................................................................................... 3.6-28

3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances..................................................... 3.7-6

3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 3.7-12

3.7.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.7-13

3.7.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3.7-16

3.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 3.7-16

3.7.7 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3.7-16

3.7.8 References .................................................................................................... 3.7-17

3.8 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.8.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.8.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances..................................................... 3.8-3

3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 3.8-7

3.8.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 3.8-7

3.8.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3.8-18

3.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 3.8-19

3.8.7 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3.8-19

3.8.8 References .................................................................................................... 3.8-19

3.9 Noise............................................................................................................................ 3.9-1

3.9.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.9.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances..................................................... 3.9-3

3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 3.9-8

3.9.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 3.9-9

3.9.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3.9-22

3.9.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................... 3.9-23

3.9.7 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3.9-24

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 TOC-iv

3.9.8 References .................................................................................................... 3.9-25

3.10 Transportation........................................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.10.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................ 3.10-1

3.10.2Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances................................................... 3.10-3

3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 3.10-7

3.10.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.10-8

3.10.5 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................3.10-14

3.10.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........................................................3.10-14

3.10.7 Cumulative Effects......................................................................................3.10-14

3.10.8References ..................................................................................................3.10-14

3.12 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.12.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................ 3.12-1

3.12.2Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances................................................... 3.12-4

3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance .........................................................................3.12-10

3.12.4 Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................3.12-11

3.12.5 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................3.12-15

3.12.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........................................................3.12-15

3.12.7 Cumulative Effects......................................................................................3.12-16

3.12.8References ..................................................................................................3.12-19 4 Other CEQA Considerations........................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Effects Found Not to Be Significant...............................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................4-1

4.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................................4-2

4.2.3 Air Quality.............................................................................................................4-3

4.2.4 Biological Resources...........................................................................................4-4

4.2.5 Geology and Soils................................................................................................4-6

4.2.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................4-7

4.2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................4-8

4.2.8 Land Use and Planning.................................................................................... 4-10

4.2.9 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................... 4-10

4.2.10Noise................................................................................................................. 4-11

4.2.11 Population and Housing .................................................................................. 4-11

4.2.12 Public Services ................................................................................................. 4-13

4.2.13Recreation ........................................................................................................ 4-15

4.2.14 Transportation.................................................................................................. 4-15

4.2.15 Wildfire.............................................................................................................. 4-16

4.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts................................................ 4-16

4.4 Significant Irreversible Changes ................................................................................. 4-17

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 TOC-v

4.4.1 Change in Land Use That Commits Future Generations to Similar Uses...................................................................................................... 4-17

4.4.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects............................................... 4-17

4.4.3 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents ..................................... 4-18

4.4.4 Large Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources.......................................... 4-18

4.5 Growth-Inducing Impacts............................................................................................. 4-19

4.6 References ................................................................................................................... 4-20 5 Alternatives..................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .............................................................................5-1

5.2 Alternatives Considered But Rejected...........................................................................5-2

5.2.1 Residential Development ...................................................................................5-2

5.2.2 Avoid Significant Construction Noise Impacts ..................................................5-3

5.2.3 All-Commercial Alternative .................................................................................5-3

5.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Consideration............................................................5-4

5.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative ...............................................................5-4

5.3.2 Alternative 2 – Reduced Density Alternative ....................................................5-5

5.3.3 Alternative 3 – Self-Storage Only Alternative....................................................5-9

5.3.4 Alternative 4 – Truck-Storage Lot Alternative ................................................ 5-12

5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ......................................................................... 5-16 6 List of Preparers..........................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 City of Gardena................................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Dudek...............................................................................................................................6-1

6.3 Subconsultants ...............................................................................................................6-1

FIGURES
2-1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................... 2-11 2-2 Project Footprint....................................................................................................................... 2-13 2-3 Site Contamination .................................................................................................................. 2-15 2-4 Site Plan.................................................................................................................................... 2-17 2-5 Architectural Features ............................................................................................................. 2-19 2-6 Landscape Plan........................................................................................................................ 2-21 2-7 Circulation Plan: Vehicular Access.......................................................................................... 2-23 2-8a Circulation Plan: Truck Access ................................................................................................ 2-25 2-8b Circulation Plan: Truck Access during Special Events........................................................... 2-27 2-9 Special Events Site Plan.......................................................................................................... 2-29 2-10 Land Use................................................................................................................................... 2-31 2-11 Zoning ....................................................................................................................................... 2-33

3.4-1 Regional Faults........................................................................................................................ 3.4-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 TOC-vi

3.9-1 Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................................ 3.9-27

3.10-1Roadway Network ...............................................................................................................3.10-17

3.10-2Bike Facilities ......................................................................................................................3.10-19

3.10-3High-Quality Transit Areas ..................................................................................................3.10-21 5-1 Truck-Storage Lot Alternative Conceptual Plan ..................................................................... 5-19 TABLES
ES-1 Summary of Project Impacts ....................................................................................................ES-6 ES-2 Comparison of Project and Alternatives Impacts................................................................. ES-38 2-1 Construction Phasing..................................................................................................................2-7 2-2 Permits or Other Actions Required ............................................................................................2-9 3-1 Cumulative Projects....................................................................................................................3-3

3.1-1 Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.................................................. 3.1-2

3.1-2 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................ 3.1-6

3.1-3 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................ 3.1-8

3.1-4 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Classification ................................................................ 3.1-13

3.1-5 Local Ambient Air Quality Data............................................................................................. 3.1-15

3.1-6 SCAQMD District Regional Emissions Thresholds .............................................................. 3.1-17

3.1-7 Localized Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations....................................... 3.1-19

3.1-8 Age Sensitivity Factors, Fraction of Time at Home, and Daily Breathing Rates ....................... 3.1-24

3.1-9 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Unmitigated...................................................................................... 3.1-30

3.1-10Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions .......................... 3.1-31

3.1-11Equipment-Specific Grading Rates ...................................................................................... 3.1-33

3.1-12Localized Significance of Construction Emissions – Unmitigated..................................... 3.1-34

3.1-13Localized Significance of Operational Emissions ............................................................... 3.1-35

3.1-14Carcinogenic Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ 3.1-38

3.1-15Non-carcinogenic Chronic Hazards...................................................................................... 3.1-40

3.3-1 Electricity Consumption Los Angeles County 2011–2021.................................................. 3.3-2

3.3-2 Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011–2021 .......................................... 3.3-2

3.3-3 Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011–2022................................... 3.3-3

3.3-4 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption .................................................................... 3.3-10

3.4-1 Regional Faulting .................................................................................................................... 3.4-7

3.5-1 Description of Greenhouse Gases ......................................................................................... 3.5-2

3.5-2 Six Top GHG Producer Countries ........................................................................................... 3.5-5

3.5-3 GHG Emissions Sources in California.................................................................................... 3.5-6

3.5-4 Project Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy ..................................................................................... 3.5-31

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 TOC-vii

3.5-5 Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................. 3.5-36

3.5-6 Operational Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................ 3.5-37

3.6-1 Summary of Contaminants of Concern ................................................................................. 3.6-4

3.6-2 Summary of Cortese List Sites............................................................................................... 3.6-6

3.6-3 Online Database Listings........................................................................................................ 3.6-8

3.7-1 Existing Hydrology of the Project Site .................................................................................... 3.7-2

3.8-1 Consistency with 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Goals .................................................................... 3.8-7

3.8-2 Consistency with Applicable City of Gardena General Plan Policies ................................. 3.8-10

3.9-1 Existing Noise Measurements................................................................................................ 3.9-2

3.9-2 Closest Noise-Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................ 3.9-3

3.9-3 Allowable Exterior Noise Level (dBA) ..................................................................................... 3.9-4

3.9-4 Allowable Interior Noise Level (dBA)...................................................................................... 3.9-5

3.9-5 Gardena Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix .................................................................... 3.9-7

3.9-6 Typical Construction Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 3.9-9

3.9-7 Project Construction Noise Levels (dBA) ............................................................................. 3.9-12

3.9-8 Stationary Source Noise Levels (dBA) ................................................................................. 3.9-16

3.9-9 Truck Pass-by Noise Levels at the Closest Noise-Sensitive Receptor............................... 3.9-18

3.9-10Typical Construction Equipment Ground-borne Vibration Velocities................................. 3.9-21

3.9-11 Mitigated Construction Vibration Levels.............................................................................. 3.9-22

3.10-1Project Trip Generation.......................................................................................................3.10-10

3.12-1Anticipated Solid Waste Generation..................................................................................3.12-14 5-1 Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts Comparison..................................................... 5-17

APPENDICES

A IS/NOP
B-1 Air Quality Analysis
B-2 Health Risk Assessment
C Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project D Energy Assessment
E Geotechnical Exploration Report for 1440-1462 Artesia Boulevard F Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment 1450 Artesia Boulevard SP Project G1a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
G1b Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix H, Pertinent Historical Documentation G2 Phase II Subsurface Investigation and Human Health Screening Evaluation Report G3 Final RAP
H Preliminary Hydrology and Low Impact Development (LID) Report I Acoustical Assessment 1450 Artesia Boulevard Specific Plan Project J1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment
J2 Local Transportation Assessment (LTA)
Copies of Appendices can be found on the City's website at:
https://cityofgardena.org/community-development/planning-projects/

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 TOC-viii
J3 1450 Artesia Boulevard – Revised Trip Generation Technical Memorandum K "Retail Development Potential for the Artesia Boulevard Retail District " L1 Preliminary Utility Investigation Memorandum, 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project, City of Gardena California
L2 Will Serve Letter for Gardena Industrial, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts L3 Information on Fire Flow Availability for Building Permit, 1450 W. Artesia Blvd, Gardena California
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ACR-i
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ACC Advanced Clean Cars
ACM asbestos-containing material
ADAM Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement
System
ADT average daily vehicle trips
AERMOD American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Model
AFV alternative fuel vehicle
AFY acre-feet per year
APA Annual Production Allowance
APA Allowed Pumping Allocation
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
APSA Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARC Atlantic Richfield Company
ASF Age Sensitivity Factor1
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BMP best management practice
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAC Certified Asbestos Consultant
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEMA California Emergency Management Agency
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalGEM California Geologic Energy Management
Division
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCS carbon capture and sequestration

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ACR-ii
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
CEC California Energy Commission
CERS California Environmental Reporting System
CERT Community Emergency Response Training
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information
System
CIWM California Integrated Waste Management
CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPP Clean Power Plan
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CWA Clean Water Act
DAC Disadvantaged Community
dBA A-weighted decibel
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DHS Department of Health Services
DISEIO Determination of Imminent and/or Substantial
Endangerment and Issuance Order
DMA drainage management area
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPW Department of Public Works
DRPEP Distributed Resources Plan External Portal
DSOD Division of Safety of Dams
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances
Control
DU dwelling unit
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EERP Enforcement and Emergency Response
Program
EIR environmental impact report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ACR-iii
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
EJ Environmental Justice
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right to
Know Act
ESL Environmental Screening Level
EV electric vehicle
EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment
EWMP enhanced watershed management program
FAH fraction of time at home
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Plan
GGP Gardena General Plan
GHG greenhouse gas
GPD Gardena Police Department
gpd gallons per day
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSF gross square feet
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GSWC Golden State Water Company
GWh gigawatt-hour
GWP global warming potential
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HERO Human and Ecological Risk Office
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HHMD Health and Hazardous Materials Division
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
HMBP hazardous materials business plan
HMIS Hazardous Material Inventory Statements
HMMP Hazardous Material Management Plan
HQTA High-Quality Transit Area
HSC California Health and Safety Code
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ACR-iv
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
IS Initial Study
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
kWh kilowatt-hour
LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works
LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District
LACoFD Los Angeles County Fire Department
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
LADPW Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works
LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District
LBP lead-based paint
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LEL lower explosive limit
LEV Low-Emission Vehicle
LID Low Impact Development
Lmin minimum sound level
LOR Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations
LST Local Significance Threshold
LTA Local Transportation Assessment
LUC land use covenant
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MEIR Maximally Exposed Individual Resident
mgd million gallons per day
MLD most likely descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMT million metric tons
MPO metropolitan planning organization
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer systems
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NED National Elevation Dataset

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ACR-v
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
NETR Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NSR New Source Review
NWL Natural and Working Lands
OAERP Operational Area Emergency Response Plan
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE tetrachloroethylene
PDF Project Design Feature
PFC perfluorocarbon
PM10 coarse particulate matter
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
PRD Permit Registration Document
RAO Remedial Action Order
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC recognized environmental condition
RECLAIM Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
REL Reference Exposure Level
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RSL Regional Screening Level
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SB Senate Bill

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ACR-vi
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of
Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SF square feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SIP State Implementation plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMP Soil Management Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SPCC Soil Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
SR State Route
SRA source receptor area
STC sound transmission class
SVOC semi-volatile organic compound
SWIMS Solid Waste Information Management System
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TAT Technical Assistance Team
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TMDL total maximum daily load
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
USGS U.S. Geological Society
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VIMS vapor intrusion mitigation system
VMT vehicle miles traveled

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ACR-vii
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WEAP Workers Environmental Awareness Program
WMP watershed management program

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ACR-viii

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-1
Executive Summary
This chapter provides a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (proposed Project or Project). Included in this summary are areas of known controversy and issues to be resolved, a summary of Project alternatives, a summary of all Project impacts and associated mitigation measures, and a statement of the ultimate level of significance after mitigation is applied.

ES.1 Document Purpose
This Draft EIR was prepared by the City of Gardena (City), as lead agency, to inform decision makers and the public of the potential significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) published by the Public Resources Agency of the State of California.

The purpose of this Draft EIR is to focus the discussion on those potential impacts on the environment of the Project that the lead agency has determined may be significant. In addition, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, when applicable, that could reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts.

ES.2 Document Organization
This EIR is organized as follows:

Executive Summary, summarizes the Project, potential environmental impacts associated with the Project as well as mitigation measures required to reduce any identified potentially significant impacts.

Chapter 1, Introduction, serves as a forward to the EIR, introducing the Project, the applicable environmental review procedures, and the organization of the EIR.

Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a thorough description of the proposed Project elements, the purpose and need for the Project, Project objectives, and required discretionary approvals. This chapter also includes a description of the intended uses of the EIR and public agency actions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-2
For each environmental issue area, the analysis and discussion are organized into subsections as described below:
▪ Environmental Setting – This subsection describes the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed Project at the time of publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). The environmental setting establishes the baseline conditions by which the City will determine whether specific Project-related impacts are significant. ▪ Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances – This subsection describes the regulatory setting applicable to the environmental issue area and the proposed Project at the time of publication of the NOP.
▪ Thresholds of Significance – This subsection identifies a set of thresholds by which the level of impact is determined.
▪ Methodology – This subsection describes how the analysis was conducted. ▪ Impact Analysis – This subsection provides a detailed analysis regarding the environmental effects of the proposed Project and whether the impacts of the proposed Project would meet or exceed the significance thresholds.
▪ Mitigation Measures – This subsection identifies potentially feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially reduce significant adverse Project impacts. ▪ Level of Significance After Mitigation – This subsection discusses whether Project-related impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. If applicable, this subsection also identifies any residual significant and unavoidable adverse effects of the proposed Project that would result even with implementation of any feasible mitigation measures. ▪ Cumulative Effects – This subsection analyzes the potential of the proposed Project to result in significant cumulative impacts.
▪ References – In addition to the eight subsections listed above, full citations for all referenced documents are included at the end of each section or chapter.

Chapter 4, Other CEQA Requirements, addresses significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided, the significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed Project, growth-inducing impacts associated with the proposed Project, and potential secondary effects of mitigation measures included for the proposed Project.

Chapter 5, Alternatives, discusses alternatives to the proposed Project, including a No Project Alternative. This chapter describes the rationale for selecting the range of alternatives discussed in the EIR and identifies the alternatives considered by the City that were rejected from further discussion as infeasible during the scoping process. Lastly, Chapter 5 includes a discussion of the environmental effects of the alternatives that were carried forward for analysis and identifies the environmentally superior alternative.

Chapter 6, List of Preparers, gives names and contact information of those responsible for writing this EIR.

Appendices include various technical studies prepared for the proposed Project, as listed in the Table of Contents.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-3
ES.3 Project Location
The 1450 Artesia Specific Plan would cover a site that is approximately 6.33 acres located in the City of Gardena, at the corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue, two major thoroughfares within the City (Figure 2-1, Project Location). The Project site is located approximately 12 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles and is locally accessible via several major freeways including Interstate (I) 405, I-110, I-105 and State Route (SR) 91 (Artesia Boulevard). Artesia Boulevard, an east-west street forming the northern boundary of the Plan area, delivers direct access to the Specific Plan area. Local access to the Project site is also provided from Normandie Avenue, traveling northsouth just east of the Project site and Western Avenue, traveling north-south within the vicinity to the west of the Project site (Figure 2-1).

The Project site consists of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 6106-036-010, 6106- 036-012, 6106 036-034, 6106-036-035, 6106-036-036, 6106-036-037 (collectively, the “Project site”). Specifically, the Project site is located in Township 3 South, Range 14 West, Section 00 (Randymajors Research Hub 2024).

ES.4 Project Description
ES.4.1 Project Overview
The proposed Project would result in the redevelopment of mixed-use property with a new mixed-use development consisting of the following components, as shown in Figure 2-4, Site Plan: a 268,000 gross-square-foot (GSF) building, associated surface parking, landscaping and circulation improvements, a self-storage use of three levels totaling 186,000 GSF, an industrial warehousing use (one level totaling 72,000 GSF plus 10 loading docks), and an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF). Other Project improvements include a small storage structure for use by the City, perimeter fencing, on-site and perimeter landscaping, lighting, and exterior sidewalks, two curb cuts – one for right turn in, and one for right turn out driveways along Artesia Boulevard and 124 automobile parking stalls, including 5 accessible spaces, 6 electric vehicle (EV) charging station spaces, and 25 EV-ready spaces.

ES.4.2 Project Objectives
The primary objectives of the proposed Project include the following:
▪ Redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant industrial and commercial uses along a major development corridor within the City
▪ Develop appropriate uses in an area with a legacy of contamination in a manner that protects human health and the environment and allows for continued monitoring of remediated areas ▪ Produce short-and long-term jobs during the Project’s construction and operations phases ▪ Generate property and sales tax revenues for the City to enhance its services to the community and infrastructural improvements

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-4
▪ Provide the City a substantial monetary public benefit to the City’s General Fund ▪ Provide the City with an outdoor venue to hold community events ES.5 Areas of Known Controversy
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, an NOP was distributed on June 8, 2023, to public agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that the City planned to prepare an EIR and to solicit input on the scope and content of the EIR. Approximately 21 copies of the NOP were distributed, and eight written comment letters were received by the City.

These letters and the NOP are included in Appendix A of this EIR.

A scoping meeting was held at the City of Gardena City Council Chambers on June 22, 2023. The purpose of this meeting was to seek input from public agencies and the general public regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Approximately seven people attended the scoping meeting. The public comments, questions, and concerns that were received at the scoping meeting generally included the following areas:
▪ Air Quality – emissions during construction and from operational traffic ▪ Land Use and Planning – land use conflicts between warehouses and sensitive receptors ▪ Noise –noise increases from operational traffic
▪ Transportation – adequate parking or implementation of TDM elements to reduce needed parking spaces, increased VMT and traffic from trucks and residential vehicles, additional EV parking spaces, improvements to the pedestrian network, bike rack and potential Class IV bike lane on Artesia Boulevard or a Dominguez Channel bike path ▪ Utilities and Service Systems – adequate wastewater flow This EIR focuses on all potential environmental impacts, including the comments received in response to the NOP.

ES.6 Required Permits and Approvals
The City is the lead agency for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367. The Applicant would obtain all permits and approvals, as required by law. A list of permits or other forms of approval required of the proposed Project is provided in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1. Permits or Other Actions Required
Agency Jurisdiction
Permit Regulatory
Requirement/Approval
State
State Water
Resources Control
Board
Responsible Agency General Construction Activity National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-5
Table ES-1. Permits or Other Actions Required
Agency Jurisdiction
Permit Regulatory
Requirement/Approval
Los Angeles County
Fire Department
Responsible Agency Plan check
Local
City of Gardena Lead Agency ▪ Adoption of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan
▪ Zone Text Amendment
▪ Development Agreement
▪ Site Plan Review
▪ Lot Merger
ES.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Table ES-2 provides a summary of the impact analysis related to the Project. Table ES-2 identifies a summary of the significant environmental impacts resulting from the Project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1). For more detailed discussion, please see Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR.

Table ES-2 lists the applicable mitigation measures related to potentially significant impacts, as well as the level of significance after mitigation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 1-6
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Air Quality
AQ-1. Would the project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
AQ-2. Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable new
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
AQ-3. Would the project expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Potentially
Significant
MM-AQ-1. Clean Construction Equipment
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
Applicant shall prepare and submit
documentation to the City of Gardena that
demonstrate the following:
▪ All off-road diesel-powered construction
equipment greater than 50 horsepower
meets California Air Resources Board
(CARB) Tier 4 Final off-road emissions
standards or, if not commercially
available, meet Tier 4 Interim off-road
emission standards (as shown in CARB’s
2017 Off-Road Diesel Emission Factor
Update for NOx and PM). A copy of each
unit’s Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) documentation (certified tier
Less than Significant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-7
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
specification or model year specification),
and CARB or South Coast Air Quality
Management District operating permit (if
applicable) shall be provided to the City at
the time of mobilization of each applicable
unit of equipment.
▪ Construction equipment shall be properly
maintained according to manufacturer
specifications.
▪ All construction equipment and delivery
vehicles shall be turned off when not in
use, or limit on-site idling for no more than
5 minutes in any 1 hour.
▪ On-site electrical hook ups to a power grid
shall be provided for electric construction
tools including saws, drills, and
compressors, where feasible, to reduce
the need for diesel powered electric
generators.

MM-AQ-2. Electric Cargo Handling Equipment
All outdoor cargo handling equipment (such
as yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet
jacks, and forklifts) shall be zero emission
(i.e., powered by electricity or other alternative
fuels). The warehouse building shall include
the necessary charging stations for cargo
handling equipment. The building manager or

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-8
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
their designee shall be responsible for
enforcing these requirements.

MM-GHG-1. Establish On-Site Solar Power
Prior to the issuance of a Building permit, the
Project Applicant shall provide written proof to
the City of Gardena Community Development
Director that the total annual electricity
demand from on-site operations does not
exceed 2,226,107 kWh/year. On-site
electrical demand exceeding 2,226,107
kWh/year shall be supplied by on-site
renewable sources (e.g., solar photovoltaic
panels). Further, the Project will be designed
in accordance with the applicable Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code
of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These
standards are updated, nominally every 3
years, to incorporate improved energy
efficiency technologies and methods. The
Building Official, or designee shall ensure
compliance prior to the issuance of each
building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards (Section 110.10) require buildings
to be designed to have 15% of the roof area
“solar ready” that will structurally
accommodate later installation of rooftop
solar panels. If future building operators

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-9
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they
will submit plans for solar panels prior to
occupancy.

AQ-4. Would the project result in other
emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
Cultural Resources
CUL-1. Would the Project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
CUL-2. Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
MM-CUL-1. Workers Environmental
Awareness Program
Prior to the start of construction activities, all
construction personnel and monitors shall be
trained regarding identification and treatment
protocol for inadvertent discoveries of cultural
resources (archaeological and tribal) and
human remains. A basic presentation and
handout or pamphlet shall be prepared in
order to ensure proper identification and
treatment of inadvertent discoveries of
cultural resources and human remains. The
purpose of the Workers Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) training is to
provide specific details on the kinds of
Less than Significant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-10
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
materials that may be identified during
ground disturbing activities and explain the
importance of and legal basis for the
protection of human remains and significant
cultural resources. Each worker shall also be
trained in the proper procedures to follow in
the event that cultural resources or human
remains are uncovered during ground
disturbing activities. These procedures
include but are not limited to work curtailment
or redirection, and the immediate contact of
the site supervisor and archaeological
monitoring staff.

MM-CUL-2. Retention of an On-Call Qualified
Archaeologist
A qualified archaeologist shall be retained
and on-call to respond and address any
inadvertent discoveries identified Project
implementation. Additionally, in consideration
of the potential to encounter intact cultural
deposits beneath fill soils, the qualified
archaeologist shall survey the proposed
Project site once fill soils have been removed
to ensure no cultural deposits underly the fill
layer. If is determined, based on the
aforementioned survey, that cultural
resources are present or may be present and
may be impacted during Project construction,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-11
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
monitoring may be warranted. Additionally,
any identified cultural resources shall be
assessed and evaluated pursuant to CEQA. If
it is determined that monitoring is warranted,
a qualified archaeological principal
investigator, meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards, shall oversee and adjust
monitoring efforts as needed (increase,
decrease, or discontinue monitoring
frequency) based on the observed potential
for construction activities to encounter
cultural deposits or material. The
archaeological monitor will be responsible for
maintaining daily monitoring logs.

MM-CUL-3. Inadvertent Discovery Clause
In the event that potential archaeological
resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are
exposed during ground disturbing, all
construction work occurring not less than 100
feet of the find shall immediately stop and the
qualified archaeologist that has been retained
on call must be notified immediately to
assess the significance of the find and
determine whether or not additional study is
warranted. Depending upon the significance
of the find under the CEQA, the archaeologist
may simply record the find and allow work to

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-12
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
continue. If the discovery proves significant
under CEQA, additional work (e.g., preparation
of an archaeological treatment plan, testing,
data recovery, or monitoring) may be
warranted if the resource cannot be feasibly
avoided. If the discovery is Native American in
nature, consultation with and/or monitoring
by a tribal representative may be necessary.

CUL-3. Would the project disturb any
human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
Energy
ENG-1. Would the project result in
potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction
or operation?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
ENG-2. Would the project conflict with
or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
Geology and Soils
GEO-1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
No Impact N/A N/A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-13
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
GEO-2. Would the project be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
GEO-3. Would the project be located
on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
GEO-4. Would the project directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Potentially
Significant
MM-GEO-1. Inadvertent Discovery
In the event that paleontological resources
(e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading,
the paleontological monitor will temporarily
halt and/or divert grading activity to allow
recovery of paleontological resources. The
area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-
foot radius buffer. Once documentation and
Less than Significant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-14
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
collection of the find is completed, the
monitor will remove the rope and allow
grading to recommence in the area of the
find. Salvaged fossils deemed to be
significant shall be donated to an accredited
repository with retrievable storage such as a
museum. Costs for preparing the fossils for
accessioning into the accredited repository
and any associated curation fees shall be
paid by the Project Applicant.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1. Would the project generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
GHG-2. Would the project conflict with
an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Potentially
Significant
PDF-GHG-1.

The Project shall be designed to be all-electric
and prohibit connection to natural gas
infrastructure. Using electric instead of
natural gas-powered appliances replaces a
more emissions-intensive fossil fuel source of
energy with a less emissions-intensive source
of energy as electricity from the grid is
increasingly transitioning to renewable
sources.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-15
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
exceed 2,226,107 kWh/year. On-site
electrical demand exceeding 2,226,107
kWh/year shall be supplied by on-site
renewable sources (e.g., solar photovoltaic
panels). Further, the Project will be designed
in accordance with the applicable Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code
of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These
standards are updated, nominally every 3
years, to incorporate improved energy
efficiency technologies and methods. The
Building Official, or designee shall ensure
compliance prior to the issuance of each
building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards (Section 110.10) require buildings
to be designed to have 15% of the roof area
“solar ready” that will structurally
accommodate later installation of rooftop
solar panels. If future building operators
pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they
will submit plans for solar panels prior to
occupancy.

See MM-AQ-2 listed above.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1. Would the project create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine
Potentially
Significant
PDF-HAZ-1. Remedial Action of the Gardena
Sumps Site
Less than Significant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-16
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
ARC will coordinate with the Applicant to
implement the Final RAP. The Final RAP
includes: (a) excavation of degraded and soilsludge mixture; (b) consolidation of this excavated mixture above the Cooper North
and Cooper South Sumps; (c) grading for
excavated areas; (d) grading and installation,
maintenance, and repair of an engineered
cap over the Cooper North and Cooper South
sumps, including stabilization, foundation, low
hydraulic conductivity and erosion resistance
layers; (e) installation of a retaining wall
system along the north side of the Haack
sump; (f) installation, operation, maintenance
and repair of a soil vapor control and
monitoring system that will include soil vapor
probes and associated infrastructure; (g)
installation, operation, maintenance and
repair of a groundwater monitoring system;
and (h) restoration of vegetation and site
conditions. The Final RAP will be implemented
before the Applicant commences construction
of the proposed Project. The portion of the
proposed Project site that overlaps the sump
areas and the top of the engineered cap will
be paved and utilized as a parking lot. The
Applicant will undertake measures to protect
the remedy during site operation. As part of
the Final RAP, a land use covenant will be

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-17
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
established for the site to prohibit sensitive
uses thereon, such as residential uses, but
will permit the proposed Project’s commercial
and industrial uses, as well as the City’s
temporary uses. The Applicant will comply
with all institutional controls that DTSC may
require as part of the ongoing use of the site,
except for those assigned to ARC as part of its
Final RAP.

MM-HAZ-1. Pre-Demolition Hazardous
Materials Abatement
Demolition or renovation plans and contract
specifications shall incorporate abatement
procedures for the survey and removal of
materials containing asbestos, lead,
polychlorinated biphenyls, hazardous
materials, hazardous wastes, and universal
waste items. All abatement work shall be
done in accordance with federal, state, and
local regulations, including those of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (which
regulates disposal), Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, California
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (which regulates employee
exposure), and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-18
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
MM-HAZ-2. Soil Management Plan
Prior to commencement of any earthmoving
activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP)
shall be developed that addresses potential
impacts in soil and soil vapor from releases
on or near the Project site. The SMP shall
include training procedures for identification
of contamination. The SMP shall describe
procedures for assessment, characterization,
management, and disposal of contaminated
soils in accordance with all applicable state
and local regulations, including SCAQMD
Rules 1466, 403, and 1166. The SMP shall
include health and safety measures, which
may include but are not limited to periodic
work breathing zone monitoring and
monitoring for volatile organic compounds
using a handheld organic vapor analyzer in
the event impacted soils are encountered
during excavation activities. The Applicant or
its designee shall implement the SMP during
construction activities for the proposed
Project. As the site is currently under
regulatory oversight by DTSC and shall likely
have a land use covenant in place at the time
of construction, the SMP shall be submitted to
DTSC for review and approval prior to
earthmoving activities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-19
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
HAZ-2. Would the project create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Potentially
Significant
PDF-HAZ-2. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation
The Applicant will install a soil vapor barrier
and ventilation systems beneath the
proposed structure to protect building
occupants against indoor soil vapor intrusion.

Vapor barrier systems will meet guidelines
described in the Vapor Intrusion Mitigation
Advisory published by DTSC and CalEPA in
2011 (VIMA). Vapor barriers will be designed
to meet the standards outlined in the VIMA
and will be in general conformance with
General Construction, Membrane Installation,
and Ventilation Trench for Passive Gas
Control System Requirements of the Los
Angeles County Methane Gas Mitigation
Standards. The system will include a vapor
barrier membrane and passive sub-slab
venting system. The system will be designed
by a California-licensed engineer. Monitoring
probes will be installed below the barrier
system, to evaluate the effectiveness of the
system. An OM&M Plan will be prepared to
define the ongoing sampling required to
confirm the vapor intrusion mitigation system
(VIMS) is operating as designed. The OM&M
Plan will include a decision tree and
contingency plans in the event unexpected
conditions are identified.

Less than Significant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-20
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
Also see PDF-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-1, and MM-HAZ2 above.

HAZ-3. Would the project emit
hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Potentially
Significant
See PDF-HAZ-1, PDF-HAZ-2, MM-HAZ-1, and
MM-HAZ-2 above.

Less than Significant
HAZ-4. Would the project be located on
a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as result, would is
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Potentially
Significant
See PDF-HAZ-1, PDF-HAZ-2, and MM-HAZ-2
above.

Less than Significant
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1. Would the project substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project would impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
HYD-2. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-21
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
HYD-3. Would the project conflict with
or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
Land Use and Planning
LU-1. Would the project cause a
significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
Noise
NOI-1. Would the Project generate a
substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
Potentially
Significant
MM-NOI-1. Construction Noise
Prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit, the
Applicant shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City of Gardena Building
Official, that the construction contracts
include at least an 8-foot-high temporary
noise barrier along the western Project
boundary. The temporary noise barrier shall
have a sound transmission class (STC) of 25
or greater in accordance with the ASTM Test
Method E90, or at least 2 pounds per square
foot to ensure adequate transmission loss
Significant and
Unavoidable
(Construction)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-22
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
characteristics. To achieve this, the barrier
may consist of steel tubular framing, welded
joints, a layer of 18-ounce tarp, a 2-inch thick
fiberglass blanket, a 1/2-inch thick
weatherwood asphalt sheathing, and 7/16-
inch sturdy board siding. The barrier must be
free of degrading holes or gaps and shall be
designed to prevent structural failure due to
factors such as wind, shear, shallow soil
failure, earthquakes, and erosion.

MM-NOI-2. Special Event Noise
All City-sponsored special events shall be
subject to the following requirements:
▪ Special Events shall be restricted to the
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
▪ Amplified noise sources (e.g., speakers,
bandstands) shall be directed away from
the nearest noise-sensitive receptors.
▪ Amplification systems will be positioned so
that the tilt of the systems is downwards
slightly to focus sound on the ground and
prevent it from traveling up towards noisesensitive receptors. Amplification systems will also be distributed to minimize sound
levels closest to individual sources.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-23
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
NOI-2. Would the Project generate
excessive ground-borne vibration or
ground-borne noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
MM-NOI-3. Construction Vibration
The Project Applicant will require contractor(s)
to comply with a Vibration Management Plan
and implement minimum allowable setbacks
from nearby buildings/structures to the west
for heavy machinery. For all new construction,
the contractor(s) will not use pile drivers,
pavement breakers, or blasting equipment. In
addition, when construction is required in
direct proximity to the residences immediately
west of the Project site, the contractor(s) will
observe the following minimum allowable
setbacks for specified construction
equipment:
▪ Small bulldozer/tractors shall not be used
within 11 feet of buildings to the west;
▪ Jackhammers shall not be used within 54
feet of any buildings to the west;
▪ Loaded trucks shall not be used within 95
feet of buildings to the west; and
▪ Large bulldozers shall not be used within
105 feet of any buildings to the west.

Less than Significant
Transportation
TRA-1. Would the project conflict with
a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system,
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-24
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
TRA-2. Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
TRA-3. Would the project substantially
increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1. Would the Project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-25
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
TCR-2. Would the Project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is a resource
determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
Potentially
Significant
MM-TCR-1. Native American Monitoring
A. Prior to commencement of grounddisturbing activities, the Project 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 on-site and any off-site locations
that are included in the Project
Description/definition and/or required
in connection with the Project, such as
public improvement work). “Grounddisturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement
removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing,
tree removal, boring, grading,
excavation, drilling, and trenching.

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

Less than Significant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-26
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
C. The monitor will complete daily
monitoring logs that will provide
descriptions of the relevant grounddisturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed,
locations of ground disturbing
activities, soil types, cultural-related
materials, and any other facts,
conditions, materials, or discoveries of
significance to the tribe. Monitoring
logs will identify and describe any
discovered Tribal Cultural Resources
(TCRs), including, but not limited to,
Native American cultural and historical
artifacts, remains, and places of
significance, as well as any discovered
Native American (ancestral) human
remains and burial goods. Copies of
monitoring logs will be provided to the
Project 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 Project Applicant/lead agency that
all ground-disturbing activities and
phases that may involve grounddisturbing activities on the Project site

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-27
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
or in connection with the Project are
complete; or (2) a determination and
written notification by the monitor to
the Project Applicant/lead agency that
no future planned construction activity
and/or development/construction
phase at the Project site possesses
the potential to impact TCRs.

MM-TCR-2. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal
Cultural Resource Objects (NonFunerary/Non-Ceremonial) Management strategies stipulated in MMCUL-1 through MM-CUL-3 shall be implemented in the event that Project
activities encounter cultural resources. In
addition, the following TCR-specific measures
shall be implemented. 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 Qualification Standards
for archaeology (National Park Service 1983).

A. If the resources are Native American in
origin, the Kizh will recover and retain

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-28
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
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.

B. If the archaeologist determines that
the resource meets the criteria as a
“historical resource” or “unique
archaeological resource” under CEQA,
time allotment and funding sufficient
to allow for the implementation of
avoidance measures or appropriate
mitigation shall be made available. The
treatment plan shall be in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f) for
historical resources and Public
Resources Code § 21083.2(b) for
unique archaeological resources. If not
left in place, any historic or
archaeological material that is not
Native American in origin shall be
curated at a public, nonprofit
institution with a research interest in
the materials, such as the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County
or the Fowler Museum at the University
of California Los Angeles, if such an
institution agrees to accept the

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-29
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be
offered to a local school or historical
society for educational purposes.

MM-TCR-3. Unanticipated Discovery of Human
Remains and Associated Funerary Objects
A. Native American human remains are
defined in California Public Resources
Code (PRC) Section 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 PRC Section
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 and
PRC Section 5097.9 and California
Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 shall be followed. This includes
among other required measures, the
immediate contact of the County
Coroner, the principal archaeologist
retained for the Project and if the
remains are potentially Native

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-30
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
American in origin, the Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation.

C. Human remains and grave/burial
goods found with such remains shall
be treated alike per PRC Sections
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. This determination will be
made by the construction monitor in
consultation with the principal
archaeologist and if the remains are
potentially Native American in origin,
the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians-Kizh Nation. No further
constriction shall occur until the
construction monitor and/or principal
archaeologist has given expressed
consent of that determination (along
with any other mitigation measures the
monitor and/or archaeologist deems
necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5[f]).

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial
goods shall be kept confidential to
prevent further disturbance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-31
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
MM-TCR-4. Unanticipated Discovery of Human
Remains and Associated Funerary Objects
This mitigation measure shall only apply if the
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation is designated as the Most Likely
Descendant (“MLD”) by the NAHC.

A. The Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be
implemented. To the tribe, the term
“human remains” encompasses more
than human bones. In ancient as well
as historic times, tribal traditions
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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-32
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
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 Project Applicant/developer
and/or landowner, before ground-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-33
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
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 6 months of recovery. The site
of reburial/repatriation shall be on the
Project site but at a location agreed
upon between the tribe and the
landowner at a site to be protected in
perpetuity. There shall be no publicity
regarding any cultural materials
recovered
G. The tribe will work closely with the
Project’s qualified archaeologist to
ensure that the excavation is treated
carefully, ethically and respectfully. If
data recovery is approved by the tribe,
documentation shall be prepared and
shall include (at a minimum) detailed

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-34
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
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.

Also see MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, and MM-CUL3 above.

Utilities and Service Systems
UTL-1. Would the project require or
result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
would cause significant environmental
effects?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
UTL-2. Would the project have
sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-35
Table ES-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance After
Mitigation
UTL-3. Would the project result in a
determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
UTL-4. 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?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A
UTL-5. Would the project comply with
federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less than
Significant

N/A N/A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-36
ES.8 Summary of Project Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies the parameters within which consideration and discussion of alternatives to the Project should occur. As stated in this section of the Guidelines, alternatives must focus on those that are reasonably feasible and that attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. Each alternative should be capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant impacts of the Project. The rationale for selecting the alternatives to be evaluated and a discussion of the No Project Alternative are also required, per Section 15126.6.

ES.8.1 Alternatives Evaluated
This section discusses the alternatives to the Project, including the No Project Alternative, under consideration. The No Project (No Development) Alternative, which is a required element of an EIR pursuant to Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, examines the environmental effects that would occur if the Project were not to proceed and no development activities were to occur. The other alternatives are discussed as part of the “reasonable range of alternatives” selected by the lead agency. The following alternatives are addressed in this section, followed by a more detailed discussion of each:
▪ Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
▪ Alternative 2 – Reduced Density Alternative
▪ Alternative 3 – Self-Storage Only Alternative
▪ Alternative 4 – Truck-Storage Lot Alternative
Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
Under Alternative 1, development of the Project site would not occur as discussed in Chapter 2 of this Draft EIR, and no new permanent development or land uses would be introduced. However, Alternative 1 assumes that remediation of the site as stipulated in the Final RAP would proceed as that document has been approved by DTSC and the remediation process would occur absent the proposed Project, which would include demolition of two existing structures. The other two existing structures would remain as nonconforming uses.

Alternative 2 – Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 2 consists of a Project with the same elements as the proposed Project but reduced in square footage and development footprint by 50%. Therefore, this Alternative assumes 93,000 square feet of self-storage uses consisting of 740 storage units, 36,000 square feet of industrial warehouse/distribution uses, and 5,000 square feet of office/mezzanine uses, which would be developed on the western half of the Project site. Operations would be proportionately less under this Alternative. Special events would remain unchanged from the proposed Project under Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 – Self-Storage Only Alternative
Alternative 3 consists of self-storage only development at the Project site. Like the proposed Project, this Alternative assumes a single building totaling 268,000 square feet. However, under this

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-37
Alternative, the building would be entirely self-storage, except for 2,000 square feet for office/lease space. Assuming a similar proportion of self-storage units to overall square footage, this Alternative assumes 2,100 self-storage units.

Alternative 3 would include similar construction activities as the Project, given the same parking, square footage, and landscaping would be constructed. Operation of Alternative 3 would result in fewer employees, given self-storage uses require fewer employees than industrial warehouse/distribution uses.

City-sponsored special events would remain unchanged under this Alternative.

Alternative 4 – Truck-Storage Lot Alternative
Alternative 4 would replace the Project’s self-storage, industrial, and office/mezzanine use building (totaling 268,000 square feet) with a truck parking and storage lot. Alternative 4 would include 165 trailer parking stalls for heavy-duty trucks to drop off and store trailers as well as a security check-in station at the northwest corner at the entrance/exit. Alternative 4 would include demolition of all onsite structures and paving of the entire Project site. A conceptual site plan for Alternative 4 is depicted on Figure 5-1.

Operations would result in an estimated two employees for nighttime security purposes only. Heavyduty trucks would drive onto the site via Artesia Boulevard and store trailers, typically for up to 48 hours. Some heavy-duty trucks may drop off their trailers and containers at the site, which could be stored at the site for longer periods of time up to 1 month. Special events would not occur under Alternative 4 because the entire Project site would be needed for trailer and container storage on a 24-hour, 7-day-per-week basis with all tractor trailer spaces available due to the unpredictability of the number of spaces needed at any given time.

ES.8.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
A summary of the environmental impacts associated with each alternative is provided in Table ES-3.

As shown, Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) would be the environmentally superior alternative, because it would avoid all of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project.

The environmental impacts of Alternative 2 (Reduced Density Alternative) would be reduced compared to the proposed Project in the areas of construction and operational air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and energy because construction and operational activity would be reduced by half. It would also reduce demand on utilities and water supplies by half and generate half the solid waste of the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would also avoid construction and operation over the engineered cap on the eastern half of the Project site, which would reduce potential exposure to the most contaminated portion of the site. Alternative 2 would also result in half the amount of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project. However, these reductions in impacts would not result in any different impact determinations than the determinations for the proposed Project. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact generated by the proposed Project.

The environmental impacts of Alternative 3 (Self-Storage Only Alternative) would be essentially the same as the proposed Project because the Project would be the same size and on the same footprint, with the exception of operational air quality and transportation impacts, which would be reduced

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-38
when compared to the proposed Project because the trip generation would be reduced. Some reductions in demand on utilities and solid waste generation could occur with the removal of the industrial warehouse/distribution use but they would not be substantial and would not result in any different impact determinations than the determinations for the proposed Project. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact generated by the proposed Project.

The environmental impacts of Alternative 4 (Truck Storage Alternative) would be reduced compared to the proposed Project areas of construction and operational air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and energy because construction and operational activity would be greatly reduced as both constructing and operating a truck storage facility would be much less intensive than constructing and operating the proposed Project. It would also significantly reduce demand on utilities and water supplies and generate much less solid waste than the proposed Project. Alternative 4 would greatly reduce the number of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project, from 578 total daily trips under the proposed Project to 4 total daily trips under Alternative 4. However, Alternative 4 would not reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact generated by the proposed Project.

For these reasons, other than the No Project Alternative, Alternative 4 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative.

Table ES-3. Comparison of Project and Alternatives Impacts Environmental
Issue Area Project
No Project
Alternative
(Alternative
1)
Reduced
Density
Alternative
(Alternative
2)
SelfStorage
Only
Alternative
(Alternative
3)
TruckStorage Lot
Alternative
(Alternative
4)
Air Quality Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No Impact Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Cultural Resources Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No Impact Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Energy Less than
Significant
No Impact Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Geology and Soils Less than
Significant
No Impact Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less than
Significant
No Impact Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No Impact Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-39
Table ES-3. Comparison of Project and Alternatives Impacts Environmental
Issue Area Project
No Project
Alternative
(Alternative
1)
Reduced
Density
Alternative
(Alternative
2)
SelfStorage
Only
Alternative
(Alternative
3)
TruckStorage Lot
Alternative
(Alternative
4)
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Less than
Significant
No Impact Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Land Use and
Planning
Less than
Significant
No Impact Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Noise Significant
and
Unavoidable
No Impact Significant
and
Unavoidable
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Transportation Less than
Significant
No Impact Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No Impact Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Utilities and Service
Systems
Less than
Significant
No Impact Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
ES.9 References
Randymajors Research Hub. 2024. Randymajors Research Hub, Section Township Range.

Accessed June 25, 2024. https://www.randymajors.org/township-range-on-google-maps?x=- 118.3001470&y=33.8718862&cx=-118.3024472&cy=33.8666410&zoom=13&labels= show&plss=show.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 ES-40

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 1-1
1 Introduction
This environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Gardena (City) to evaluate potential environmental effects that would result from development of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (Project or proposed Project). This EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) statutes (California Public Resources Code, Section 2100 et. seq., as amended) and its implementing guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et. seq.). The City is identified as the lead agency for the proposed Project under CEQA.

1.1 Summary of the Proposed Project
The proposed Project would involve the construction and operation of a mixed-use development with a total building area of 268,000 square feet and an approximate height of 75 feet, including a selfstorage use (three levels totaling 186,000 gross square feet [GSF] with 1,480 storage units over ground floor warehouse/distribution use and a 1,000-square-foot leasing office), a warehouse/distribution use (one level totaling 72,000 GSF with 10 loading docks), and an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF). The Project’s proposed 72,000 GSF of warehouse/distribution use includes 10,000 GSF of potential future square footage to account for the potential future acquisition of a 0.23-acre parcel currently occupied by a single residential dwelling unit. Additionally, proposed associated facilities and improvements include perimeter fencing, on-site and perimeter landscaping, lighting, exterior sidewalks, and pavement for on-site parking spaces. Under the Specific Plan, the parking lot area would be used periodically for City-sponsored outdoor events outside of the Project’s warehouse/distribution component operating hours. The Project includes construction of a 200 GSF, non-habitable structure on the eastern side of the Project site for storage of special eventrelated materials by the City.

The Applicant is coordinating with the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC), which is a responsible party working under the direction of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) by installing an engineered cap, soil vapor probes, and associated infrastructure on part of the Project site before the Applicant commences construction of the proposed Project. The Applicant will undertake measures to protect this remedy and avoid an unreasonable risk of harm to human health and the environment, such as installing soil vapor barrier and ventilation systems beneath the structure to protect building occupants against indoor soil vapor intrusion; recording a land use covenant on the site to prohibit sensitive uses thereon, such as residential uses, but which would permit the proposed Project’s commercial and industrial uses; complying with all institutional controls that DTSC may require; and undertaking long-term monitoring and maintenance of the soil vapor barrier and ventilation systems for the proposed Project’s building.

Construction of the proposed Project is expected to last approximately 18 months beginning in the spring of 2024 and ending in the fall of 2025. The proposed Project is anticipated to begin operations in Fall of 2025. The Applicant’s timing for construction would not interfere with the implementation of the RAP by ARC, nor will ARC’s implementation of the RAP interfere with the Applicant’s construction and operation of the proposed Project.
1 – INTRODUCTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 1-2

1.2 CEQA Environmental Process
CEQA requires preparation of an EIR when there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of an EIR is to provide decision makers, public agencies, and the general public with an objective and informational document that fully discloses the environmental effects of a proposed Project. The EIR process is intended to facilitate the objective evaluation of potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a proposed Project, and to identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid the proposed Project’s significant effects. In addition, CEQA specifically requires that an EIR identify those adverse impacts determined to be significant after mitigation.

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) were prepared and distributed to public agencies and organizations. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that City plans to prepare an EIR and to solicit input on the scope and content of the EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City distributed the IS/NOP to 21 agency and organization contacts. The IS/NOP was also filed with the State Clearinghouse and the County Clerk on June 8, 2023. Additionally, the City sent the IS/NOP to addresses within a 300-foot buffer of the Project site. An electronic copy of the IS/NOP was also made available on the City’s website. In response to the IS/NOP, eight written comment letters were received by the City. These letters and the IS/NOP are included in Appendix A of this EIR.

A public scoping meeting was held on June 22, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. at the City of Gardena City Council Chambers, located at 1700 West 162nd Street, Gardena, California 90247. Information regarding the scoping meeting was included in the NOP, which was widely distributed, as described above. The purpose of this meeting was to share information regarding the proposed Project and the environmental review process and to receive written comments regarding the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be addressed in the EIR. Approximately seven people attended the scoping meeting. A summary of the proposed Project and the CEQA process was presented at the meeting. Attendees at the scoping meeting were informed that verbal comments would not be recorded at the meeting and were encouraged to also submit written comments. Therefore, only written comments received during the scoping period were entered into the record.

The Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix A) determined that the following resource areas did not have the potential to result in significant impacts: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and wildfire. As such, these issue areas are not discussed in this EIR. The issue areas analyzed in detail in this EIR consist of air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. 1 – INTRODUCTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 1-3
This draft EIR is being circulated for 45 days for public review and comment. The timeframe of the public review period is identified in the notice of availability attached to this draft EIR. During this period, comments from the general public, organizations, and agencies regarding environmental issues analyzed in the draft EIR and the draft EIR’s accuracy and completeness may be submitted to:

Amanda Acuna, Senior Planner
City of Gardena Community Development Department
1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, California 90247
Email: [email protected].
(Enter “1450 Artesia Specific Plan EIR Public Comments” in the subject line.) General questions about this EIR and the EIR process should also be directed to the email address above. The City will prepare written responses to comments received that raise significant environmental issues, if the comments are submitted in writing and postmarked or emailed during the comment period identified in the notice of availability.

Prior to approval of the proposed Project or an alternative to the proposed Project, the City, as the lead agency and decision-making entity for the Project, is required to certify that this EIR has been completed in accordance with CEQA, that the proposed Project has been reviewed and the information in this EIR has been considered, and that this EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. CEQA also requires the City to adopt “findings” with respect to each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081; CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). For each significant effect, CEQA requires the approving agency to make one or more of the following findings:
▪ The proposed Project has been altered to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts identified in the Final EIR.
▪ The responsibility to carry out such changes or alterations is under the jurisdiction of another agency.
▪ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

If the City concludes that the proposed Project or an alternative to the proposed Project will result in significant effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided by feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, the City must adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” prior to approval of the proposed Project (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081[b]; CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). Such statements are intended under CEQA to provide a written means by which the lead agency balances in writing the benefits of the proposed Project and the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Where the lead agency concludes that the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts, the lead agency may find such impacts acceptable and approve the proposed Project.

In addition, the City must also adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program describing the changes that were incorporated into the proposed Project or made a condition of Project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (California Public Resources Code, 1 – INTRODUCTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 1-4
Section 21081.6). The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is adopted at the time of Project approval and is designed to ensure compliance during Project implementation. Upon approval of the proposed Project, the lead agency will be responsible for implementation of the proposed Project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program. This document will be attached to the final EIR.

1.3 Organization of the EIR
This EIR is organized as follows:

Executive Summary, summarizes the Project, environmental impacts associated with the Project as well as mitigation measures required to reduce any identified potentially significant impacts.

Chapter 1, Introduction, serves as a forward to this EIR, introducing the Project, the applicable environmental procedures, and the organization of the EIR.

Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, describes the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project, as well as proposed mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts. The discussion in Chapter 3 is organized by 12 environmental issue areas:
▪ Air Quality
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Energy
▪ Geology and Soils
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Noise
▪ Transportation
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Utilities and Service Systems
For each environmental issue area, the analysis and discussion are generally organized into eight subsections as described below:
▪ Environmental Setting – This subsection describes the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed Project at the time of publication of the NOP. The environmental setting establishes the baseline conditions, which were used by the City to determine whether specific Project-related impacts would be significant.
▪ Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances – This subsection describes the regulatory setting applicable to the environmental issue area and the proposed Project at the time of publication of the NOP.
▪ Thresholds of Significance – This subsection identifies a set of thresholds by which the level of impact is determined.
▪ Methodology – This subsection describes how the analysis was conducted. 1 – INTRODUCTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 1-5
▪ Impact Analysis – This subsection provides a detailed analysis regarding the environmental effects of the proposed Project and whether the impacts of the proposed Project would meet or exceed the significance thresholds.
▪ Mitigation Measures – This subsection identifies potentially feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially reduce significant adverse Project impacts. ▪ Level of Significance After Mitigation – This subsection discusses whether Project-related impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. If applicable, this subsection also identifies any residual significant and unavoidable adverse effects of the proposed Project that would result even with implementation of mitigation measures.
▪ Cumulative Effects – This subsection assesses whether the impact of the proposed Project taken together with other projects in the area may contribute to a larger impact/effect. ▪ References – In addition to the eight subsections listed above, full citations for all referenced documents are included at the end of each section or chapter.

Chapter 4, Other CEQA Considerations, addresses effects found not to be significant, significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided, significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed Project, and growth-inducing impacts.

Chapter 5, Alternatives, discusses alternatives to the proposed Project, including a No Project Alternative. This chapter describes the rationale for selecting the range of alternatives discussed in the EIR and identifies the alternatives considered by the City that were rejected from further discussion as infeasible during the scoping process. Chapter 5 also includes a discussion of the environmental effects of the alternatives that were carried forward for analysis and identifies the environmentally superior alternative.

Chapter 6, List of Preparers, gives names and contact information of those responsible for writing this EIR.

Appendices include various technical studies prepared for the proposed Project, as listed in the Table of Contents.

The City, as the lead agency for the proposed Project, is responsible for enforcing and verifying that each mitigation measure is implemented as required. As part of the final EIR process, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be prepared.
1 – INTRODUCTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 1-6

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-1
2 Project Description
This chapter provides a description of the proposed 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project, referred to in this document as the proposed Project or Project. Pursuant to Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this chapter describes the location, objectives, and characteristics of the proposed Project, followed by a statement describing the intended uses of this environmental impact report (EIR).

2.1 Project Overview
The Project is proposed to be developed at 1450 Artesia Boulevard in the City of Gardena (City). The Project would involve the approval of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan as well as construction and operation of a mixed-use development with a total building area of 268,000 square feet (SF) and an approximate height of 75 feet. The development would include a self-storage use (three levels totaling 186,000 gross square feet (GSF) with 1,480 storage units over the bottom floor warehouse/distribution use and leasing office), an industrial warehouse/distribution use (one level totaling 72,000 GSF with 10 loading docks), and an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF). Additionally, associated facilities and improvements would include perimeter fencing, on-site and perimeter landscaping, lighting, exterior sidewalks, and pavement for on-site parking spaces. Under the Specific Plan, the parking lot area would be used periodically for City-sponsored outdoor events outside of the Project’s warehouse/distribution component operating hours (“special events”). The Project includes construction of a 200 GSF, non-habitable structure on the eastern side of the Project site for storage of special event-related materials by the City.

The Project Applicant is coordinating with the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC), which is a responsible party working under the direction of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) by installing an engineered cap, soil vapor probes, and associated infrastructure on part of the Project site before the Applicant commences construction of the proposed Project. The Applicant will undertake measures to protect this remedy and avoid any unreasonable risk of harm to human health and the environment, including installing soil vapor barrier and ventilation systems beneath the structure to protect building occupants against indoor soil vapor intrusion; recording a land use covenant on the Project site to prohibit sensitive uses thereon, such as residential uses, but which would permit the Project’s commercial and industrial uses; complying with all institutional controls that DTSC may require; and undertaking long-term monitoring and maintenance of the soil vapor barrier and ventilation systems for the Project’s building. The new structure on the Project site would only overlap with the remediated Haack Rework area. The portion of the Project that overlaps the Haack and Cooper sumps areas would be paved and utilized as a parking lot, which would be located atop ARC’s engineered cap.

For analysis purposes, construction of the Project is expected to last approximately 18 months beginning in the Spring of 2024 and ending in the Fall of 2025. The Project is anticipated to be operational in Fall of 2025. The Applicant’s timing for construction would not interfere with the implementation of the RAP by ARC, nor will ARC’s implementation of the RAP interfere with the Applicant’s construction and operation of the Project.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-2

2.2 Project Location
The Project site is located in Gardena, California (City) and is located at the corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue, two major thoroughfares within the City (Figure 2-1, Project Location). The 1450 Artesia Specific Plan would cover approximately 6.33 acres collectively consisting of the sites located on Assessor Parel Numbers 6106-036-010, 6106-036-012, 6106-036-034, 6106-036-035, 6106-036-036, 6106-036-037 (collectively, the “Project site”). The Project site currently contains three industrial structures (8,080 SF, 825 SF, and 3,159 SF), a paved, open area along Artesia Boulevard (APN 6106-036-034), and one occupied residential dwelling unit behind the industrial properties adjacent to the Dominguez Channel located at 1472 West Artesia Boulevard (APN 6106-036-010) (Figure 2-2, Project Footprint).

2.3 Environmental Setting
City of Gardena
The City is approximately 5.9 square miles with a population of approximately 60,000 residents. The City’s sphere of influence is limited to the boundaries of the City itself (City of Gardena 2006). The City is located in the inland South Bay region of the Los Angeles metropolitan area and is a transitoriented city that is regionally accessible by several major freeways including Interstate (I) 405, I-110, I-105 and State Route (SR) 91 (Artesia Boulevard). Artesia Boulevard, an east-west street forming the northern boundary of the Plan area, delivers direct access to the Specific Plan area. Local access to the Project site is also provided from Normandie Avenue, traveling north-south just east of the Project site and Western Avenue, traveling north-south within the vicinity to the west of the Project site (Figure 2-1). Additionally, the City has close proximity to downtown Los Angeles (12 miles), Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports (7 miles), and Los Angeles International Airport (6 miles). The City is bordered by the unincorporated West Athens community and the City of Hawthorne to the north, the cities of Los Angeles and Torrance to the south, the city of Los Angeles to the east, and the cities of Torrance and Hawthorne and Los Angeles County to the west.

Historical Land Uses
Historical use of the Project site began in the 1920’s with portions of the site being leased by Moneta Brick Company. Multiple sumps were constructed in support of clay mining operations. By the late 1920’s, some of the site was used for growing crops and some residential uses were present. The sumps were filled with sludge consisting of disposal material through the 1950s, including refinery wastes, tank bottom sludges, and rinse water acids and were known as the Copper and Haack properties or Gardena Sumps. The Gardena Sumps include four areas defined as the Cooper North Sump, Cooper South Sump, Haack Sump and Haack Rework Area, as shown in Figure 2-3, Site Contamination. These sumps are the source of the contamination subject to cleanup by ARC under DTSC oversight. Development continued over portions of the sump areas in the following years, including excavations that changed the grade and elevation of the site, as well as construction of parking lots and buildings. The Dominguez Channel was channelized and relocated from north of the Project site to south of the Project site between 1956 and 1958. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-3
Starting in the 1980s, the Department of Health Services (DHS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Technical Assistance Team (TAT) confirmed the presence of hazardous materials and issued a Remedial Action Order on March 3, 1988. By 1993, the eastern property was capped with a liner under the direction of DTSC. The Cooper sump area (northeastern portion of the Project site) remains vacant and undeveloped while several structures are present on the Haack property (northwestern portion of the Project site) (Stantec 2008).

Existing Conditions
Currently, multiple monitoring wells and a cap are located on the Gardena Sumps portion of the Project site as an engineering control, limiting redevelopment options. Remediation and monitoring efforts have been ongoing with the approved Final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the site, dated June 30, 2022. The Final RAP details excavation of impacted soils on a portion of the site, known as the Haack Rework Area, relocation of those contaminated soils to another portion of the site, known as the Cooper Sumps area, and installation of an engineered cap with a specialized geosynthetic cover and clean soil cover over the Haack Sump and Cooper Sumps. The remediation will be completed prior to the start of Project construction. The Final RAP includes provisions for a legal land use covenant to limit future uses of the site as well as long-term monitoring and maintenance of the cap and underlying groundwater. The Project structure would only overlap with the remediated Haack Rework area. The portion of the Project site that overlaps the Haack and Cooper sumps areas would be paved and utilized exclusively as a parking lot, which would be located atop the cap implemented as part of the DTSC-approved Final RAP.

The northwestern portion of the Project site, which overlaps with the Haack property, currently contains three warehouses (8,080 SF, 825 SF, and 3,159 SF) and a variety of trailer-type storage structures that house several small businesses, including a U-Haul rental agency, a metal fabricating shop, a sandblasting and painting company and an auto body repair shop (Appendix G3). The southern portion of the Project site contains one occupied residential dwelling unit.

Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the Project site include a strip mall with a variety of retail and fast-casual restaurant uses to the north of the Project site across Artesia Boulevard with multi-family and singlefamily residential uses located north of the strip mall. The eastern edge of the Project site is bounded by a Southern Pacific Railroad line. To the east of the Project site across Normandie Avenue is another strip mall with a variety of retail, fast food and fast-casual restaurant uses. A row of single-family homes is located south of this strip mall across Normandie Boulevard. Residential townhome units are located to the west of the Project site with another strip mall farther west. The southern side of the Project site is bounded by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Dominguez Flood Channel. An equestrian stable is located south of the channel, which does not abut the Project site.

Properties to the north of the Project site, across Artesia Boulevard, are zoned C-3, General Commercial. Properties to the west are zoned Artesia Mixed Use and properties to the south and the immediate east along Normandie Avenue are zoned O, Official (City of Gardena 2023). 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-4
Surrounding Circulation Network
Roadways
The Project site is located at the southwest corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.

Within the City, Artesia Boulevard is an east-west six-lane major arterial. At the eastern edge of the City, Artesia Boulevard becomes the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), which is an east–west freeway that connects the South Bay to north Orange County and the Inland Empire. West of the City, Artesia Boulevard continues toward the coast where it eventually intersects with Highway 1 in the City of Hermosa Beach. In the Project area, sidewalks are provided on both sides of the road.

Normandie Avenue is a north–south four-lane major collector that has its northern terminus at Franklin Avenue near Griffith Park. Its southern terminus occurs where it forks into Palos Verdes Drive North and North Gaffey Street in Harbor City.

Transit
GTrans provides local bus service within the City, with several routes operating near the Project site.

Torrance Transit, Beach Cities Transit, Long Beach Transit and Culver City Bus offer connections to GTrans lines. Regional bus lines operated by LA County Metro (Metro) also offer connections to GTrans (GTrans 2023a). The Harbor Gateway Transit Center along the Metro J line busway is located approximately 0.75 miles east of the Project site. Bus routes near the Project site run north and south along South Western Avenue and Vermont Avenue in a loop (Line 2). No bus stops are located along the Project frontage. The nearest bus stop is located west of the Project site at Artesia Boulevard and Denker Avenue or north along Normandie Avenue north of the Artesia Boulevard intersection. GTrans also offers curb-to-curb transportation, using a fleet of wheelchair-accessible vans, for elderly and disabled residents of Gardena, Hawthorne, Alondra Park and Del Aire (GTrans 2023b).

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The Project area is served by pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Sidewalks are provided on all major streets surrounding the Project site. The City follows the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) standards and recognizes four distinct class-types of bikeway facilities: Class I – Off-Street Paved Bicycle Paths or Trails, Class II – On-Street Striped Bicycle Lanes, Class III – On-Street SharedLane Bicycle Routes, and Class IV – Protected Bike Lanes (cycle tracks). A Class III Bike Route is located along Normandie Avenue adjacent to the Project site and connects to other Class III Bike Routes throughout the City (City of Gardena 2020).

2.4 Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) states that the project description of an EIR shall contain “a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project.” Section 15124(b) further states that “the statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” The underlying purpose of the Project is to develop a warehouse/distribution space, office/retail and self-storage development at an infill location that is being remediated for occupation within a commercial, urbanized area of the City. The proposed Project’s specific objectives are as follows:
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-5
▪ Redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant industrial and commercial uses along a major development corridor within the City.
▪ Develop appropriate uses in an area with a legacy of contamination in a manner that protects human health and the environment and allows for continued monitoring of remediated areas ▪ Produce short-and long-term jobs during the Project’s construction and operations phases ▪ Generate property and sales tax revenues for the City to enhance its services to the community and infrastructural improvements
▪ Provide the City a substantial monetary public benefit to the City’s General Fund ▪ Provide the City with an outdoor venue to hold community events

2.5 Proposed Project
The following sections describe the proposed Project, including Project components, construction schedule and operations as well as a discussion of post-remediation safeguards and monitoring.

2.5.1 Project Components
The Project includes redevelopment of mixed-use property comprised of a 268,000 gross-squarefoot (GSF) building with associated surface parking and landscaping and circulation improvements.

The proposed development would contain a self-storage use of three levels totaling 186,000 GSF with up to 1,480 storage units over ground floor warehouse and 1,000-square-foot leasing office), an industrial warehousing use (one level totaling 72,000 GSF plus 10 loading docks), and an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF). Other Project improvements include perimeter fencing, on-site and perimeter landscaping, lighting and exterior sidewalks, a 90-foot driveway with a raised separation median on Artesia Boulevard and 124 automobile parking stalls, including six accessible spaces, five electric vehicle (EV) charging station spaces, and 19 electric vehicle (EV)- ready spaces The proposed Project components are shown on Figure 2-4, Site Plan.

Building/Uses
The Project includes construction of a 268,000-GSF building with a maximum height of 75 feet, which would contain self-storage, warehouse/distribution and office/retail uses. Architectural renderings of the building are shown in Figure 2-5, Architectural Features. The self-storage use would be located on the top three levels with a total of 186,000 GSF and up to 1,480 storage units. The warehouse/distribution use would be located on the ground floor with a total of 72,000 GSF and 10 loading docks. A 10,000-GSF mezzanine would contain office/retail use. The building would be designed in compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

Because the distribution use and warehouse use would utilize the same 72,000 GSF, for convenience sake the term “warehouse” is used throughout the document to refer to both types of uses of the space. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-6
Parking
Parking would be located along the northeastern portion of the Project site. CalGreen includes specific parking requirements for bicycle parking, designated parking for clean air vehicles, EV charging stations, and other parking requirements. The Project would include a total of 124 automobile parking stalls.

Landscape and Streetscape
The Project would include aesthetically pleasing and drought-tolerant landscaping (Figure 2-6, Landscape Plan). The Project’s streetscape improvements would include a combination of shrubs and trees along the frontage of both Artesia Boulevard and the eastern edge of the property as well as within the Project site.

The landscaping would be layered with regionally adapted plants that minimizing water use. The Project would be consistent with the state and City water efficient landscape ordinances, and a minimum of 75% of the plantings would be water efficient. The total landscaped area is approximately 32,473 SF (or approximately 12% of the total Project site area) and 66% of the total paved area utilized for driveways and open parking areas. Water-wise landscaping principles, including a low percentage of water-thirsty plants, smart irrigation controllers, drip irrigation, and bark mulch to slow evapotranspiration and weed germination would be employed.

Circulation Improvements and Pedestrian Access
The Project would include two curb-cuts – one for right turn in, and one for right turn out driveways along Artesia Boulevard located approximately at the northwest corner of the Project site. Local vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via one 35-foot driveway from Artesia Boulevard. A separate 35-foot exit driveway travel lane would be adjacent to the entrance divided by a 20-foot landscape divide (Figure 2-7, Circulation Plan: Vehicular Access). The Project driveway would only serve the Project. Trucks would access the Project similar to vehicular access with ingress within the northwest portion of the Project with circulation continuing along the western to southern edge of the property and into the loading docks. Trucks would exit the loading dock area heading north within the parking lot with egress back through the northwest of Project (Figure 2-8a, Circulation Plan: Truck Access). The truck circulation would be a loop around the proposed building with an aim to ease flow of on-site traffic. Per Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements, a 26-foot-wide fire access lane would surround the property structure with direct access to Artesia Boulevard.

During special events, barriers would be erected to separate truck and vehicular traffic. Trucks would exit the same way they come in during special events (Figure 2-8b, Circulation Plan: Truck Access during Special Events).

Pedestrian access to the Project site would be provided from sidewalks located along Artesia Boulevard. Primary pedestrian access would connect to the building lobby on the northern portion of the Project site and to the parking lot within the northeastern portion of the Project site. Areas with loading docks would be gated to prohibit pedestrian access for safety reasons. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-7
Utilities
Stormwater and drainage improvements would include the installation of five storm drain inlets leading to a poly-coated corrugated metal pipe cistern located within the western portion of the Project site. Collected stormwater would be carried to a subsurface retention basin installed downstream of storage for additional volume control and treatment. The basin would screen, separate, and act as biofiltration treatment for Low Impact Development (LID) solution prior to offsite release. No storm drain piping, inlets or supporting infrastructure would be included near the former sumps.

The City Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the existing sewer lines that provide wastewater collection, conveyance, and management surrounding the property. The Project would include construction of an on-site sewer lateral that would connect to an existing main line within Artesia Boulevard.

Water and fire services are provided to the Project site by a 21-inch cast iron line owned and maintained by the Golden State Water Company. An 8-inch fire water line, 3-inch domestic water line and an irrigation line would be installed on the Project site, which would connect to the existing main line.

2.5.2 Project Construction
Construction of the proposed Project is expected to last approximately 18 months beginning in the Spring of 2024 and ending in the fall of 2025. Construction would occur in phases as shown in Table 2-1, Construction Phasing.

Table 2-1. Construction Phasing
Phase
Number Construction Phase
Number
of Days
1 Demolition 66
2 Site Preparation 21
3 Grading 65
4 Building Construction 219
5 Architectural Coating (will overlap Phase 4 by approximately 1 month) 65 6 Paving (will overlap Phase 5 by approximately 1 month) 22 Source: Appendix B1.

2.5.3 Daily Operations
The proposed Project is anticipated to begin operations in fall 2025. The hours of operation would be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for the self-storage facilities and from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.PM weekdays for the warehouse/distribution. The Project is expected to support approximately 40 employees. Daily activities associated with the warehouse/distribution use would include maneuvering forklifts, lift equipment, and large semi-trucks through and around the site and backing into the loading docks. The dock doors would be oriented to face east. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-8
Operations associated with the self-storage office/retail uses would include passenger cars, moving vans, and delivery truck arrivals and departures. The Project is forecast to generate 725 daily trips including 86 AM peak hour trips and 85 PM peak hour trips (Appendix J3).

2.5.4 City Special Events
Under a proposed Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City, the City would be allowed to host various special events on an approximately 36,000-square-foot (0.8-acre) portion of the Project’s parking area (over approximately 63 parking spaces) (Figure 2-9, Special Events Site Plan). Special events would occur outside of the Project’s warehouse/distribution operation hours when the parking area is not in use, including weekday evening events (between 6:00 p.m.–10:00 p.m.) and weekend events from 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.. The City anticipates hosting several types of medium-size special events, such as food trucks, farmer’s markets, car shows, live entertainment, food giveaways, community meetings, health fairs, and mobile vaccination events.

The special events would be held approximately two to three times per month and include up to 250 attendees (Appendix J3).

2.5.5 Site Remediation Protections and Monitoring
As discussed above in Section 2.3, Environmental Setting, the eastern portion of the Project site is contaminated with oil sludge from three sumps, which will be remediated per a DTSC-approved RAP prior to construction and operation of the proposed Project. The RAP proposes excavation of impacted soils on a portion of the site, known as the Haack Rework Area, relocation of those contaminated soils to another portion of the site, known as the Cooper Sumps area, installation of an engineered cap with a specialized geosynthetic cover and clean soil cover over the Haack Sump and Cooper Sumps, and installation of soil vapor probes.

The Project structure would only overlap with the remediated Haack Rework area and would include a soil vapor barrier and ventilation system beneath the structure to protect building occupants against indoor soil vapor intrusion. There would be long-term monitoring and maintenance of the soil vapor barrier and ventilation system. The portion of the Project site that overlaps the Haack and Cooper sumps areas would be paved and utilized as a parking lot, which would be located atop the cap implemented as part of the DTSC-approved RAP.

2.5.6 General Plan and Zoning
In 2004, the City completed a citywide retail analysis that examined retail opportunities within and surrounding the City and summarized the opportunity for retail development at distinct locations within the City. The report found Artesia Boulevard offered a prime location for commercial development to attract quality commercial uses.

The City subsequently changed the General Plan land use designation for the majority of these properties from Industrial to General Commercial during the 2006 General Plan update. Additionally, in 2006 the City adopted the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan (referred to as the Artesia Corridor), to promote revitalization efforts. The Artesia Corridor Specific Plan provided for a mix of residential and 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-9
commercial uses. The Project site was designated as the eastern part of Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 5 of the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan. Mixed use residential and commercial has been developed within parts of the Artesia Corridor. However, the Project site was never developed per the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan.

On February 15, 2023, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2021–2029. At the same time, it also adopted Resolution No. 6620 updating the Land Use Plan (Figure 2-10, General Plan Land Use), including changes to the Land Use Map, Urgency Ordinance No. 18471 amending the Zoning Code and revising the Zoning, and Resolution No. 6621 adopting a color palette for buildings, fences, and walls. The Resolution and Ordinance also rescinded the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan, changed the land use designation for five of the six areas in the Specific Plan, and rezoned all six Specific Plan areas (Figure 2-11, Zoning). The Project site retained its Specific Plan land use designation, and the zoning has been changed to 1450 Artesia Specific Plan. The Land Use Plan notes that the specific plan will allow for industrial and commercial development. The zoning requires adoption of a specific plan before any development can take place.

2.6 Intended Uses of this EIR
An EIR is a public document used by a public agency to analyze the potential environmental effects of a project and to disclose possible ways to reduce or avoid potentially significant environmental impacts, including alternatives to the proposed project. As an informational document, an EIR does not make recommendations for or against approving a project. The main purpose of an EIR is to inform public agency decision makers and the public about potential environmental impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15121). This EIR will be used by the City, as the lead agency under CEQA, in making decisions with regard to the proposed Project described above and the related approvals required for the Project.

Permits and Approvals
The Applicant would obtain all permits and approvals, as required by law. A list of permits or other forms of approval required of the proposed Project is provided in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2. Permits or Other Actions Required
Agency Jurisdiction
Permit Regulatory
Requirement/Approval
State
State Water
Resources Control
Board
Responsible Agency General Construction Activity National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit
Los Angeles County
Fire Department
Responsible Agency Plan check
1 In addition to the Urgency Ordinance, the same provisions were adopted through the regular zoning procedures as Ordinance No. 1848.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-10
Table 2-2. Permits or Other Actions Required
Agency Jurisdiction
Permit Regulatory
Requirement/Approval
Local
City of Gardena Lead Agency ▪ Adoption of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan
▪ Zone Text Amendment
▪ Development Agreement
▪ Site Plan Review
Lot Merger

2.7 References
City of Gardena. 2006. City of Gardena General Plan 2006, Introduction. April 25, 2006. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/generalplan1.pdf.

City of Gardena. 2020. City of Gardena General Plan 2006, Community Development Element, Circulation Plan (Updated 2020). Accessed July 27, 2023. https://cityofgardena.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Circulation-Plan-2020-Update.pdf.

City of Gardena. 2023. City of Gardena Zoning 2023.

GTrans website. 2023a. Getting Around Gardena and LA webpage. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://ridegtrans.com/transportation-options/.

GTrans website. 2023b. Special Transit webpage. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://ridegtrans.com/ routes-schedules/special-transit/.

Stantec. 2008. Gardena Pump Site Revised Draft 2006 Remedial Investigation Report.

Project Location
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
SOURCE: County of Los Angeles; City of Gardena Specific Plan; Open Street Map; Bing Maps Date: 7/17/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure2-1_ProjectLocation.mxd 0 2,000 1,000 Feet
Project Specific Plan Boundary
FIGURE 2-1
Long
Beach
El
Segundo
Maywood
Pomona
Walnut South El
Malibu Monte
West
Hollywood
El Monte Irwindale
San
Dimas
Agoura La Verne
Hills Calabasas
Hidden Hills
Duarte
Glendale
San Fernando
Santa Clarita
Palmdale
Lancaster
Palos Verdes
Estates
Hermosa
Beach
Los Angeles
Kern County
Ventura
County
Orange
County
101
395
48 71 57
118
134
91 103
138
39 55
159
23 73
241
232
142
107
187
126
170
133
213 22
90 34
83 150
27 18
1 66
19 60
14 2
138
10 405
5 210
5 710 15
605
Project Site 105
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-12

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Footprint
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
SOURCE: County of Los Angeles; City of Gardena Specific Plan; Open Street Map; USGS NHD; Bing Maps Date: 7/17/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure2-2_ProjectFootprint.mxd 0 300 150 Feet
Project Specific Plan Boundary
Development Footprint
FIGURE 2-2
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-14

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Site Contamination
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
FIGURE 2-3
Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD
SOURCE: Geosyntec Consultants, Nov. 2020
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-16

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
D D

28.0'

FIRE LANE

28.0'

FIRE LANE
TYP.
272.0' 8.0' 312.0'
192.4'
TYP.

TYP.

9.0'
TYP.

18.0'
TYP.

9.0'
TYP.

45.1'

18.0'
TYP.

9.0'
TYP.

22.0'

50.0' 48.4'

EXISTING LADPW

PROPERTY

ARTESIA BOULEVARD

28.0'

FIRE LANE

35.0'

35.0' 8.0'

35.0'

8.0'

15.0'

28.0'

FIRE LANE
TYP.

18.0'
TYP.

18.0'
TYP. 9.0' TYP.

9.0'
TYP.

18.0'
TYP.

11.2'

18.0'
TYP.

28.0'

FIRE LANE

30.0' 6.0'
TYP.

TYP.

EXISTINGPROPERTY LINE

EXISTING

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING

PROPERTY LINE

15.5'

30.0' 15.5'
TYP.

TYP.

20.0' 35.0'

5.3'
204.9'
156.4'

29.5'

3.2'
135.0'

30.7'

62.6'

52.0'

30.0'
157.0'

37.7'

50.7'

6.0'

30.0' 15.2'
222.4'

10.0'
152.9'

30.0'

28.0'

5.0'

12.0'

10.0'

30.0'

12.0'

18.0'
TYP. 11.0'

9.0'
TYP.

5.0'12.0' 9.0'

27.0'

28.5' 28.5'

EXISTING PROPERTY

LINE TO BE REMOVED
(TYP.)
TYP.

PROPOSED

INDUSTRIAL/ OFFICE/

SELF-STORAGE

FACILITY

5.0'

48.0'

48.5'

1.5'

SITE NOTES
LEGEND
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED 6' SECURITY FENCE

GRADE BREAK

RIDGE LINE

HANDRAILS

APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF

REMEDIATIONPROPOSED WATER LINEPROPOSED SEWER LINE

WATER METER

BACKFLOW PREVENTER

TRANSFORMER

PROPOSED LANDSCAPINGPROPOSED STANDARD DUTY

CONCRETE

PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY

CONCRETE

PROPOSED ASPHALT CONCRETEPROPOSED PARKING COUNTPROPOSED SITE LIGHTPROPOSED MANHOLEPROPOSED INLET NORTH
NOTES

1. ALL CURBS ARE 2' IN RADIUS UNLESS DIMENSIONED
OTHERWISE.

2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.

PROPOSED CURB.PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK.PROPOSED ASPHALT CONCRETE.PROPOSED 8" CMU RETAINING WALL.PROPOSED STANDARD 90° PARKING STALL.PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE.PROPOSED 6' SECURITY FENCE.PROPOSED EV CHARGING STALL.PROPOSED SITE LIGHT.PROPOSED SECURITY GATE WITH EMERGENCY VEHICLE ONLY KNOX BOX.

PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING STRIPING.PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE RAMP.PROPOSED TRANSFORMER.

INSTALL CITY STANDARD DRIVEWAY AND CURB RAMPS
PER CITY STANDARD DETAIL ST-1.

PROPOSED RAISED ENTRY MEDIAN.PROPOSED VAPOR TREATMENT FACILITY PAD (BY OTHERS).

PROPOSED RAMP WITH HANDRAILS.PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTERPROPOSED VALLEY GUTTER.

GARDEN WALL PER REMEDIATION PLAN (BY OTHERS).

PROPOSED SIGN.

City Storage
Site Plan
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
FIGURE 2-4
Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD
SOURCE: Kimley-Horn
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-18

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Architectural Features
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
FIGURE 2-5
Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD
SOURCE: May 2023 Draft 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (City of Gardena) 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-20

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PROPOSED

INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/

SELF-STORAGE FACILITY

PROPOSED

INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/

SELF-STORAGE FACILITY

DTSC NOTE

1. THE LANDSCAPING DEPICTED ON THIS PLAN IS SHOWN FOR PRELIMINARY PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL LANDSCAPING WILL REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM DTSC AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON DTSC IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS.

City Storage
Landscape Plan
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
FIGURE 2-6
Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD
SOURCE: Kimley-Horn
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-22

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City Storage
Circulation Plan: Vehicular Access
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
SOURCE: Kimley-Horn; May 2023 Draft 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (City of Gardena) Date: 7/25/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure2-7_CirculationPlan_VehicularAccess.mxd 0 100 50 Feet
FIGURE 2-7
Vehicular
Access
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-24

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City Storage
Circulation Plan: Truck Access
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
SOURCE: Kimley-Horn; May 2023 Draft 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (City of Gardena) Date: 7/25/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure2-8a_CirculationPlan_TruckAccess.mxd 0 100 50 Feet
FIGURE 2-8a
Truck
Access
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-26

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Special Events Area
City Storage
Special Events Site Plan
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
SOURCE: Kimley-Horn; May 2023 Draft 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (City of Gardena) Date: 7/25/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure2-9_SpecialEventsSitePlan.mxd 0 100 50 Feet
FIGURE 2-9
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-30

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
General Plan Land Use
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
SOURCE: County of Los Angeles; City of Gardena General Plan 2023; Open Street Map; USGS NHD; Bing Maps Date: 7/17/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure2-10_LandUse.mxd 0 400 200 Feet
Project Specific Plan Boundary
City of Gardena
General Plan Land Use
Commercial
Single-Family Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential
Artesia Mixed Use
Industrial
Public/Institutional
Specific Plan
Overlay
Mixed Use
Medium Density 20 Overlay
FIGURE 2-10
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-32

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Zoning
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
SOURCE: County of Los Angeles; City of Gardena General Plan 2023; Open Street Map; USGS NHD; Bing Maps Date: 7/17/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure2-11_Zoning.mxd 0 400 200 Feet
Project Specific Plan Boundary
City of Gardena
Zoning
C3, General Commercial
M2, General Industrial
O, Public/Quasi-public/Official
MU, Artesia Mixed Use
R1, Low Density Single-Family Dwellings
R3, Medium Density Multiple-Unit Dwellings
R4, High Density Multiple-Dwelling Units
R6, Very High Density Multiple-Dwelling Units
Cottage Place Specific Plan
Gardena TOD Specific Plan
Insite Specific Plan
Overlay
MUO
HO-3
FIGURE 2-11
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 2-34

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3-1
3 Environmental Analysis
The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (Project). Full buildout of the Project, as discussed throughout Chapter 2, Project Description, of the EIR, is assumed in the analysis herein. As such, this EIR evaluates implementation of the Specific Plan at a Project level.

The City of Gardena (City) circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) beginning on June 8, 2023, with the public review period ending on July 10, 2023. The NOP was transmitted to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, other affected agencies, and interested parties to solicit issues or potential environmental effects related to the Project. The NOP, Initial Study, and comment letters are contained in Appendix A. Sections 3.1 through 3.12 of the EIR contain the potential environmental impacts analysis associated with implementation of the Project and focus on the following issues:

3.1 Air Quality

3.2 Cultural Resources

3.3 Energy

3.4 Geology and Soils

3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.8 Land Use and Planning

3.9 Noise

3.10 Transportation

3.11 Tribal Cultural Resources

3.12 Utilities and Service Systems
During preparation of the Initial Study/NOP for this EIR, other potential environmental impact areas, such as aesthetics, agriculture/forestry resources, biological resources, mineral resources, public services, recreation, and wildfire were found not to be significant based on the results of the Initial Study. These issues and the analysis for these issues are included in Appendix A, as well as Chapter 4, Other CEQA Considerations, of this EIR.

Technical Studies
Technical studies were prepared in order to accurately analyze air quality/health risk assessments, cultural and historical resources, energy resources, geology and soils/paleontological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation impacts, and utilities and service systems and were used in the preparation of this EIR. These documents are identified in the discussions for the individual environmental issues and included as technical appendices to the EIR.
3 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3-2
Analysis Format
For each environmental issue area, the analysis and discussion are generally organized into eight subsections as described below:
▪ Environmental Setting – This subsection describes the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed Project at the time of publication of the NOP. The environmental setting establishes the baseline conditions, which were used by the City to determine whether specific Project-related impacts would be significant.
▪ Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances – This subsection describes the regulatory setting applicable to the environmental issue area and the proposed Project at the time of publication of the NOP.
▪ Thresholds of Significance – This subsection identifies a set of thresholds by which the level of impact is determined.
▪ Methodology – This subsection describes how the analysis was conducted. ▪ Impact Analysis – This subsection provides a detailed analysis regarding the environmental effects of the proposed Project and whether the impacts of the proposed Project would meet or exceed the significance thresholds.
▪ Mitigation Measures – This subsection identifies potentially feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially reduce significant adverse Project impacts. ▪ Level of Significance After Mitigation – This subsection discusses whether Project-related impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. If applicable, this subsection also identifies any residual significant and unavoidable adverse effects of the proposed Project that would result even with implementation of mitigation measures.
▪ Cumulative Effects – This subsection assesses whether the impact of the proposed Project taken together with other projects in the area may contribute to a larger impact/effect. ▪ References – In addition to the eight subsections listed above, full citations for all referenced documents are included at the end of each section or chapter.

Cumulative Setting
In many cases, the impact of an individual project may not be significant, but its cumulative impact may be significant when combined with impacts from other related projects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) states that “the discussion [of cumulative impacts] need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone.” Section 15130(b) further states that a cumulative impacts discussion “should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness.” The cumulative projects considered for each resource area will differ as the cumulative context varies according to each issue area (for example, the cumulative context for aesthetic impacts would be limited to the surrounding area from which a project can be seen while the cumulative context for hydrology and water quality impacts would be much broader). 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3-3
Cumulative impacts can also occur from the interactive effects of a single project. For example, the combination of noise and dust generated during construction activities can be additive and can have a greater impact than either noise or dust alone. However, substantial cumulative impacts more often result from the combined effect of past, present, and future projects located in proximity to a proposed project. Thus, it is important for a cumulative impacts analysis to be viewed over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the impacts of which might compound or interrelate with those of the project under review.

As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), the following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts:
▪ Either: (A) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the agency; or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document that is designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. ▪ A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available. ▪ A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of the proposed projects.

Table 3-1 provides a list of these cumulative projects and their associated land use.

Table 3-1. Cumulative Projects
Type Location Description Status
NonResidential
(SF)
Residential
(DU)
Commercial 15106 South
Western
Avenue
Commercial
building with
drive-thru
Approved but not
yet Constructed
3,720
Residential 1333 West
168th Street
Condominiums Entitlements have
expired
3 Residential 1348 West
168th Street
(Normandie
Courtyard
Project)
Dwelling units,
Small Lot
Subdivision, 3-
story
Entitlements have
expired
9 Residential 13919
Normandie
Avenue
Dwelling units,
Single-Room
Occupancy
Under
Construction
20 Residential 12850
Crenshaw
Boulevard
(TransitApartment
building
Under
Construction
265
3 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3-4
Table 3-1. Cumulative Projects
Type Location Description Status
NonResidential
(SF)
Residential
(DU)
Oriented
Development
Specific Plan
Project)
Residential 1938 West
146th Street
Townhomes Approved but not
yet Constructed
6 Residential 13126 South
Western
Avenue
Dwelling units,
Single-Room
Occupancy
Approved but not
yet Constructed
121
Residential 2545 Marine
Avenue
Townhomes Under
Construction
22 Residential 1031
Magnolia
Avenue
Dwelling units Application
Received
6 Live-work 2800
Rosecrans
Avenue
Townhomes, 4
Live-work Units
Application
Received
20 Industrial 1600 West
135th Street
Warehouse
building
Approved but not
yet Constructed
190,860
Industrial 14206 Van
Ness Avenue
Redevelopment
of Self storage
Facility to
develop a new
177,573 SF
Bldg. and
8,000 SF office
Bldg.

Undergoing
Environmental
Review
185,573
Residential 16911 South
Normandie
Avenue
Apartment and
Townhomes
Undergoing
Environmental
Review
403
Mixed-Use 14600
Western
Avenue
Apartment
building with
commercial
Application
Received
3,000 196
Residential 1515 West
178th Street
(Melia 178th
Street
Project)
Townhomes Construction
Completed in
2023
114
3 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3-5
Table 3-1. Cumulative Projects
Type Location Description Status
NonResidential
(SF)
Residential
(DU)
Mixed-Use 1341 West
Gardena
Boulevard
Apartment
building with
commercial
Under
Construction
3,385 14
Residential 1621 West
147th Street
Townhomes Under
Construction
6 Residential 1335 West
141st Street
Townhomes Construction
Completed in
2023
50 Residential 2129 West
Rosecrans
Avenue
Townhomes Construction
Completed in
2023
113
Residential 13615 South
Vermont
Avenue
Townhomes Construction
Completed in
2024
84 Residential 2500–2508
Rosecrans
Avenue
Townhomes Under
Construction
53 Residential 15717 and
15725
Normandie
Avenue
Townhomes Under
Construction
30 Residential 1610 West
Artesia
Boulevard
Apartment
building
Approved but not
yet Constructed
300
Notes: SF = square feet; DU = dwelling units.
3 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3-6

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-1

3.1 Air Quality
This section describes the existing air quality conditions of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (Project) site and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed Project. Information contained in this section is based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1, to estimate the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions from both construction and operations, as well as existing land use operation. For the relevant data, refer to the following appendices:
▪ Appendix B1, Air Quality Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates ▪ Appendix B2, Health Risk Assessment, prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates

3.1.1 Existing Conditions
The Project site is located within the City of Gardena (City) within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as well as all of Orange County. The SCAB is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter (SCAQMD 1993). Air quality in this area is determined by natural factors such as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with applicable regulations are discussed below.

3.1.1.1 Climate and Meteorology
The SCAB is part of a semi-permanent high-pressure zone in the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is occasionally interrupted by periods of extreme heat, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature throughout the 6,645-square-mile SCAB ranges from low 60 to high 80 degrees Fahrenheit with little variance. With more oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas.

Contrasting the steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable.

Almost all annual rainfall occurs between the months of November and April. Summer rainfall is reduced to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier activity in the east and over the mountains.

Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air closer to the Earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for occasional periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low clouds known as high fog are characteristic climatic features, especially along the coast. Annual average humidity is 70% at the coast and 57% in the eastern portions of the SCAB.

Wind patterns across the SCAB are characterized by westerly or southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is typically higher during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter. Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-2
morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.

The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.

In addition to the characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, two distinct types of temperature inversions control the vertical depth through which air pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine inversion and the radiation inversion.

The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is called the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions is a critical determinant leading to highly degraded air quality for the SCAB in the summer and generally good air quality in the winter.

3.1.1.2 Pollutants and Effects
Criteria Air Pollutants
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.

Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are primary criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 3.1-1.

Table 3.1-1. Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills,
chemical plants, unpaved
roads and parking lots, woodburning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or
difficulty breathing; asthma; chronic
bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal
heart attacks; and premature death in
people with heart or lung disease.

Impairs visibility.

Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction
between reactive organic
gases/volatile organic
Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways;
causes wheezing, coughing, and pain

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-3
Table 3.1-1. Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
compounds (ROG or VOC)1 and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the
presence of sunlight. Motor
vehicle exhaust industrial
emissions, gasoline storage
and transport, solvents, paints
and landfills.
when inhaling deeply; decreases lung
capacity; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Damages plants; reduces crop
yield.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless gas formed when
fuel containing sulfur is burned
and when gasoline is extracted
from oil. Examples are
petroleum refineries, cement
manufacturing, metal
processing facilities,
locomotives, and ships.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and
heart problems. In the presence of
moisture and oxygen, sulfur dioxide
converts to sulfuric acid, which can
damage marble, iron and steel.

Damages crops and natural vegetation.

Impairs visibility. Precursor to acid rain.

Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
An odorless, colorless gas
formed when carbon in fuel is
not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle
exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver
oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the
cardiovascular and nervous system.

Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can
lead to unconsciousness or death.

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
A reddish-brown gas formed
during fuel combustion for
motor vehicles and industrial
sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and
other sources that burn fuel.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and
heart problems. Precursor to O3.

Contributes to global warming and
nutrient overloading, which deteriorates
water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.

Lead (Pb) Lead is a metal found naturally
in the environment as well as
in manufactured products. The
major sources of lead
emissions have historically
been motor vehicles (such as
cars and trucks) and industrial
sources. Due to the phase out
of leaded gasoline, metals
processing is the major source
of lead emissions to the air
today. The highest levels of
lead in air are generally found
near lead smelters. Other
stationary sources are waste
incinerators, utilities, and leadacid battery manufacturers.

Exposure to lead occurs mainly through
inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in
food, water, soil, or dust. It accumulates
in the blood, bones, and soft tissues and
can adversely affect the kidneys, liver,
nervous system, and other organs.

Excessive exposure to lead may cause
neurological impairments such as
seizures, mental retardation, and
behavioral disorders. Even at low doses,
lead exposure is associated with damage
to the nervous systems of fetuses and
young children, resulting in learning
deficits and lowered IQ.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-4
Table 3.1-1. Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Sulfates Sulfates are the fully oxidized
form of sulfur, which are
produced from reactions of SO2
in the atmosphere and typically
occur in combination with
metals or hydrogen ions.

Can result in respiratory impairment as
well as reduced visibility.

Vinyl Chloride A colorless gas with a mild,
sweet odor, which has been
detected near landfills, sewage
plants, and hazardous waste
sites, due to the microbial
breakdown of chlorinated
solvents.

Short-term exposure to high levels of
vinyl chloride in air can cause nervous
system effects, such as dizziness,
drowsiness, and headaches. Long-term
exposure through inhalation can cause
liver damage, including liver cancer.

Hydrogen Sulfide A colorless and flammable gas
that has a characteristic of
rotten eggs. Sources include
geothermal power plants,
petroleum refineries, sewers,
and sewage treatment plants.

Exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result
in nuisance odors, as well as headaches
and breathing difficulties at higher
concentrations.

Visibility-Reducing
Particles
Any particles in the air that
obstruct the range of visibility.

Sources are the same for
PM2.5.

Effects of reduced visibility can include
obscuring the viewshed of natural
scenery, reducing airport safety, and
discouraging tourism.

Volatile Organic
Compounds
Organic gases that are formed
from hydrogen and carbon and
sometimes other elements.

Hydrocarbons that contribute
to formation of O3 are referred
to and regulated as VOCs (also
referred to as reactive organic
gases). Combustion engine
exhaust, oil refineries, and
fossil-fueled power plants are
the sources of hydrocarbons.

Other sources include
evaporation from petroleum
fuels, solvents, dry cleaning
solutions, and paint.

The primary health effects of VOCs result
from the formation of O3 and its related
health effects. High levels of VOCs in the
atmosphere can interfere with oxygen
intake by reducing the amount of
available oxygen through displacement.

Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons,
such as benzene, are considered TACs.

There are no separate ambient air
quality standards for VOCs as a group.

Source: CAPCOA 2018.

Notes: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-5
hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).

Non-criteria Air Pollutants
Toxic Air Contaminants. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐ term (acute) or long‐term (i.e., chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines. In the state of California, TACs are identified through a two-step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two-step process of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, was enacted by the legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. The law requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air toxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of effective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years.

Diesel Particulate Matter. CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant.

DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

Odorous Compounds. Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.

Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective.

People may have different reactions to the same odor. An odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., coffee roaster). An unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. In a phenomenon known as odor fatigue, a person can become desensitized to almost any odor, and recognition may only occur with an alteration in the intensity. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-6
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population. Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (CARB 2005). Table 3.1-2 lists the sensitive receptors that will remain nearest the Project site, which include single- and multi-family residential and educational uses. At the time of the preparation of the technical report, there were also single-family homes to the immediate south of the Project site; two of these have been demolished because they were public nuisances and the third will be demolished as part of the Project. As indicated in Table 3.1-2, the nearest sensitive receptors are the Live/Work residential uses west of the Project site.

Table 3.1-2. Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description
Distance and
Direction from the
Project1 Description
Live/Work and
Townhome Residences
Adjacent to the west Live/Work and Townhome Residences
adjacent to Project, along Artesia Boulevard
Single-Family
Residences
150 feet to the east Southeast corner of W Cassidy Street and Normandie Avenue
Single-Family
Residences
425 feet to the north Along West 173rd Street
School 465 feet to the
southeast
Gardena Early Education Center, southeast
corner of West 177th Street and Normandie
Avenue
Multi-Family
Residences
1,080 feet to the south Along West 179th Street
1 Distances have been measured from the nearest Project site boundary to the property line of each receptor.
2 The Project site is zoned 1450 Artesia Specific Plan. These are existing non-conforming uses.

3.1.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants including O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The EPA is also responsible for setting hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards; approving state attainment plans; setting motor vehicle emission standards; issuing stationary source emission standards and permits; and establishing acid rain control measures, stratospheric O3 protection measures, and enforcement provisions.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-7
The NAAQS describe acceptable air quality conditions designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation. The NAAQS (other than for O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. NAAQS for O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical calculations over 1- to 3-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to reassess the NAAQS at least every 5 years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on current scientific evidence.

Proposed projects in or near nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent air-permitting requirements. The FCAA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan to demonstrate how it will attain the NAAQS within the federally imposed deadlines.

The EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within 2 years of Federal notification, the EPA is required to develop a Federal Implementation Plan for the identified nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93 apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. The EPA has designated enforcement of air pollution control regulations to the individual states. Applicable NAAQS are summarized in Table 3.1-3.

Hazardous Air Pollutants
The 1977 FCAA amendments required the EPA to identify national emission standards for HAPs to protect public health and welfare. HAPs include certain volatile organic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and radionuclides that present a tangible hazard, based on scientific studies of exposure to humans and other mammals. Under the 1990 FCAA Amendments, which expanded the control program for HAPs, 188 substances and chemical families were identified as HAPs.

State
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act, respond to FCAA and regulate emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 3.1-3, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS.

In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS.

These AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of California. Like the EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous 3 calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-8
infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc. are not considered violations of a state standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment. The applicable state standards are summarized in Table 3.1-3.

California air districts have based their thresholds of significance for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes on the levels that scientific and factual data demonstrate that the air basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the NAAQS or CAAQS. Since an ambient air quality standard is based on maximum pollutant levels in outdoor air that would not harm the public’s health, and air district thresholds pertain to attainment of the ambient air quality standard, this means that the thresholds established by air districts are also protective of human health.

Table 3.1-3. State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standardsa National Standardsb
Concentrationc Primaryc,d Secondaryc,e
O3 1 hour 0.09 ppm
(180 g/m3)
— Same as primary
standardf
8 hours 0.070 ppm
(137 g/m3)

0.070 ppm
(137 g/m3)
f
NO2
g 1 hour 0.18 ppm
(339 g/m3)

0.100 ppm (188
g/m3)
Same as primary
standard
Annual
arithmetic
mean

0.030 ppm
(57 g/m3)

0.053 ppm
(100 g/m3)
CO 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40
mg/m3)
None
8 hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
SO2
h 1 hour 0.25 ppm (655
g/m3)

0.075 ppm
(196 g/m3)
—
3 hours — — 0.5 ppm
(1,300 g/m3)
24 hours 0.04 ppm
(105 g/m3)

0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)g
—
Annual — 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)g
—
PM10i 24 hours 50 g/m3 150 g/m3 Same as primary
standard Annual
arithmetic
mean
20 g/m3 —

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-9
Table 3.1-3. State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standardsa National Standardsb
Concentrationc Primaryc,d Secondaryc,e
PM2.5i 24 hours — 35 g/m3 Same as primary
standard
Annual
arithmetic
mean
12 g/m3 9.0 g/m3 15.0 g/m3
Leadj,k 30-day
average

1.5 g/m3 — —
Calendar
quarter
— 1.5 g/m3
(for certain areas)k
Same as primary
standard
Rolling 3-
month
average
— 0.15 g/m3
Hydrogen
sulfide
1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) — —
Vinyl
chloridej
24 hours 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) — —
Sulfates 24 hours 25 µg/m3 — —
Visibility
reducing
particles
8 hours
(10:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. PST)
Insufficient amount to
produce an extinction
coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer due to the
number of particles
when the relative
humidity is less than
70%
— —
Source: CARB 2016; EPA 2016.

Notes: O3 = ozone; ppm = parts per million by volume; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; mg/m3= milligrams per cubic meter; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PST = Pacific Standard Time. a California standards for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
b National standards (other than O3, NO2, SO2, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-10
attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard.
c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
d National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
e National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. f On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from

0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
g To attain the national 1-hour standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb). Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards, the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. h On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the national 1-hour standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment of the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
i On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 g/m3 to 12.0 g/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 g/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 g/m3 were also retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean averaged over 3 years. j CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as TACs with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. k The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3-month average.

The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The state Air Toxics Program was established in 1983 under AB 1807 (Tanner). The California TAC list identifies more than 200 pollutants, of which carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity criteria have been established for a subset of these pollutants pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. In accordance with AB 2728, the state list includes the (federal) HAPs. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) seeks to identify and evaluate risk from air toxics sources; however, AB 2588 does not regulate air toxics emissions. TAC emissions from

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-11
individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. “High-priority” facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.

In 2000, the CARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce diesel emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled vehicles and engines (CARB 2000). The regulation is anticipated to result in an 80% decrease in statewide diesel health risk in 2020 compared with the diesel risk in 2000. Additional regulations apply to new trucks and diesel fuel, including the On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (In-Use) Regulation, the On-Road Heavy Duty (New) Vehicle Program, the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, and the New Off-Road Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engines and Equipment Program. These regulations and programs have timetables by which manufacturers must comply and existing operators must upgrade their diesel-powered equipment. Several Airborne Toxic Control Measures that reduce diesel emissions including In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449 et seq.) and In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025).

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) is the official compilation and publication of regulations adopted, amended or repealed by state agencies pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.

The CCR includes regulations that pertain to air quality emissions. Specifically, Section 2485 in Title 13 of the CCR states that the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location. In addition, Section 93115 in Title 17 of the CCR states that operations of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emissions standards.

California Health and Safety Code Section 41700
Section 41700 of the Health and Safety Code states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public; or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This section also applies to sources of objectionable odors.

Regional and Local
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that CAAQS and NAAQS are attained and maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-12
education campaigns, and many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.

The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources. SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies, provides the control element for mobile sources.

The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the 2016 AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s commitments towards meeting the 8-hour O3 NAAQS. The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. As part of its air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Connect SoCal – The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2020). The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS was determined to conform to the federally mandated State Implementation plan (SIP) for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Both the Regional Comprehensive Plan and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with county and city general plans.

On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level O3. The 2022 AQMP, adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022, was developed to address the requirements for meeting the 2015 8-hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs (SCAQMD 2022). It also includes various additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOX technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other FCAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Localized Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The SCAQMD guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation (see discussion of thresholds below). With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website.

SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-13
a Metropolitan Planning Organization and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The state and federal attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 3.1-4.

Table 3.1-4. South Coast Air Basin Attainment Classification Pollutant
Designation/Classification
National Standards California Standards
Ozone (O3), 1-hour No national standard Nonattainment
Ozone (O3), 8-hour Extreme nonattainment Nonattainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment/maintenance Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment/maintenance Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassifiable/attainment Attainment Coarse Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Attainment/maintenance Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Serious nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Unclassifiable/attainment Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No national standard Unclassified
Sulfates No national standard Attainment
Visibility-Reducing Particles No national standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No national standard No designation
Sources: EPA 2022 (national); CARB 2022 (California).

In summary, the SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 CAAQS, as well as the 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS. The SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining CAAQS and NAAQS (EPA 2022; CARB 2022).

Despite the current nonattainment status, air quality within the SCAB has generally improved since the inception of air pollutant monitoring in 1976. This improvement is mainly a result of lower-polluting onroad motor vehicles, more stringent regulation of industrial sources, and the implementation of emission reduction strategies by the SCAQMD. This trend toward cleaner air has occurred in spite of continued population growth. Despite this growth, air quality has improved significantly over the years, primarily because of the impacts of the region’s air quality control program.

Applicable Rules
The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:
▪ Rule 401 (Visible Emissions) -- This rule establishes the limit for visible emissions from stationary sources for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any hour.

This rule prohibits visible emissions dark or darker than Ringelmann No. 1 for periods greater than three minutes in any hour or such opacity which could obscure an observer’s view to a degree equal or greater than does smoke.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-14
▪ Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
▪ Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below. a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
▪ Rule 431.2 (Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels) -- The purpose of this rule is to limit the sulfur content in diesel and other liquid fuels for the purpose both of reducing the formation of SOx and particulates during combustion and of enabling the use of add-on control devices for diesel-fueled internal combustion engines. The rule applies to all refiners, importers, and other fuel suppliers such as distributors, marketers, and retailers, as well as to users of diesel, low-sulfur diesel, and other liquid fuels for stationary-source applications in the SCAQMD. The rule also affects diesel fuel supplied for mobile source applications. ▪ Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.

Local Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the state.

These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations 10 feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing ambient air quality levels, historical trends, and projections near the Project site are documented by measurements made by the SCAQMD, the air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations, which process ambient air quality measurements.

Pollutants of concern in the SCAB are O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The air monitoring station nearest the Project site that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Compton Monitoring

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-15
Station (located approximately 7.8 miles to the northeast). The Compton Monitoring Station did not include data for PM10 therefore data from the Long Beach Monitoring Station (located approximately

8.7 miles to the southeast) was used also. Local air quality data for these stations from 2018 to 2020 are provided in Table 3.1-5, which lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each year.

Table 3.1-5. Local Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
1 1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.152 0.085 0.111
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.085 0.076 0.085
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 3 0 1
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 4 1 1
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 4.537 4.331 3.437
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.0723 0.0682 0.0649 Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.10 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)
3 National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 68.3 48.7 48.9 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 68.7 49.7 50.3
State Annual Average Concentration
(CAAQS=20 µg/m3)
— 23.6 —
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 —
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) 3 0 —
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
1 National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 67.5 102.1 52.8 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 67.5 102.1 54.6
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) 19 12 6
Sources: Source: All pollutant measurements are from the CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Management system database (https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam) except for CO, which were retrieved

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-16
from the CARB Air Quality and Meteorological Information System (https://www.arb.ca.gov/ aqmis2/aqdselect.php).

Notes: ppm = parts per million by volume; — = not available; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ND = insufficient data available to determine the value. 1 Measurements taken at the Compton-700 North Bullis Road Monitoring Station (CARB# 70112). 2 Measurements taken at the Compton-700 North Bullis Road Monitoring Station (CARB# 70112), which is the closet monitoring station that measures CO. 3 Measurements taken at the South Long Beach Monitoring (CARB# 33165).

City of Gardena General Plan
The City of Gardena General Plan Land Use Plan, Circulation Plan, and Environmental Justice Element identify the following air quality goals and policies that apply to the Project (City of Gardena 2021):

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

Policy 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.

Policy 1.2: Minimize truck traffic through Gardena and minimize adverse impacts by regulating off‐street truck parking, intrusions into neighborhoods, and noise levels.

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

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

Policy 3.5: As roadways are repaved or otherwise improved, evaluate opportunities to enhance the quality and safety of the roadway by implementing new or improved walking, bicycling, or public transit infrastructure. If no walking, bicycling, or public transit improvements are being provided, a report to the City Council should provide an explanation for why such improvements are not needed along this roadway segment.

LU Goal 3: Provide high quality, attractive and well-maintained commercial, industrial, and public environments that enhance the image and vitality of the City.

Policy 3.6: New commercial and industrial developments shall meet or exceed local and State requirements pertaining to noise, air, water, seismic safety and any other applicable environmental regulations.

EJ Goal 1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance air quality, and reduce impacts associated with climate change.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-17
Policy 1.2: Attract new clean industry to the City which do not emit smoke, noise, offensive odors, or harmful industrial wastes.

Policy 1.13: Reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions locally by actively supporting regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance
Based upon the criteria derived from State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a Project normally would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
SCAQMD has established Air Quality Significance Thresholds, as revised in March 2023, that set forth quantitative emission significance thresholds below which a project would not have a significant impact on ambient air quality. The Project’s “regional” emission refers to emissions that will be evaluated based on regional significance thresholds established by SCAQMD, also known as the criteria pollutant mass daily thresholds. According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if a Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use development projects, as shown in Table 3.1-6.

Table 3.1-6. SCAQMD District Regional Emissions Thresholds Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction
(pounds per day) Operation (pounds per day)
VOCs 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
SOx 150 150
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
Leada 3 3

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-18
Table 3.1-6. SCAQMD District Regional Emissions Thresholds Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
TACs and Odor Thresholds
TACsb Maximum incremental cancer risk 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas 1 in 1 million)
Chronic and acute hazard index 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants c NO2 1-hour average
NO2 annual arithmetic mean
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:

0.18 ppm (state)

0.030 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal)
CO 1-hour average
CO 8-hour average
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal)

9.0 ppm (state/federal)
PM10 24-hour average
PM10 annual average

10.4 g/m3 (construction)d

2.5 g/m3 (operation)

1.0 g/m3
PM2.5 24-hour average 10.4 g/m3 (construction)d

2.5 g/m3 (operation)
Source: SCAQMD 2023.

Notes: SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; TAC = toxic air contaminant; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million by volume; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

Greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for industrial projects, as added in the March 2015 revision to the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, were not include included in this table as they are addressed within the greenhouse gas emissions analysis and not the air quality analysis. a The phaseout of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the Project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis. b TACs include carcinogens and noncarcinogens.
c Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2, unless otherwise stated.
d Ambient air quality threshold are based on SCAQMD Rule 403.

Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, the Project would also be subject to CAAQS and NAAQS. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-19
impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the Project site are above CAAQS and NAAQS (the more stringent CAAQS are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour CAAQS.

Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent CAAQS or NAAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb

5.0 acres or less on a single day. The City of Gardena is located within SCAQMD SRA 3. LST’s interpolated at meters (between the 100- and 200-meter threshold) are provided in Table 3.1-7 for informational purposes and to demonstrate that the thresholds increase as acreages increase.

However, because the sensitive receptors nearest the Project site are adjacent, this analysis uses the 25-meter thresholds.

Table 3.1-7. Localized Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size
Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
1 Acre 91/91 664/664 5/1 3/1
2 Acres 132/131 967/967 8/2 5/1
5 Acres 197/197 1,796/1,796 15/4 8/2
Source: SCAQMD 2008, 2009.

Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter.

LST thresholds were determined based on the values for a distance of 25 meters in SRA 3.

3.1.4 Methodology
This air quality impact analysis considers the Project’s construction and operational impacts. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1 (CAPCOA 2022). CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod input parameters, including the land use type used to represent the Project and its size, construction schedule, and anticipated use of construction equipment, were based on information provided by the Project Applicant or default model assumptions if Project specifics were unavailable. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-20
Construction Emissions
Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date (i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off-road, fugitive dust, and onroad emissions factors in CalEEMod.

Operational Emissions
Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products), energy sources (natural gas usage and off-site electrify generation), and mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project generated vehicle trips). The list below describes each operational emissions source. ▪ Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to on-site equipment, architectural coating, and landscape maintenance equipment that were previously not present on the site.
▪ Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. ▪ Off-Road Equipment. Operational off-road emissions would be generated by off-road cargo handling equipment used during operational activities. For the Project, it was assumed that the warehouses would include three forklifts and one yard truck per SCAQMD data (SCAQMD 2014). ▪ Emergency Backup Generators. It is undetermined at this time whether the warehouse/distribution facility will require emergency backup generators. Backup generators would only be used in the event of a power failure and would not be part of the Project’s normal daily operations. Nonetheless, emissions associated with this equipment were included to be conservative. Emissions from an emergency backup generator for the proposed warehouse building were calculated separately from CalEEMod; refer to Appendix B-1.

However, CalEEMod default emissions rates were used. If backup generators are required, the end user would be required to obtain a permit from the SCAQMD prior to installation.

Emergency backup generators must meet SCAQMD's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements and comply with SCAQMD Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines), which would minimize emissions.
▪ Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Project-generated increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated with mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use). The proposed Project is forecast to generate 945 maximum daily vehicle trips (ADT), which includes 220 daily trips from the special events. The 945 maximum ADT is

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-21
also inclusive of 75 average daily truck trips (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2022a). It is also noted, because SCAQMD methodology requires analysis of maximum daily emissions, the special event daily trips (220 daily trips) were also included in the Project’s maximum daily emissions modeling, although the various special events would occur only on special event days (up to three times per month) (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2022b). Thus, mobile source emissions were based on 945 maximum daily trips (725 ADT from the mixed-use development not accounting for displaced land uses and 220 daily trips from the special events) pursuant to SCAQMD methodology requirements.

As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with Project construction and operations. The Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds to determine the significance of a project’s impact on regional air quality.

Health Risk Assessment
The SCAQMD’s Modeling Guidance for American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) (SCAQMD 2023b) provides guidance to perform dispersion modeling for use in HRAs within the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD has adopted a cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million (SCAQMD 2023a), which indicates that a person has an additional risk of 10 chances in 1 million (0.001%) of developing cancer during their lifetime as a result of the air pollution scenario being evaluated. The SCAQMD has also adopted a hazard index less than 1.0, below which indicates that people are not likely to experience any non-cancer health effects (SCAQMD 2023a).

Cancer risk is expressed in terms of expected incremental incidence per million population. The SCAQMD has established an incidence rate of 10 persons per million as the maximum acceptable incremental cancer risk due to DPM exposure. This threshold serves to determine whether or not a given project has a potentially significant development-specific and cumulative impact. The 10 in 1 million standard is a health-protective significance threshold. A risk level of 10 in 1 million implies a likelihood that up to 10 persons, out of 1 million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of toxic air contaminants over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer that is in addition to any cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics.

The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs.

Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index of less than 1.0 means that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, non-carcinogenic exposures of less than 1.0 are considered less than significant.

This HRA evaluates potential health risks associated with the emission of DPM resulting from Project implementation. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Operational activities would also include the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-22
Construction Sources
Construction would generate DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for demolition, grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment were included in the analysis, although they are typically less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the Project site potentially poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive that will be impacted by the Project are the live work and townhome residences to the west of the Project as the one existing single-family residence to the south will be demolished as part of the Project.

Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be episodic and would occur throughout the Project site. Construction activities would limit idling to no more than 5 minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Furthermore, even during the most intense period of construction, DPM emissions would be generated from different locations on the Project site rather than in a single location because different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation and building construction) would not occur at the same place at the same time.

Construction emission rates for PM10 (DPM) were calculated from the CalEEMod construction emissions modeling conducted for the Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. The Project’s construction activities are anticipated to occur over approximately 18 months, starting as early as Spring 2024 and ending Fall 2025.
1 However, this analysis has conservatively assumed construction would occur over 2 years, exposing receptors to more construction emissions.

Operational Sources
Mobile Sources. The Project is located near existing residential uses. Due to the increased truck traffic from the Project, the resulting emissions could result in pollutant concentrations at existing nearby sensitive receptors. The Project’s average daily truck trips were obtained from the Traffic Impact Assessment (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2024). The Transportation Assessment calculated that the Project would generate 75 one-way truck trips daily (or 38 trucks traveling in and out of the site). Using data from the Air Quality Study, it is assumed the mix of trucks accessing the Project site 1 As the Project development is speculative, a conservative worst-case construction timeline has been modeled for analysis purposes. This involves modeling emissions at the earliest feasible date. Emissions in future years (i.e., due to a later construction start date or operational opening year) would be lower due to phased-in emissions standards, inspection and maintenance requirements, and fleet turnover). Project construction that occurs at a later date than what was modeled impacts would result in lower emissions than those analyzed due to the use of more energy-efficient and cleaner burning construction vehicle fleet mix, pursuant to state regulations that require vehicle fleet operators to phase-in less polluting heavy-duty equipment. As a result, Project-related construction emissions would be lower than the impacts disclosed herein. For emissions modeling purposes, conservatively analyzing the emissions using an earlier construction start date provides for a worst-case analysis and full disclosure of potential air quality impacts, as required by CEQA.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-23
would be 30% heavy trucks, 15% medium trucks, and 55% light trucks. In addition, to estimate emissions during special events, 3 additional trucks were added. Therefore, this HRA conservatively assumes operational emissions are equal to 41 trucks traveling to and from the Project site daily. An emission rate for PM10 (DPM) was calculated using trip data and a CARB 2021 EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) model run for Los Angeles County; refer to Appendix B-1. EMFAC generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed and type (CARB 2021). The model was run for heavy-duty diesel vehicles traveling along off-site roads, circulating on the Project site, and idling at the proposed loading docks.

Dispersion Modeling
The HRA’s construction and operational air dispersion modeling was performed using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model. AERMOD is a steady-state, multiple-source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources. AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Surface and upper air meteorological data is provided by the SCAQMD. Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Long Beach Airport Monitoring Station was selected as being the most representative for meteorology based on proximity to the Project site.

The model’s emission sources are line volume sources (consisting of smaller adjacent volume sources) for construction and truck operations. Off-road construction equipment operating on site and on-road construction equipment (hauling materials to and from the Project site) were assigned a release height of 9 feet (2.85 meters) and a plume height of 18.7 feet (5.7 meters) based on a vehicle height of 11 feet (3.35 meters). The operational sources (i.e., heavy-duty diesel vehicles traveling along off-site roads, circulating on the Project site, and idling at the proposed loading docks) were assigned a release height of 11.5 feet (3.53 meters) and a plume height of 23 feet (7.06 meters) based on a vehicle height of 13.6 feet (4.15 meters). Release height and plume height are based on U.S. EPA guidance for vehicle volume sources (EPA 2012).

AERMOD was run to obtain the peak 1-hour and annual average (period) concentration in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of PM10 at the nearby sensitive receptors. According to the SCAQMD’s Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for AB 2588, air dispersion modeling is required to estimate annual average concentrations to calculate the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR), the maximum chronic HI, the zones of impact, and excess cancer burden. To achieve these goals, a receptor grid was placed over the nearest sensitive receptors to cover the zone of impact. According to the SCAQMD, “to identify the maximum impacted receptors (i.e., peak cancer risk and peak hazard indices), a grid spacing of 100 meters or less must be used” (SCAQMD Supplemental Guidelines page 16). Due to the size of the Project site, receptors were modeled with a maximum of 20-meter grid spacing. In addition, National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was imported into AERMOD for the Project site. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD (SCAQMD 2023b).

Note that the concentration estimate developed using this methodology is conservative and is not a specific prediction of the actual concentrations that would occur at the Project site any given point in time. Actual 1-hour and annual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-24
the number and types of vehicles and equipment operating at specific distances during time periods of adverse meteorology. A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on these worst-case exposure duration scenarios. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the OEHHA Guidance Manual. Only the risk associated with the Project’s worst-case location was assessed.

Risk and Hazard Assessment
Cancer Risk. Based on the OEHHA methodology, the residential inhalation excess cancer risk from annual average DPM and benzene concentrations is calculated by multiplying the daily inhalation dose, cancer potency factor, age sensitivity factor (ASF), frequency of time spent at home, and exposure duration divided by averaging time. These factors are discussed in more detail below. It is important to note that exposure duration is based on continual heavy truck operation along nearby roadways. Exposure through inhalation (dose-air) is a function of breathing rate, exposure frequency, and concentration of substance in the air. To estimate cancer risk, the dose was estimated by applying the following formula to each ground-level concentration:

Dose-air = Cair*(BR/BW)*A*EF*10-6
Dose-air = dose through inhalation (mg/kg/day)
Cair = air concentration (μg/m3) from air dispersion model (DBR/BW) = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg bodyweight-day) A = inhalation absorption factor (unitless)
EF = exposure frequency (approximately 350 days per year for residential) 10-6 = conversion factor (micrograms to milligrams, liters to cubic meters) OEHHA developed ASFs to consider the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-life exposure. In the absence of chemical-specific data, OEHHA recommends default ASFs presented in Table 3.1-8.

Fraction of time at home (FAH) during the day is used to adjust exposure duration and cancer risk from a specific facility’s emissions, based on the assumption that exposure to the facility’s emissions is not occurring away from home. OEHHA recommends the FAH values presented in Table 3.1-8.

Table 3.1-8. Age Sensitivity Factors, Fraction of Time at Home, and Daily Breathing Rates Age
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Age
Sensitivity
Factor1
(ASF)
Fraction
of Time
at
Home
(FAH)
Daily
Breathing
Rate (L/kg
BW-day2)
Residential
Third trimester 350 0.25 10 100% 361
0 to 2 years 350 2 10 100% 1,090
Ages 2 through 8 years 350 7 3 100% 631
Ages 9 through 15 years 350 7 3 100% 572
Ages 16 and greater 350 14 1 73% 261

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-25
Table 3.1-8. Age Sensitivity Factors, Fraction of Time at Home, and Daily Breathing Rates Age
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Age
Sensitivity
Factor1
(ASF)
Fraction
of Time
at
Home
(FAH)
Daily
Breathing
Rate (L/kg
BW-day2)
Worker3 250 25 1 N/A 230
Student3 180 9 3 N/A 640
Source: OEHHA 2015; SCAQMD 2017.
1 Accounts for potential increased sensitivity to carcinogens during childhood. 2 Daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg body weight - day) (95th percentile for 3rd trimester to 2 years and 80th percentile for other age groups). 3 Worker and Student breathing rates are 95th percentile 8-hour breathing rates based on moderate intensity activity.

To estimate the cancer risk, the dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor, the ASF, the exposure duration divided by averaging time, and the frequency of time spent at home (for residents only):

Riskinh-res = (Doseair*CPF*ASF*(ED/AT)*FAH)
Riskinh-res = residential inhalation cancer risk (potential chances per million) Doseair = daily dose through inhalation (mg/kg-day)
CPF = inhalation cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day-1)
ASF = age sensitivity factor for a specified age group (unitless) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time of lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard. The non-cancer chronic hazard is calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the REL for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non-cancer health effects are anticipated. The following equation was used to determine the non-cancer chronic hazard:

Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi
Ci = concentration in the air of substance I (annual average concentration in μg/m3) RELi = chronic noncancer Reference Exposure Level for substance (μg/m3) Health Risk Computation. A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 30-year exposure scenario using the approach described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (February 2015) and the daily breathing rates, age sensitivity factors, exposure duration, and fraction of time at home specified in the SCAQMD, Permit Application Package “N” Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212 Version 8.1 (refer to Table 3.1-8). Health risks were analyzed at the point of maximum impact and are a conservative estimate. The pollutant concentrations are then used to estimate the long-term cancer health risk to an individual as well as the non-cancer chronic health index.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-26
The off-site impacts would occur from the diesel trucks accessing the Project site. The cancer and chronic health risks are based on the annual average concentration of PM10 (used as a proxy for DPM). As noted above, the chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the U.S. EPA Human Health Evaluation Manual (1991) and the OEHHA Guidance Manual (2015).

The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LORs)
Standard Conditions are existing requirements and conditions of approval that are based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independent of CEQA review. Typical standard conditions and requirements include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as appropriate. Because Standard Conditions are neither project specific nor a result of project development, they are not Mitigation Measures.

LOR AQ-1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction dust and particulate emissions. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. ▪ All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. ▪ All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
▪ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
▪ Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

LOR AQ-2. The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coating (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 1113 which requires building envelope coatings to have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less.

LOR AQ-3. Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2449.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-27
LOR AQ-4. Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape requirements (Gardena Municipal Code Chapter 15.60 - Adoption of the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance).

LOR AQ-5. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards Section 110.10 requires buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.

LOR AQ-6. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
▪ Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with California Green Building Standards Code Part 11, Section 5.303 (nonresidential). ▪ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with California Green Building Standards Code Part 11, Section 5.408.1 (nonresidential).
▪ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with California Green Building Standards Code Part 11, Section 5.410 (nonresidential).
▪ Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces are required to be designated in accordance with California Green Building Standards Code Part 11, Section 5.106.5.2 (nonresidential) - Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles. ▪ To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), nonresidential construction shall comply with California Green Building Standards Code Part 11, Section

5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging).

3.1.5 Impact Analysis
Threshold AQ-1: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the NAAQS.

The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under state law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-28
regarding the CAAQS and NAAQS. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

The Project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce criteria pollutant emissions for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 and 2022 AQMPs (AQMPs). The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving CAAQS and NAAQS. The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the EPA. The AQMPs pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the AQMPs.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMPs are defined by the following indicators:
▪ Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMPs. ▪ Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.

According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.

The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table

3.1-9 and Table 3.1-10, Project construction and operational emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds that are established to help the SCAB achieve air quality standards. In addition, as shown in Table 3.1-12 and Table 3.1-13, the project would not exceed the LST thresholds established by SCAQMD to determine if a project would cause an air quality violation of the CAAQS or NAAQS. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is consistent with the first criterion.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMPs contain air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, which were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. As discussed in the General Plan and Zoning Section above, the Project is designated as Specific Plan and zoned as 1450 Artesia Specific Plan, which will allow commercial and industrial uses. At the time the AQMP was adopted, the property was zoned as Artesia Corridor Specific Plan, which designates the Project site as Commercial and Mixed Use. It was anticipated there would be development of a minimum of 80,000 SF of commercial uses in Area 5 and a minimum of 70,000 square feet of commercial development in Area 4. To date there has been no commercial development in Area 5 and approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial development in Area 4. The 1450 Artesia Specific Plan would allow up to 186,000 GSF of self-storage use, 72,000 GSF of industrial use, and 10,000 GSF of office/retail use on the Project site. Although the Project proposes more intense development on the Project site than the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan anticipated, the majority of the Project would be locally-serving (self-storage portion) and the

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-29
overall development would generate only approximately 40 jobs.2 This growth equates to approximately 1.4% of the total employment growth that is projected to occur between 2020 and 2045 and approximately 21% of the growth that is expected to occur between the time of this writing (2022) and the Project’s anticipated buildout year (2024). Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the City’s General Plan at the time the AQMP was developed and therefore would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMPs. Thus, the Project is consistent with the second criterion.

Based on these criteria, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMPs, and as such impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold AQ-2: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Construction Emissions
Project construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area are O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water. Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.

Project construction activities are estimated to be completed within 18 months, beginning in mid2024 and finishing December 2025. The construction schedule used in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases due to improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required pursuant to CEQA guidelines. The Project’s construction-related emissions were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix B-1 of this EIR for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Table 3.1-9 provides the Project’s predicted maximum daily construction-related emissions and indicates all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds. Notwithstanding, SCAQMD Rules 402 and 2 Sorenson, Brian. 2022. Personal Correspondence.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-30
403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LORs) were incorporated in the Project assumptions for analysis and are listed below as LOR measures. LOR AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.3 As required by law, all architectural coatings for the Project structures would be subject to compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which provides specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG content of paint. LOR AQ-2 requires implementation of Rule 1113, which limits the VOC content of paint to 50 grams per liter or less.4,5 Compliance with LOR AQ-1 and LOR AQ-2 would be required to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, which would be verified and enforced through the City’s development review process.

Table 3.1-9. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Unmitigated
Construction Year
Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2024) 3.72 36.03 34.27 0.05 3.17 1.53
Year 2 (2025) 21.60 13.13 18.57 0.03 1.64 0.72
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B-1 for model outputs.

SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following:
properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No adjustments were applied to equipment exhaust. Refer to Appendix B-1 for Model Data Outputs. The highest values between summer and winter results were used as a worst-case scenario.

While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would still be subject to SCAQMD Rules 401, 402, 403, 431.2, and 1113, described in the Regulatory Framework subsection above and required by Standard Conditions AQ-1 and AQ-2.
3 Standard Conditions are existing requirements and conditions of approval that are based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review.

Applicable Standard Conditions are included at the end of this impact analysis. 4 Applicable Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations are included at the end of this impact analysis. 5 For analysis purposes, VOCs and ROGs both represent organic compounds and these terms are used interchangeably.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-31
Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be primarily associated with motor vehicle use and area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment, hearths, consumer products, and architectural coatings. Table 3.1-10 provides the Project’s long-term operational emissions, which consider the land uses that would be removed, the proposed mixed-use development, and the special events. As shown in Table 3.1-10, the Project’s operational emissions would remain below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s operational air pollutant emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Note that emissions rates differ from summer to winter because different weather patterns affect pollutant mixing, dispersion, O3 formation, and other factors.

Table 3.1-10. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day1
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Existing Conditions2
Area 0.36 0.36 3.41 0.01 0.59 0.15
Energy 0.58 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile2 0.01 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01
Total Emissions 0.95 0.47 4.02 0.01 0.60 0.16
Proposed Project3
Maximum Emissions
Area 6.12 0.07 8.52 0.00 0.02 0.01
Energy 0.07 1.33 1.12 0.01 0.10 0.10
Mobile - Automobiles 2.16 1.83 19.37 0.05 4.30 1.11
Mobile – Trucks 0.29 6.18 3.22 0.03 2.74 0.81
Mobile – Special Events3 0.73 0.62 6.55 0.02 1.46 0.38
Stationary – Backup Generators4 0.90 2.51 2.29 0.00 0.13 0.13 Total Emissions 10.27 12.54 41.07 0.13 8.74 2.54
Net Emissions
Existing Conditions 0.95 0.47 4.02 0.01 0.60 0.16
Proposed Project Net Change 9.32 12.06 37.04 0.12 8.14 2.37 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B-1 for model outputs.

Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District.
1 Total values are from CalEEMod and may not add up 100% due to rounding. The highest values between summer and winter results were used as a worst-case scenario. 2 Two commercial uses (i.e., a U-Haul dealer and sandblasting service) totaling approximately 12,064 GSF (circa 1950) with associated surface parking currently occupy the Project site.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-32
3 Includes special events, which would be held approximately two to three times per month, including weekday evening events (after 6 p.m.) and weekend daytime events. 4 Per Mitigation Measures GHG-1 from the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, all off-road vehicles will be electric and will not produce air quality emissions. Stationary source emissions for one generator were calculated using default emissions rates from CalEEMod.

Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for CAAQS and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for NAAQS. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (SCAQMD 2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less-than-significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative air quality impact in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 3.1-10 above, Project construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.

The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMPs pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted emissions control measures with the AQMPs would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce Project construction-related emissions. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality. The Project’s construction-related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Long-Term Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 3.1-10, Project operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-33
Threshold AQ-3: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptors are the Live/Work multi-family residences adjacent/west of the Project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing construction LSTs. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific emissions.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 3.1-11, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The Project is located within SRA 3 (Southwest Costal LA County). LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5.0 acres in size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 2.5 acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 2.5-acre threshold were interpolated and utilized for this analysis.

Table 3.1-11. Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres
Graded
per 8-Hour
Day
Operating
Hours
per Day
Acres
Graded
per Day
Grading Tractors 3 0.5 8 1.5
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Total Acres Graded per Day 2.5
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B-1 for model outputs.

The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only “on-site” emissions included in the CalEEMod outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors are the Live/Work multi-family residences adjacent/west of the Project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. SCAQMD’s LST guidance recommends using the 25- meter threshold for receptors located 25 meters or less from a project site. Therefore, the LSTs for

2.5 acres at 25 meters were used for the Project’s construction analysis, which is consistent with the SCAQMD LST methodology. Table 3.1-12 presents the results of the Project’s localized unmitigated emissions during each construction phase. Table 3.1-12 shows the Project’s pollutant emissions on the peak day of construction without any mitigations or dust control measures.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-34
Table 3.1-12. Localized Significance of Construction Emissions – Unmitigated Construction Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 24.89 21.74 1.06 0.98
Site Preparation 35.95 32.93 1.60 1.47
Grading 18.23 18.82 0.84 0.77
Building Construction 10.44 13.04 0.43 0.39
Paving 6.52 8.84 0.29 0.26
Architectural Coating 0.88 1.14 0.03 0.03
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (adjusted for 2.5 acres at
25 meters)
142 1,105 9 6
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B-1 for model outputs.

As shown in Table 3.1-12, the Project would not exceed the applied SCAQMD localized screening thresholds at the nearest receptor. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact concerning LSTs during construction.

Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at a site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project contains self-storage and warehouse uses, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and 20% the mobile source emissions. LST thresholds for receptors were used for 25 meters because the sensitive receptors are adjacent/south and west of the Project site, using SCAQMD methodology.

Although the Project site is approximately 6.59 acres, the 5.0-acre LST threshold was also conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the site’s size. The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table

3.1-13, conservatively includes all on-site Project-related stationary sources and 20% of the Projectrelated new mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling on site and that trucks account for roughly 10% of trip generation.

Table 3.1-13 shows that the maximum daily pollutant emissions during operations would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project would result in a lessthan-significant impact concerning LSTs during operations.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-35
Table 3.1-13. Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site and 20% Mobile Emissions 5.64 17.76 1.95 0.70
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(5.0 acres at 25 meters)
142 1,105 2 1
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B-1 for model outputs.

Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5th, Case No. S219783).

The Friant Ranch project was a 942-acre Specific Plan that involved a commercial master planned community of approximately 2,500 dwelling units and extensive commercial supporting development. The anticipated air quality impacts resulting from this development included significant and unavoidable emissions of multiple criteria pollutants (including significant emissions of both primary O3 precursors [NOX and ROGs]) at levels that exceeded the daily thresholds of significance.

As noted above and shown in Table 3.1-11, the Project’s operational emissions are below SCAQMD’s significance thresholds, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the Federal CAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program6 was created by the Federal CAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based NAAQS. The NAAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts would occur.

NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form ozone in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources. Breathing ground-level ozone can result in health effects that include 6 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S).

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-36
reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily ozone concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that ozone can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.

According to the SCAQMD AQMPs, ozone, NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although vehicle miles traveled in the SCAB continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. The 2022 AQMP demonstrates how the SCAQMD’s control strategy to meet the 2015 federal ozone standard by 2037 and would lead to sufficient NOX emission reductions (SCAQMD 2022). In addition, since NOX emissions also lead to formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the ozone standards will likewise lead to improved PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.

The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing ozone levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. NOX-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The AQMPs identify robust NOX reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOX emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement with cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The SCAQMD plans to achieve such replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new technologies.

As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby sensitive receptors were found to be less than significant (refer to Table 3.1-12 and Table 3.1-13). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable CAAQS or NAAQS. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. As shown above, Project-related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds or the LSTs, and therefore would not exceed the ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing violations of air quality standards. Therefore,

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-37
the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to criteria pollutant levels in excess of the healthbased ambient air quality standards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from a project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, California’s CO standard is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an ADT volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm NAAQS. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any Project area intersections from the 679 ADT (from a conservatively assumed 0 daily existing trips) attributable to the Project.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Health Risk Analysis
Project construction would generate DPM emissions from the required use of off-road diesel equipment.

The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

A Health Risk Assessment (Project HRA) was conducted and is included in Appendix B-2 of this EIR.

Project construction-related activities would result in DPM emissions from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for demolition; site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); building construction; paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous construction activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from a construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at a construction site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Refer to Appendix B-2 for analysis methodology, results, and model data.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-38
The Project’s PM10 exhaust construction emissions rates were calculated in grams per second based on the total annual on-site and off-site (haul and vendor trucks) construction exhaust emissions reported in CalEEMod. Construction exhaust emissions over the entire construction period were used in AERMOD, a U.S. EPA-approved dispersion model, to approximate construction DPM emissions.

AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources. AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Uniform Cartesian receptors were used to evaluate the locations of the maximally exposed sensitive receptors. Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Long Beach Airport Monitoring Station provided by the SCAQMD was selected as being the most representative meteorology. In addition, National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was imported into AERMOD for the Project site. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.

Risk levels were calculated based on the California OEHHA guidance Risk Assessment Guidelines document (OEHHA 2015). SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is 10 in 1 million and the chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these thresholds would not result in a significant impact. Table 3.1-14 shows the unmitigated and mitigated health risk for the Project’s combined construction and operations for the closest maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) to the Project site.

Table 3.1-14. Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario
Cancer
Risk (Risk
per
Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Construction
Resident
Sensitive Receptors – Unmitigated: Live/Work and
Multi-Family units west of Project site1

30.07 10 Yes
Sensitive Receptors – Mitigated: Live/Work
Residences west of Project Site1,2

4.62 10 No
Student
Sensitive Receptors – Unmitigated: Students at
Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High
School southeast of the Project Site

3.26 10 No
Sensitive Receptors – Mitigated: Students at
Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High
School southeast of the Project Site

0.54 10 No
Operations
Resident
Sensitive Receptors - Unmitigated: Live/Work and
Multi-Family units west of Project site1,2 288.38 10 Yes

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-39
Table 3.1-14. Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario
Cancer
Risk (Risk
per
Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Sensitive Receptors - Mitigated: Live/Work
Residences west of Project site1,3

2.09 10 No
Student
Sensitive Receptors – Unmitigated: Students at
Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High
School southeast of the Project Site

18.82 10 Yes
Sensitive Receptors – Mitigated: Students at
Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High
School southeast of the Project Site

0.12 10 No
Combined (Construction + Operations)
Resident
Sensitive Receptors – Unmitigated: Live/Work and
Multi-Family units west of Project site1
318.45 10 Yes
Sensitive Receptors – Mitigated: Live/Work and
Multi-Family units west of Project site 1,2,3

6.71 10 No
Student
Sensitive Receptors – Unmitigated: Students at
Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High
School southeast of the Project Site

22.09 10 Yes
Sensitive Receptors – Mitigated: Students at
Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High
School southeast of the Project Site

0.66 10 No
Source: Refer to Appendix B-2 for modeling data.

Notes:
1 The reported annual pollutant concentration is at the closest maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) to the Project site.
2 The “Mitigated” HRA construction scenario incorporates MM AQ-1 (Tier 4 Construction Equipment). 3 The “Mitigated” HRA operations scenario incorporates MM AQ-2 (Electric Cargo Handling Equipment).

The HRA determined that the combined construction and operational health risk from the Project without mitigation would be a maximum cancer risk of 318.45 in 1 million, which would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in 1 million. Therefore, implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-1, which requires the use of Tier 4 Final construction equipment, and MM-AQ-2, which requires the use of electric cargo handling equipment are required. With implementation of MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2, the combined construction and operational health risk from the Project would be reduced to 6.71 in 1 million, which would be below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in 1 million. Therefore, Project impacts associated with carcinogenic risk would be less than significant with mitigation. Chronic impacts were also evaluated in the HRA and as shown in Table 3.1-15 the highest unmitigated maximum chronic

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-40
hazard index from Project emissions would be 0.0177, which would be below the threshold of 1. The Project’s non-carcinogenic unmitigated hazards would be less than significant. However, the Project would implement MM AQ-1 to mitigate carcinogenic risk during construction, as discussed above and would further reduce the chronic hazard index.

Table 3.1-15. Non-carcinogenic Chronic Hazards
Emissions Sources Chronic Hazard
Resident
Sensitive Receptors – Unmitigated: Live/Work and Multi-Family units west of Project1

0.1610
Sensitive Receptors – Mitigated: Live/Work and Multi-Family units west of Project 1,2

0.0029
Student
Sensitive Receptors – Unmitigated: Students at Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High School southeast of the Project Site

0.0236
Sensitive Receptors – Mitigated: Students at Gardena Early Education Center and Gardena High School southeast of the Project Site

0.0005
SCAQMD Threshold 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No
Notes: SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1 Refer to Appendix B2 for modeling data.
2 The exposure scenario shows the risk with MM-AQ-1 (Tier 4 Construction Equipment).

Threshold AQ-4: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, Project operations would not result in odors that would adversely affect people.

During Project construction, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, neither Project construction activities or operations would result in objectionable odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-41

3.1.6 Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 Clean Construction Equipment. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Gardena that demonstrate the following:
▪ All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards or, if not commercially available, meet Tier 4 Interim off-road emission standards ( as shown in CARB’s 2017 Off-Road Diesel Emission Factor Update for NOx and PM). A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or South Coast Air Quality Management District. operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. ▪ Construction equipment shall be properly maintained according to manufacturer specifications.
▪ All construction equipment and delivery vehicles shall be turned off when not in use, or limit on-site idling for no more than 5 minutes in any 1 hour. ▪ On-site electrical hook ups to a power grid shall be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills, and compressors, where feasible, to reduce the need for diesel powered electric generators.

MM AQ-2 Electric Cargo Handling Equipment. All outdoor cargo handling equipment (such as yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) shall be zero emission (i.e., powered by electricity or other alternative fuels). The warehouse building shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.

MM GHG-1 Establish On-Site Solar Power. Prior to the issuance of a Building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide written proof to the City of Gardena Community Development Director that the total annual electricity demand from on-site operations does not exceed 2,226,107 kWh/year. On-site electrical demand exceeding 2,226,107 kWh/year shall be supplied by on-site renewable sources (e.g., solar photovoltaic panels). Further, the Project will be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every 3 years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (Section 110.10) require buildings to be designed to have 15% of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-42

3.1.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold AQ-1: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The Project would result in a less-than-significant impact regarding the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality management plan in the SCAQMD.

Threshold AQ-2: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The Project would result in a less-than-significant impact regarding cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment.

Threshold AQ-3: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Localized construction and operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD site-specific LSTs and impacts would less than significant.

The Project would not result in traffic volumes that would result in a CO hotspot during construction or operations. This impact would be less than significant.

Finally, implementation of MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2 would ensure that potential cancer and chronic health risk impacts associated with Project construction and operations would be reduced to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project construction and operational health risk impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Threshold AQ-4: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that could adversely affect a substantial number of people. No mitigation is required.

3.1.8 Cumulative Effects
As described in Section 3.1.5, implementation of the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to air quality after mitigation.

Air pollution by nature is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. In addition to SCAQMD’s efforts, CARB has comprehensive regulatory programs in place for new and existing sources of air pollution. Local policies, such as land use decisions that involve siting, zoning, and permitting actions, in conjunction with air agency efforts have the potential to greatly enhance the effectiveness of these programs by addressing cumulative impacts in local areas. Project-specific emissions associated with implementation of the Project could result in regional and localized impacts. Regional pollutants such

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-43
as O3 and PM2.5 are derived from complex interactions of emissions from many sources. In contrast, localized, or near-source, pollutants such as SO2 are mainly derived from a single source or group of sources. Cumulative air quality impacts are the effect of long-term emissions of the project plus any existing emissions at the same location, as well as the effect of long-term emissions of reasonably foreseeable similar projects, on the projected regional air quality or localized air pollution in the SCAB and surrounding areas. Accordingly, impacts can be localized or far-reaching and the geographic scope of air quality impacts varies based on the type of emission source.

Based on the cumulative nature of air pollution and the various mechanisms in place to reduce cumulative air pollutant emissions, Project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, as analyzed in Section 3.1.5, are relevant in the determination of whether the Project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable air quality impact is evaluated in Section 3.1.5. After mitigation, the Project is not expected to exceed SCAQMD’s mass daily emission-based thresholds during operation, and the Project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. As such, the Project’s potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. In addition, during construction and operation and with the implementation of MM-AQ-1 and MM-AQ-2, there would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from TACs. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant cumulatively considerable impact regarding exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The Project does not include any odorous land uses as identified by the SCAQMD, therefore it would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact in emissions such as odors; the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

3.1.9 References
CAPCOA. 2018. Health Effects, 2018. Accessed September 2023. http://www.capcoa.org/ health-effects/.

CAPCOA. 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2022.1.

April 2022. http://www.caleemod.com/.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, 2000.

CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005.

CARB. 2016. Current Air Quality Standards, 2016.

CARB. 2021. EMFAC 2021 Web Database. Accessed March 2022. www.arb.ca.gov/emfac CARB. 2022. Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2019 to 2021, 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam
City of Gardena, City of Gardena General Plan, 2021.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-44
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Human Health Evaluation Manual.

EPA. 2012. Haul Road Workgroup Final Report. Accessed August 2023. https://www.epa.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/haul_road_workgroup-final_report_package20120302.pdf.

EPA. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table, 2016.

EPA. 2022. “Region 9: Air Quality Analysis, Air Quality Maps.” Last updated December 2022.

Accessed February 2023. https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/.

Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2022a. Civil Site Plan, March 25, 2022.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2022b. 1450 Artesia Boulevard Specific Plan Project Health Risk Assessment, October 2022.

Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2024, 1450 Artesia Boulevard Local Transportation Assessment, 2024.

OEHHA (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.

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

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.

SCAQMD. 2003. “White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution.” August 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/ Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-whitepaper.pdf.

SCAQMD. 2008. “Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.” Final. June 2003; revised July 2008. Accessed September 2023. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf.

SCAQMD. 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, October 21, 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

SCAQMD. 2014. High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Results, June 2014.

SCAQMD. 2017. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212 Version 8.1. July 2017.

SCAQMD. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2022.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-45
SCAQMD. 2023a. “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” Originally published in CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-11-A. Revised March 2023. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.

SCAQMD. 2023b. South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. Accessed September 2023. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance.

3.1 – AIR QUALITY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.1-46

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-1

3.2 Cultural Resources
This section describes the existing cultural resources conditions of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (Project or proposed Project) site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the Project.

The following analysis is based, in part, on the following sources:
▪ Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project, prepared by BCR Consulting LLC in September 2023 (Appendix C)
▪ Geotechnical Exploration Report for 1440-1462 Artesia Boulevard, prepared by Carl Kim Geotechnical Inc. in February 2022 (Appendix E)

3.2.1 Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing conditions on the Project site, including its environmental setting and the results of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) records searches, other background research, and pedestrian survey.

3.2.1.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is situated within the northernmost Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province (Norris and Webb 1990; CGS 2002). This geomorphic province is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys that extend over 900 miles from the tip of the Baja Peninsula to the Transverse Ranges (i.e., the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains in Southern California). Regionally, the Peninsular Ranges are bounded to the east by the Colorado Desert and the west by the continental shelf and offshore islands (Santa Catalina, Santa Barbara, San Nicholas, and San Clemente) (Norris and Webb 1990; CGS 2002). Regional mountain ranges in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province include the Santa Ana, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains. Geologically, these mountains are dominated by Mesozoic, plutonic igneous and metamorphic rocks that are part of the Peninsular Ranges Batholith (Southern California Batholith) (Jahns 1954).

More specifically, the Project site is situated within the physiographic area known as the Los Angeles Basin. It is characterized as a transverse-oriented lowland basin and coastal plain. The basin originated as a deep marine trough during the Pliocene (7–2 million years ago) that eventually filled with shallow water fossil bearing sediments. By the beginning of the Pleistocene (after 2 million years ago) uplifting created the series of plains and mesas along the coast that now characterize the area (Lambert 1994; Mendenhall 1905; Woodford et al. 1954). A review of the United States Geological Society (USGS) mineral resources (USGS 2023) online spatial data for geology indicates that the Project site consists of one geological unit. The entirety (100%) of the Project site is underlain by Older Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits from the Pleistocene epoch. Late Pleistocene-era alluvial formations do have the potential to support the presence of buried archaeological resources. These soils are associated with the period of prehistoric human use, as well as represent ongoing processes of development that have potential to preserve cultural material in context, depending on areaspecific topographical setting.

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-2
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2023a), soils within the northwestern portion of the Project site, which accounts for approximately 25% of the site, is dominated by Urban Land (565%) with minor components, including Aquic Xerothents (20%), Cropley (20%), and Grommet (5%). The remaining 75% of the Project site to the southeast, is dominated by Urban Land (50%) with minor components, including Thums (20%), Windfetch (15%), Sepulveda (10%), and Typic Argiaquolis (5%). The dominant soil series within the proposed Project site, Urban Land, refers to soils in areas of high population density in a largely built environment and can include human-transported or human-altered materials, minimally altered materials, or intact native soils (USDA 2019). The available official USDA soil descriptions for soil types identified within the Project site are provided below.

Cropley (USDA 2023b): The Cropley series consists of 0% to 15% slopes, characterized as very deep, moderately well and well drained soils that formed in alluvium from mixed rock sources. Cropley soils are on alluvial fans, floodplains and in small basins.

Grommet (USDA 2023c): The Grommet series consists of 0% to 12% slopes, characterized as well drained soils that formed in alluvium from mixed sedimentary sources. Grommet soils are on alluvial fans and inset fans.

Thums (USDA 2023d): The Thums series consists of 0% to 12% slopes, characterized as well drained soils that formed in uplifted alluvium from mixed rock sources and have a thin mantle of human transported material at the surface.

Windfetch (USDA 2023e): The Windfetch series consists of 0% to 12% slopes, characterized as well drained soils that formed in a thin, discontinuous layer of human transport materials (or Urban Land soils) overlying uplifted alluvium from marine and other mixed rock sources.

A review of previous and current subsurface geotechnical investigations performed within the Project site revealed that the site is generally underlain by varying amounts of undocumented fill and older alluvium. A review of the logs for the two subsurface geotechnical investigations completed in December 2021 indicates that asphalt and base overlies fill soils and these materials extend from surface to between 2 to 5 feet below current grade within the Project site and is underlain by alluvial soils that extend to the maximum depths explored between 50 and 65 feet below the current grade (Appendix E). The undocumented fill soils are described as silty sand and sandy silts with potentially isolated areas of buried debris consisting of bricks, asphalt, and concrete rubble that are associated with prior development and land uses (Appendix E).

Based on the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared for the Project site, the depths of ground disturbance for the proposed Project site is between 5 to 11 feet below the existing ground surface for Project site preparation, including the removal of all undocumented fill, underground obstructions, existing vegetation and debris on site and includes construction activities associated with utilities and foundation. Shoring activities are assumed not to exceed 20 feet below existing grade. The proposed new structure would only overlap with the remediated Haack Rework area. The remediation will be completed prior to the start of current proposed Project construction activities.

The portion of the Project that overlaps the Haack and Cooper sumps areas would be paved and utilized exclusively as a parking lot, which would be located atop ARC’s engineered cap as part of the DTSC-approved Final RAP.

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-3

3.2.1.2 Background Research
For a discussion of the historical land uses of the Project site, please see Section 2.3, Environmental Setting, in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR.

CHRIS Records Search
On May 19, 2022, a CHRIS records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. This archival research reviewed the status of all recorded historic-period and prehistoric cultural resources, and survey and excavation reports completed within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site. Additional resources reviewed included the National Register, the California Register, and documents and inventories published by the California Office of Historic Preservation. These include the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.

The SCCIC results revealed that 12 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within the records search area. None of the previous studies has address the Project site. SCCIC records also revealed that four cultural resources have been previously recorded within 0.5 miles of the Project site. These resources include one prehistoric site and three historic built environment resources; none these resources were identified within the Project site. A complete records search bibliography is provided in Appendix A of Appendix C of this EIR.

Native American Coordination
Sacred Lands File Search
A search of the NAHC’s SLF database was completed on May 18, 2022 with negative results (see Appendix C of Appendix C). It should be noted that Sacred Land Files maintained by the NAHC represent a curation of “sacred lands” or Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) provided by tribal entities and Native American representatives. For various reasons, tribal entities and Native American representatives do no not always report sacred lands or TCRs to the NAHC. As such, the NAHC’s SLF is not a comprehensive list, and searches of the SLF must be considered in concert with other research and not used as a sole source of information regarding the presence of TCRs or cultural resources.

3.2.1.3 Survey Methods and Results
An intensive-level cultural resources field survey of the Project site was conducted on June 21, September 9, and September 19, 2022. Only 3.5 acres (53.8% of the Project site) was accessible during the survey. The inaccessible eastern portion of the Project site once served as a petroleum dump site. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart across the accessible portions of the Project site. No prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources were identified within accessible portions of the Project as a result of the surveys performed. However, four buildings that are historic in age were identified.

These included the following:
▪ 1440 Artesia Boulevard. The subject property was constructed in 1940 and historic aerials confirm that it was in place before 1952. The original owners and occupants are unknown.

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-4
From 1962-1994, the subject property was occupied by Sabina J. Knight. At age 16, Sabina married 20-year-old Kenneth K. Knight in 1950, and in 1966 she worked as a waitress at the Smith Bros. Indian Village (U.S. Public Records Index 1950–1993; U.S. Marriage Index 1949– 1959; Los Angeles Times 20 January 1966). Research did not reveal additional details. This house was demolished in May 2023 as it constituted a public nuisance. ▪ 1450 Artesia Boulevard. The subject property was formerly the site of a brick manufacturing plant during the 1920s and 1930s, and the area immediately to the east was used as a refinery dump from the 1930s to the 1950s. All traces of brick manufacturing had been removed and the buildings at 1450 Artesia Boulevard were constructed in 1950. Historic aerials confirm Buildings A, B, and C were present by 1952. By the late 1950s dump operator William Russell Ward owned the subject property. Ward operated several dumps throughout the Los Angeles area, and newspaper research showed that Mr. Ward was implicated in overcharging for dumping fees along with Raymond Charles Christl, a known affiliate of Mickey Cohen. By the 1990s, Clarence Charles Haack and family owned the subject property. The refinery dump remains in place at the eastern end of the property and is commonly referred to as the Gardena Sumps. The northwestern portion of the Project site currently contains three warehouses (8,080 square feet, 825 square feet, and 3,159 square feet) and a variety of trailer-type storage structures that house several small businesses, including a U-Haul rental agency, a metal fabricating shop, a sandblasting and painting company and an auto body repair shop.
▪ 1462 Artesia Boulevard. The subject property is the site of a demolished residence that occupied 550 square feet and was constructed in 1923, according to assessor records. It was also demolished in May 2023 because it was a public nuisance. Since only a small portion of the house remains in place, it does not retain integrity and does warrant in-depth research. ▪ 1472 Artesia Boulevard. Los Angeles County Assessor records indicate a build-date of 1923, although historic aerial photos show that the property was vacant in 1952, and that the subject residence was constructed by 1963. Alterations include a stuccoed rear addition and vinyl windows, added at an unknown date. Research has indicated that the property was occupied by a business known as Ron’s Trucking in the 1960s. It is currently occupied, although it has been acquired by the Applicant and will be demolished as part of the Project.

3.2.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
State
The California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (PRC Section 5020.1[j]). In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, enumerated below.

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-5
A resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria (PRC Section 5024.1[c][1–4]):

Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.

Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14 CCR 4852[d][2]).

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. Prehistoric resources are those that pre-date written records, while historic resources reflect written records or recorded events of the past. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest.

The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

California Environmental Quality Act
The following CEQA statutes (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and TCRs:
▪ PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.” ▪ PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource”; it also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of a historical resource. ▪ PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.” ▪ PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony.
▪ PRC Sections 21083.2(b) and 21083.2(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures. Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with an archaeological site.

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-6
Under CEQA, a project may have a significant impact on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[b]). If a site is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1[q]), it is a “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for the purposes of CEQA (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]).

A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant impact under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR 15064.5[b][1]; PRC Section 5020.1[q]). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project does any of the following:

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 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 Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, 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 [CRHR] as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5[b][2]).

Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any “historical resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired.

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Sections 21083.2[a]–[c]).

Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria (PRC Section 21083.2[g]):

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

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-7
Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Impacts on non-unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC Section 21083.2[a]; 14 CCR 15064.5[c][4]). However, if a non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as a TCR (PRC Sections 21074[c] and 21083.2[h]), further consideration of significant impacts is required.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in PRC Section 5097.98.

Regarding paleontological resources, CEQA Guidelines require that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be evaluated against the potential for environmental damage, including effects to paleontological resources. Paleontological resources, which are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, and educational value, are recognized as part of the environment under these state guidelines. This study satisfies project requirements in accordance with CEQA (13 PRC, 21000 et seq.).

Paleontological resources are explicitly afforded protection by CEQA, specifically in Section VII(f) of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the “Environmental Checklist Form,” which addresses the potential for adverse impacts to “unique paleontological resource[s] or site[s] or … unique geological feature[s].” This provision covers fossils of signal importance – remains of species or genera new to science, for example, or fossils exhibiting features not previously recognized for a given animal group – as well as localities that yield fossils significant in their abundance, diversity, preservation, and so forth.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)
Pursuant to these sections, CEQA first evaluates whether a project site contains any “historical resources,” and if so, then assesses whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired.

When a project significantly affects a unique archaeological resource, CEQA imposes special mitigation requirements. Specifically, “[i]f it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Examples of that treatment, in no order of preference, may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:” “Planning construction to avoid archeological sites.”
“Deeding archeological sites into permanent conservation easements.” “Capping or covering archeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites.”

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-8
California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b)(1)-(4) If these “preservation in place” options are not feasible, mitigation may be accomplished through data recovery (PRC Section 21083.2[d]; 14 CCR 15126.4[b][3][C]). PRC Section 21083.2(d) states that “[e]xcavation as mitigation shall be restricted to those parts of the unique archeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. Excavation as mitigation shall not be required for a unique archeological resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, if this determination is documented in the environmental impact report.” These same requirements are set forth in slightly greater detail in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), as follows:

Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archeological sites.

Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site.

Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following:
a. Planning construction to avoid archeological sites;
b. Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; c. Covering the archeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site [; and] d. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken.

Note that, when conducting data recovery, “[i]f an artifact must be removed during project excavation or testing, curation may be an appropriate mitigation.” However, “[d]ata recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archeological or historic resource, provided that determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center” (14 CCR 15126.4[b][3][D]). “Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archeological sites.” California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California law protects human remains, Native American burials, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has examined the remains and determined that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-9
investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC (PRC Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (PRC Section 7050.5[c]). The NAHC will notify the “most likely descendant” (MLD). With the permission of the landowner, the MLD may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 48 hours of notification of the MLD by NAHC. The MLD may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans.

Local
City of Gardena General Plan 2006
The City of Gardena General Plan contains the following goals and policies that address cultural resources and are applicable to the Project (City of Gardena 2006).

Conservation Plan: Cultural Resources
CN Goal 5. Protect the City’s cultural resources.

Policy CN 5.1. Maintain an inventory of the City’s historical resources, including a survey of buildings of architectural, cultural or historical significance.

Policy CN 5.2. Provide provisions in the Municipal Code to protect historical and cultural resources.

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

3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project impacts related to cultural resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to cultural resources would occur if the Project would:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-10
Based on the results of the Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix A), all three thresholds are evaluated in this section of the Draft EIR:

CUL-1 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
CUL-2 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
CUL-3 Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

3.2.4 Impact Analysis
Threshold CUL-1. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project and is included as Appendix C of this EIR. As discussed therein, four properties with historic period buildings were identified. CEQA calls for the evaluation and recordation of historic and archaeological resources. The criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register.

Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review under CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, or designation under a local ordinance.

Based on the results of the Cultural Resources Assessment, none of the four properties with historic period buildings are recommended eligible for the California Register of Historic Places or as a City Landmark. No other cultural resources of any kind have been identified within the Project site. As such, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.

Threshold CUL-2. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
A CHRIS database records search, NAHC SLF database search, background research, including a review of a geotechnical report, and archaeological pedestrian surveys were conducted in support of the proposed Project. Historical land use of the Project site included the Gardena Sumps in the northeastern portion of the Project site, which was used as a sludge disposal site through the 1950s.

A review of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs through the Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) depicts the Dominguez Channel as intersecting and overlapping the Project site as early as 1896. In the early 1950s, the Dominguez Channel is depicted as undergoing channelization. By 1963, the segment of the Dominguez Channel adjacent to the Project site is depicted as fully constructed and relocated from its historical location to the southern end of the Project site (NETR 2023). The CHRIS records search identified four previously recorded cultural resources within the 0.5-mile records search area. No record of previously recorded historicperiod or prehistoric archaeological resources are on file with the SCCIC as being present within the Project site. A review of the CHRIS records search results also indicates that 12 cultural resource studies have been conducted have been conducted within the records search area. None of the

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-11
previous studies has addressed the Project site. A search of the NAHC’s SLF database yielded negative results for any reported Native American cultural resources within proximity to or within the Project site. Additionally, no archaeological resources were observed within the Project site as a result of the pedestrian survey.

A review of the available geotechnical report prepared for the Project site determined that asphalt and base overlying fill soils were encountered from surface to between 2 to 5 feet below current grade within the two exploratory boring locations to the northeast and south of the proposed selfstorage building and is underlain by alluvial soils that extend to the maximum depths explored between 50 and 65 feet below the current grade. Based on the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared for the Project site, the depth of ground disturbance for the proposed Project site is between 5 to 11 feet below the existing ground surface for site preparation, including the removal of all undocumented fill, underground obstructions, existing vegetation and debris on site and includes construction activities associated with utilities and foundation. Shoring activities are assumed not to exceed 15 feet below existing grade. The proposed new structure would only overlap with the remediated Haack Rework area. The remediation will be completed prior to the start of current proposed Project construction activities. The portion of the Project that overlaps the Haack and Cooper sumps areas would be paved and utilized exclusively as a parking lot, which would be located atop ARC’s engineered cap as part of the DTSC-approved Final RAP.

In consideration of all these factors, the potential to encounter intact deposits containing archaeological resources within soils from the current grade and between 2 and 5 feet below existing ground surface is unlikely. However, the potential for intact cultural deposits to exist within native soils (below between 2 and 5 feet below existing ground surface) to the depths of proposed ground disturbance (between 5 to 11 feet, with maximum depth of an assumed 15 feet below grade for shoring activities), is unknown.

Given that the Dominguez Creek historically flowed through the Project site prior to channelization, there is a potential for the proposed Project site to be buried in alluvial and flood deposits. For these reasons, the Project site should be treated as potentially sensitive for archaeological resources. In the event that unanticipated archaeological resources are encountered during Project implementation, impacts to these resources would be potentially significant.

Thus, mitigation is required to address impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources during construction, as outlined in MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, and MM-CUL-3. Mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 requires that all Project construction personnel participate in a Workers Environmental Awareness Program training for the proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. Mitigation measure MM-CUL-2 requires the retention of an on-call qualified archaeologist to respond to and address inadvertent discoveries, as well as survey the Project site after the removal of fill soils to ensure no cultural deposits underly the fill layer. Mitigation measure MM-CUL-3 requires construction work occurring within 100 feet of a cultural resource discovery be immediately halted until the qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, can assess and evaluate the discovery pursuant to CEQA. Additionally, MM-CUL-3 requires the inadvertent discovery clause be included on all construction plans. With implementation of MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, and MM-CUL-3, potentially significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-12
Threshold CUL-3 Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No prehistoric or historic period burials, within or outside of formal cemeteries, were identified within the Project site as a result of the CHRIS records search or pedestrian survey. In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during ground disturbing activities, they would be treated consistent with state and local regulations including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the Project site or off-site improvement areas or any nearby (no less than 100 feet) area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are potentially human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she is required to notify the NAHC that shall notify those persons believed to be the most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to human remains resulting from the Project would be less than significant.

3.2.5 Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-1 Workers Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction activities, all construction personnel and monitors shall be trained regarding identification and treatment protocol for inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources (archaeological and tribal) and human remains. A basic presentation and handout or pamphlet shall be prepared in order to ensure proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources and human remains. The purpose of the Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training is to provide specific details on the kinds of materials that may be identified during ground disturbing activities and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of human remains and significant cultural resources. Each worker shall also be trained in the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities. These procedures include but are not limited to work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and archaeological monitoring staff.

MM-CUL-2 Retention of an On-Call Qualified Archaeologist. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained and on-call to respond and address any inadvertent discoveries identified Project implementation. Additionally, in consideration of the potential to encounter intact cultural deposits beneath fill soils, the qualified archaeologist shall survey the proposed Project site once fill soils have been removed to ensure no cultural deposits underly the fill layer. If is determined, based on the aforementioned survey, that cultural resources are present or may be present and may be impacted during Project construction, monitoring may be warranted. Additionally, any identified cultural resources shall be assessed and evaluated pursuant to CEQA. If it is determined that monitoring is warranted, a qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-13
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall oversee and adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits or material. The archaeological monitor will be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs.

MM-CUL-3 Inadvertent Discovery Clause. In the event that potential archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during ground disturbing, all construction work occurring not less than 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop and the qualified archaeologist that has been retained on call must be notified immediately to assess the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under the CEQA, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work (e.g., preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, data recovery, or monitoring) may be warranted if the resource cannot be feasibly avoided. If the discovery is Native American in nature, consultation with and/or monitoring by a tribal representative may be necessary.

3.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold CUL-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Impacts would be less than significant; as such, no mitigation is required.

Threshold CUL-2: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? The Project would result in potentially significant impacts with regard to a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. With incorporation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3, impacts associated with archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Threshold CUL-3: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The Project would result in potentially significant impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. With compliance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, impacts associated with human remains would be less than significant.

3.2.7 Cumulative Effects
Potential cumulative impacts to cultural and historical resources would result from projects that combine to create an environment where cultural and historical resources are vulnerable to destruction by demolition or alteration, earthmoving equipment, looting by the public, and natural causes such as weathering and erosion. The majority of impacts to cultural and historical resources are site-specific and

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-14
are therefore generally mitigated on a project-by-project basis. Cumulative projects would be required to assess impacts to cultural resources. Additionally, as needed, projects would incorporate individual mitigation for site-specific cultural resources and conditions present for each individual project site.

Furthermore, the Project does not propose construction (including grading/excavation) or design features that could directly or indirectly contribute to an increase in a cumulative impact to known cultural and historical resources, as the mitigation measures provided in analysis conducted for this Project ensures any significant cultural resources uncovered during Project implementation would be properly identified, evaluated, and treated by qualified archaeologist. Therefore, the Project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Project vicinity, would result in less-thansignificant cumulative impacts to cultural and historical resources, and no further mitigation measures are required. Moreover, impacts to cultural resources would be avoided and/or mitigated with implementation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. As such, cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be less than significant.

3.2.8 References
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces: Note 36. 4 pp.

City of Gardena. 2006. General Plan Conservation Plan. Accessed September 2023. https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/generalplan7.pdf.

Jahns, R.H. 1954. Geology of the Peninsular Range Province, Southern California and Baja California; California Division Mines Bull. 170: 24 pp.

Lambert, David. 1994. The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life. Diagram Visual Information Limited. New York.

Mendenhall, W.C. 1905. Developments of Underground Waters in the Eastern Coastal Plain Regions of Southern California. USGS Water Supply Paper, Number 137.

NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC). 2023. Historical Topographic maps and Aerial Photographs of Project Site. Accessed September 2023. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb. 1990. Geology of California (2nd edition). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 541 pp.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2019. Urban Soils Fact Sheet. Accessed September 2023. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/Urban-Soils-Fact-Sheet.pdf.

USDA. 2023a. Web Soil Survey. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff.

Accessed September 2023. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

USDA. 2023b. Natural Resources Conservation Service Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed September 2023. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CROPLEY.html

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-15
USDA. 2023c. Natural Resources Conservation Service Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed September 2023. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GROMMET.html USDA. 2023d. Natural Resources Conservation Service Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed September 2023. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/T/THUMS.html USDA. 2023e. Natural Resources Conservation Service Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed September 2023. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/W/WINDFETCH.html USGS (United States Geological Society). 2023. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. Interactive maps and downloadable data for regional and global analysis. Accessed September 2023. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/
Woodford, A.O., J.E. Schuellhamer, J.E. Wooder, and R.F. Yerkes. 1954. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin.

In Geology of Southern California, Bulletin 170. Division of Mines and Geology. San Francisco.

3.2 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.2-16

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-1

3.3 Energy
This section describes the existing energy conditions of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (Project) site and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures (if any) related to implementation of the proposed Project.

Information contained in this section is based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1, to estimate the Project’s energy consumption from both construction and operations.

For the relevant data, refer to the following appendix:
▪ Appendix D, Energy Assessment, dated June 2024

3.3.1 Existing Conditions

3.3.1.1 Electricity and Natural Gas Services
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical services to the City through state-regulated public utility contracts. Over the past 15 years, electricity generation in California has undergone a transition. Historically, California has relied heavily on oil- and gas-fired plants to generate electricity.

Spurred by regulatory measures and tax incentives, California’s electrical system has become more reliant on renewable energy sources; including cogeneration, wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, biomass conversion, transformation plants, and small hydroelectric plants. Unlike petroleum production, electricity generation is not usually tied to the location of the fuel source and can be delivered great distances via the electrical grid. The generating capacity of a unit of electricity is expressed in megawatts (MW). Net generation refers to the gross amount of energy produced by a unit, minus the amount of energy the unit consumes. Generation is typically measured in megawatthours (MWh), kilowatt-hours (kWh), or gigawatt-hours (GWh).

Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas services within the City. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon fuel found in reservoirs beneath the earth’s surface and is composed primarily of methane (CH4). It is used for space and water heating, process heating and electricity generation, and as transportation fuel. Use of natural gas to generate electricity is expected to increase in coming years because it is a relatively clean alternative to other fossil fuels (e.g., oil and coal). In California and throughout the western United States, many new electrical generation plants fired by natural gas are being brought online. Thus, there is great interest in importing liquefied natural gas from other parts of the world. California’s natural gas-fired electric generation increased by 2% in 2021, accounting for 50% of in-state generation (CEC 2021).

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

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-2

3.3.1.2 Energy Usage
Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy usage in California was 7,202.6 trillion BTUs in 2021 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available) (EIA 2021). Of California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 37.8% transportation, 23.2% industrial, 19.0% commercial, and 20.0% residential (EIA 2022). Electricity and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users such as residences, commercial, and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use. In 2021, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California accounted for 13,919,678,835 gallons of gasoline (CDTFA 2022).

The electricity consumption attributable to Los Angeles County from 2011 to 2021 is shown in Table

3.3-1. As indicated in Table 3.3-1, electricity consumption in Los Angeles County increased steadily between 2011 and 2014 and relatively decreased between 2015 and 2021.

Table 3.3-1. Electricity Consumption Los Angeles County 2011–2021 Year
Electricity Consumption
(in millions of kilowatt hours)
2011 68,180
2012 69,248
2013 68,342
2014 69,924
2015 69,503
2016 69,390
2017 68,632
2018 67,887
2019 66,805
2020 65,650
2021 65,375
Source: CEC 2022a.

The natural gas consumption attributable to Los Angeles County from 2010 to 2021 is shown in Table 3.3-2. Similar to electricity consumption, natural gas consumption in Los Angeles County relatively decreased between 2011 and 2015 and increased between 2016 and 2019 with a reduction between 2020 and 2021.

Table 3.3-2. Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011–2021 Year Natural Gas Consumption (in millions of therms)
2011 3,055
2012 2,985
2013 3,065
2014 2,794

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-3
Table 3.3-2. Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011–2021 Year Natural Gas Consumption (in millions of therms)
2015 2,761
2016 2,878
2017 2,956
2018 2,922
2019 3,048
2020 2,937
2021 2,881
Source: CEC 2022b.

Automotive fuel consumption in Los Angeles County from 2011 to 2021 is shown in Table 3.3-3. As shown in Table 3.3-3, on-road automotive fuel consumption in Los Angeles County relatively increased from 2011 to 2017 and decreased between 2018 and 2020 with a slight increase in 2021. Heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption increased between 2012 and 2017 and decreased between 2018 and 2020 with an increase in 2021 and 2022.

Table 3.3-3. Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County 2011–2022 Year
On-Road Automotive Fuel
Consumption (gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel
Consumption (Construction
Equipment) (gallons)
2011 3,745,485,930 434,920,563
2012 3,714,743,617 430,477,995
2013 3,720,160,331 453,247,552
2014 3,754,124,477 457,345,104
2015 3,864,098,889 462,749,587
2016 3,990,292,164 489,895,770
2017 3,961,448,725 506,904,226
2018 3,914,668,171 494,484,395
2019 3,844,847,561 492,605,543
2020 3,381,588,164 491,579,947
2021 3,816,162,983 507,214,212
2022 3,774,778,086 526,229,424
Source: CARB 2021.

3.3.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
The following is a description of federal, state, and local environmental laws and policies related to energy consumption that are relevant to the proposed Project.

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-4
Federal
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act and CAFE Standards In 1975, Congress enacted the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards. In 2012, new CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks were approved for model years 2017 through 2021 (77 FR 62624–63200). Fuel economy is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the fleet of vehicles available for sale in the United States.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. The act includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. The act requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light-duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in the act. Federal tax deductions are allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. The Energy Policy Act also requires states to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was signed into law. In addition to setting increased CAFE standards for motor vehicles, the EISA facilitates the reduction of national GHG emissions by requiring the following:
▪ Increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. ▪ Prescribing or revising standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
▪ Requiring approximately 25% greater efficiency for light bulbs by phasing out incandescent light bulbs between 2012 and 2014; requiring approximately 200% greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020.
▪ While superseded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NHTSA actions described previously, establishing miles per gallon targets for cars and light trucks and directing the NHTSA to establish a fuel economy program for medium-and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for trucks.

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-5
This federal legislation requires ever-increasing levels of renewable fuels (the RFS) to replace petroleum (EPA 2024). EPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to facilitate that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains at least a minimum volume of renewable fuel.

The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under the Energy Policy Act, the original RFS program required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the EISA, the RFS program was expanded in several ways that laid the foundation for achieving significant reductions in GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of the renewable fuels sector in the United States. The updated program is referred to as “RFS2” and includes the following:
▪ The EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline. ▪ The EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. ▪ The EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one.
▪ The EISA required EPA to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of green (environmentally beneficial) jobs.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 promoted the development of intermodal transportation systems to maximize mobility and address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors for metropolitan planning organizations to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, metropolitan planning organizations adopted policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was signed into law in 1998 and builds on the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation (previously discussed). The Transportation Equity Act authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. The act continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of transportation decisions. The Transportation Equity Act also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of intelligent transportation systems to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety.

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-6
State
Warren-Alquist Act
The California legislature passed the Warren-Alquist Act in 1974. The Warren-Alquist Act created the California Energy Commission (CEC). The legislation also incorporated the following three key provisions designed to address the demand side of the energy equation:
▪ The act directed the CEC to formulate and adopt the nation’s first energy conservation standards for buildings constructed and appliances sold in California. ▪ The act removed the responsibility of electricity demand forecasting from the utilities, which had a financial interest in high-demand projections, and transferred it to a more impartial CEC. ▪ The CEC was directed to embark on an ambitious research and development program, with a particular focus on fostering what were characterized as non-conventional energy sources.

Energy Conservation
In 1975, largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, the California State legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1575 (AB 1575), which created the California Energy Commission (CEC). The statutory mission of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs, license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger, develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources, plan for and direct state responses to energy emergencies, and, perhaps most importantly, promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards. AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) to require Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) to consider the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project.

Thereafter, the State Resources Agency created Appendix F, Energy Conservation, in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists EIR preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018. New CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) treats “wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary” energy consumption as a significant environmental impact. As a result, energy thresholds have been incorporated into Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This section has been prepared to assess energy impacts in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

State of California Energy Action Plan
CEC and CPUC approved the first State of California Energy Action Plan in 2003. The Energy Action Plan established shared goals and specific actions to support that adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies are provided, and identified policies, strategies, and actions that are cost effective and environmentally sound for California’s consumers and taxpayers.

In 2005, CEC and CPUC adopted a second Energy Action Plan to reflect various policy changes and actions of the preceding 2 years.

At the beginning of 2008, CEC and CPUC determined that it was not necessary or productive to prepare a new Energy Action Plan. This determination was based, in part, on a finding that the state’s

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-7
energy policies have been significantly influenced by the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (discussed in “Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32”).

Rather than produce a new Energy Action Plan, CEC and CPUC prepared an update that examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.

Assembly Bill 1007 (2005)
AB 1007 (2005) required the CEC to prepare a statewide plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California (State Alternative Fuels Plan). The CEC prepared the plan in partnership with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and in consultation with other state agencies, plus federal and local agencies. The State Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings (Title 24) Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission [CEC]) in June 1977 and are updated every 3 years (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The current Title 24, Part 6 standards referred to as the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2023.

The 2022 Standards improve upon the 2019 Standards. Under the 2022 Title 24 standards, newly constructed residential and commercial buildings encourage electric heat pump technology for space and water heating, electric-ready requirements for single-family homes to position owners to use cleaner electric heating, cooking and electric vehicle (EV) charging options, expand solar PV system and battery storage standards, and strengthen ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.

Title 24 also includes Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen establishes minimum mandatory standards as well as voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The 2022 CALGreen standards are the current applicable standards.

California Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan in 2011 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and a reduction in greenhouse gases (CPUC 2011). Assembly Bill 1109, adopted in 2007, also serves as a framework for lighting efficiency. This bill requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards as a means to reduce average statewide electrical energy consumption by not less than 50% from the 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting and not less than 25% from the 2007 levels for indoor commercial and outdoor lighting by 2018. According to the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, lighting

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-8
comprises approximately one-fourth of California’s electricity use while non-residential sector exterior lighting (parking lot, area, walkway, and security lighting) usage comprises 1.4% of California’s total electricity use, much of which occurs during limited occupancy periods.

Renewable Portfolio Standard
In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard program with the goal of increasing the annual percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix by the equivalent of at least 1% of sales, with an aggregate total of 20% by 2017. The California Public Utilities Commission subsequently accelerated that goal to 2010 for retail sellers of electricity (Public Utilities Code Section 399.15[b][1]). Then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 in 2008, increasing the target to 33% renewable energy by 2020. In September 2009, then-Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S-21-09, which directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help the state meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33% renewable energy by 2020. In September 2010, CARB adopted its Renewable Electricity Standard regulations, which require all of the state’s load-serving entities to meet this target. In October 2015, then-Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill 350, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030.

Signed in 2018, SB 100 revised the goal of the program to achieve the 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100% carbon-free electricity target.

Local
City of Gardena Climate Action Plan
The 2017 City of Gardena Climate Action Plan (Gardena CAP) establishes a series of energy efficiency related measures intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based on the AB 32 Scoping Plan (City of Gardena 2017). Those applicable to the Project are Renewables Portfolio Standard for Building Energy Use, Assembly Bill 1109 Energy Efficiency Standards for Lighting, Electricity Energy Efficiency, Residential Energy Efficiency Standards, Commercial Energy Efficiency Requirements and Residential Renewable Energy Requirements.

City of Gardena General Plan
The City of Gardena adopted their General Plan in 2006. The Conservation Element contains the following goal and policies that pertain to energy:

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

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

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

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-9
Policy 4.3: Encourage the residential and business community to install energy saving features and appliances in existing structures.

3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine whether they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. This analysis will focus on these effects and offer mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts that are identified. The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts may vary depending on the nature of the project. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant impact related to energy, if it would:

Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation; and/or
Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Based on the results of the Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix A), the following thresholds of significance are used to evaluate potential energy impacts associated with the Project:

ENG-1. Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
ENG-2. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

3.3.4 Methodology
The impact analysis focuses on the three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project:
electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the Project as well as the fuel necessary for Project construction. Electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel use for the Project was determined from the California Emissions Estimator Model used for the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical analyses. While Section 3.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, includes PDFGHG-1 requiring electrification of the Project to be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan, the analysis in this section conservatively assumed natural gas usage for informational purposes. As correctly noted in PDF-GHG-1, the Project would be designed to be all-electric. See details in Appendix D of this EIR.

3.3.5 Impact Analysis
Threshold ENG-1: Would the Project result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources?
Energy consumption associated with the Project is summarized in Table 3.3-4. As shown in Table 3.3- 4, the Project’s increase in electricity usage would constitute approximately 0.0026% of the typical

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-10
annual electricity usage and approximately 0.0024% of the typical annual natural gas consumption in the County. Construction-related off-road automotive fuel consumption (i.e., fuel consumed during construction) would constitute approximately 0.0119% of the diesel and 0.0003% of the gasoline consumption within the County. During operations, on-road automotive fuel consumption (i.e., fuel consumed from operational vehicle trips to and from the Project site) would constitute approximately

0.0150% of the diesel and approximately 0.0024% of the gasoline consumption within the County.

Table 3.3-4. Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Type
Project Annual
Energy
Consumption
Los Angeles County
Annual Energy
Consumption1,2
Percentage of
Countywide
Consumption
Operational Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity Consumption 4,520,192 kWh 65,374,721,369 kWh 0.0071% Natural Gas Consumption3 63,561 therms 2,880,994,891
therms

0.0022%
Automotive Fuel Consumption4
Project Construction5,6
Diesel 65,171 gallons 526,229,424 gallons 0.0124%
Gasoline 8,960 gallons 3,774,778,086
gallons

0.0002%
Project Operations7
Diesel 103,762 gallons 526,229,424 gallons 0.0197%
Gasoline 131,992 gallons 3,774,778,086
gallons

0.0035%
Source: Refer to Appendix D for assumptions used in this analysis.

Notes:
1 The Project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared with the total consumption in Los Angeles County in 2021.
2 The Project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the countywide fuel consumption (projected) in 2025.
3 It is noted that although the proposed Project would preclude natural gas infrastructure per Project Design Feature (PDF) GHG-1 from the 1450 Artesia Boulevard Specific Plan Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (Kimley-Horn, June 2024), this analysis conservatively estimates Project energy consumption from natural gas
4 Countywide fuel consumption is from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2021 model. 5 Construction fuel consumption is based on equipment and load factors from California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2022.1).
6 The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the Project’s construction equipment list timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips.
7 Due to CARB’s Zero-Emission Off-Road Forklift Regulation Phase 1 requiring on-site forklifts to be non-diesel, diesel use is solely from truck operations.

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-11
Construction-Related Energy
During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, and building construction. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with state requirements that equipment not in use for more than 5 minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest EPA and California Air Resources Board engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.

Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materials composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non-recycled materials. In addition, the recycled materials can be less expensive than virgin materials, particularly if they are sourced locally and have lower transportation costs (Construction Engineering 2023). The incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest in minimizing the cost of doing business.

As shown in Table 3.3-4, the overall diesel fuel consumption during construction of the Project would be 65,171 gallons and gasoline consumption would be 8,960 gallons, which would result in a nominal increase in fuel use in the County. Further, the energy use associated with water use during construction would result in 6,316 kW. As such, Project construction would have a minimal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-12
Operational Energy
Energy Demand
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Table 3.3-4 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. As indicated in Table 3.3-4, Project operations are estimated to consume approximately 103,762 gallons of diesel fuel and 131,992 gallons of gasoline fuel per year, which constitutes approximately 0.019% and 0.0035% of Countywide consumption, respectively. The Project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

Building Energy Demand
Operation of the Project would require approximately 4,819,410 kWh of electricity per year and approximately 63,561 therms of natural gas per year. The Project would comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCGE, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 36% of total procurement by 2020 and to 60% of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources that are naturally replenished within a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources.

As shown in Table 3.3-4, operational energy consumption would represent an approximate 0.0071% of electricity consumption of the current Countywide usage. The Project would adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. As such, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy.

Special Events
The various special events to be hosted two to three times per month are anticipated to attract an average of 220 attendees in addition to the 725 estimated daily vehicle trips. According to the 1450 Artesia Blvd Special Events Trip Generation Technical Memorandum (Special Events Trip Generation Memorandum) (Kimley-Horn, June 2023), these 250 attendees are estimated to generate an additional 220 vehicle trips to the Project site on special event days. Since special events are only expected to occur a few times a month, the additional vehicle trips would not significantly increase

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-13
the annual energy consumption that result from mobile sources as compared to the standard operations of the Project. To account for the special events similar to the GHG analysis, VMT was increased 3% for fuel usage.

Summary
As shown in Table 3.3-4, the increase in electricity and automotive fuel consumption over existing conditions is minimal. For the reasons described above, the Project would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. Thus, the Project would not cause a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during Project construction, operation, and/or maintenance, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold ENG-2 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings based on a state mandate to reduce California’s energy demand.

Specifically, Title 24 addresses a number of energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including the energy impact of the building envelope such as windows, doors, skylights, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs.

Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 per state regulations. In accordance with Title 24 Part 6, the Project would have: (a) sensor-based lighting controls— for fixtures located near windows, the lighting would be adjusted by taking advantage of available natural light; and, (b) efficient process equipment—improved technology offers significant savings through more efficient processing equipment.

Title 24, Part 11, contains voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under the California Green Building Standards Code. As discussed above, the Project would result in an increased demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. In accordance with Title 24 Part 11 mandatory compliance, the Applicant would have (a) 50% of its construction and demolition waste diverted from landfills; (b) mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; (c) low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards; and (d) a 20% reduction in indoor water use. Compliance with all of these mandatory measures would decrease the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum.

The Gardena CAP establishes a series of energy efficiency related measures intended to reduce GHG emissions based on the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Those applicable to the Project are Renewables Portfolio Standard for Building Energy Use, Assembly Bill 1109 Energy Efficiency Standards for Lighting, Electricity Energy Efficiency, Residential Energy Efficiency Standards, Commercial Energy Efficiency Requirements and Residential Renewable Energy Requirements.

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-14
The Project would not conflict with any of the federal, state, or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because the Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24 and with Gardena CAP measures, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur. Therefore, impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans would be considered less than significant.

3.3.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. As such, no mitigation measures are required.

3.3.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold ENG-1: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
The Project would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. No mitigation is required.

Threshold ENG-2: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

3.3.8 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative projects that could exacerbate the Project’s impacts include any projects that could result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. However, cumulative projects would be required by the City of Gardena, to conform to current federal, state, and local energy conservation standards, including the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR Part 6), the CALGreen Code (24 CCR Part 11), and SB 743.

By complying with the above regulatory measures, the Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would not cause a wasteful use of energy or other non-renewable natural resources.

Therefore, the energy demand and use associated with the Project and cumulative projects would not substantially contribute to a cumulative impact on existing or proposed energy supplies or resources and would not cause a significant cumulative impact on energy resources. As such, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of electricity would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans for renewable energy as it would implement energy-saving measures pursuant to Title 24 and would comply with the Gardena CAP. Other projects, including development throughout the state, would also be subject to the Title 24 standards in place at the time of construction. It is speculative whether other projects would conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy. However, future projects would be subject to CEQA and evaluate whether

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-15
they would conflict with applicable plans. As such, the Project in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would not conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to renewable energy or energy efficiency would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant.

3.3.9 References
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2021. EMFAC2021 Web Database. Available at:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac
CDTFA (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration). 2022. January 2022 – Motor Vehicle Fuel 10 Year Reports, https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm, accessed June 30, 2022.

CEC. 2021. 2020 Total System Electric Generation, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/ energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation, accessed June 30, 2022.

CEC. 2022a, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/, accessed June 30, 2022.

CEC. 2022b. Natural Gas Consumption by County, http://www. ecdms.energy.ca.gov/, accessed June 30, 2022.

City of Gardena, Gardena Climate Action Plan, 2017.

Construction Engineering. 2023. “What are the benefits and challenges of using recycled materials in construction projects?”. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/advice/3/what-benefitschallenges-using-recycled-1f.

CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2011. Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, 2011.

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2021. Table F33: Total energy consumption, price, and expenditure estimates, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/ state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_te.html&sid=CA, accessed August 8, 2023.

EIA. 2022. Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates, https://www.eia.gov/ state/?sid=CA, accessed June 30, 2022.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2024. Regulations and Volume Standards for Renewable Fuel Standards. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/ regulations-and-volume-standards-renewable-fuel-standards, accessed July 2024.

3.3 – ENERGY
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.3-16

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-1

3.4 Geology and Soils
This section describes the existing geological conditions of the Project site and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, cumulative impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (Project or proposed Project). The analysis of the potential Project impacts related to geology and soils is partly based on information provided in a site-specific geotechnical report conducted by Carl Kim Geotechnical Inc., dated February 4, 2022, which is included as Appendix E to this EIR.

Paleontological resources were considered and evaluated as part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, included as Appendix C to this EIR.

Information contained in this section is based on the above referenced reports of the Project area and other publicly available information from the United States Geological Survey, the California Geological Survey (CGS), and Southern California Earthquake Data Center. Other sources consulted are listed in Section 3.4.8, References.

3.4.1 Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing conditions in the Project area and identifies the resources that could be affected by the Project.

Regional Geologic Setting
The City of Gardena (City) is located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, which extends from the Los Angeles Basin south of the Santa Monica Mountains to the tip of Baja California and includes the San Jacinto and Santa Ana Mountain Ranges, as well as Santa Catalina Island (CGS 2002). The Peninsula Ranges province is characterized by elongated northwest-trending mountain ranges separated by straight-sided sediment floored valleys. The northwest trend is further reflected in the direction of the dominant geologic structural features of the province, which are northwesttrending faults and folds created by the boundary of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates.

The lateral movement of these plates has created shear zones that have produced the San Andreas fault zone as well as other regional faults. Regional faults in the vicinity of the Project area include the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, Palos Verde, Whittier-Elsinore, Raymond, Hollywood, Whittier, and Santa Monica faults (CGS 2023).

Topography
The Project site and surrounding area is part of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain and generally relatively level in an urban, developed commercial and residential area, with little of the natural topography remaining. The developed portion of the Project site on the western side is at an elevation of approximately 29 feet above mean sea level (amsl) with a slight gradient towards the south southeast. The current grade ranges from about elevation 38 feet amsl in the southern portion of the site to about 19 feet amsl along the east edge of the site. The western portion of the site where the former sump disposal areas (also known as the Gardena Sumps or Cooper and Haack Sumps) were located, appears to currently be at an elevation that is a few feet below the surrounding grade.

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-2
Subsurface Soils
Based on geotechnical borings completed at the Project site as part of a site-specific geotechnical investigation, on-site geologic materials encountered included varying amounts of artificial fill and sludge-bearing undocumented fill overlying native alluvial soils (Appendix E). The artificial fill soils were encountered to a depth of approximately 5 feet below ground surface and may contain buried debris (e.g., bricks, asphalt, and concrete rubble). The artificial fill materials are generally characterized as silty sand and sandy silts. The undocumented sludge-bearing fill materials are associated with the former sump locations on the eastern portion of the site and include mixtures of sand, silt clay, brick or other debris along with zones of materials described as “sludge” (Appendix E).

The sludge was generally described in the geotechnical report as “acidic, black, soft to dense, dry to wet, vitreous to fibrous, semi-solidified to solidified tar” (Appendix E). The sludge material was also found to be layered with fine sand, and occasionally silt and clay soil. In the areas of the sumps, the undocumented fills and sludge fills are deeper and can range up to 16 feet deep. The native alluvial soils were found to generally consist of silty sand, sandy silt, silt, and some clay layers (Appendix E).

At depths of approximately 25 to 30 feet below ground surface, finer grained layers of clay of silt become more prevalent (Appendix E).

Seismicity and Faulting
The Los Angeles Basin is located in a very seismically active region with numerous large and wellknown faults that have greatly influenced landforms and seismicity of the area (Figure 3.4-1, Regional Faults). The fault closest to the Project site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately

2.6 miles to the east of the Project site. Other significant faults in the region include the Palos Verde Fault Zone, the Whittier-Elsinore Fault System, the Santa Monica Fault Zone, the Hollywood Fault, the Raymond Fault, and the Puente Hills and Elysian Park blind thrusts (Appendix E).

According to criteria established by the California Geological Survey, faults are categorized as follows:
▪ Holocene-active faults: faults that have shown evidence of displacement within the past approximately 11,700 years (i.e., Holocene time). These faults exhibit signs of geologically recent movement, are considered most likely to experience movement in the near future, and are capable of surface fault rupture. Faults that meet these criteria are known as “active faults.” ▪ Pre-Holocene faults: faults that have not shown evidence of displacement in the past 11,700 years but are known to have displaced materials between 11,700 and 2 million years ago (i.e., Quaternary time). These faults were once known as “potentially active faults” and may be capable of seismicity (i.e., earthquakes), but are considered unlikely to cause surface rupture. ▪ Age-undetermined faults: faults where the recency of fault movement has not been determined. These faults are considered “inactive faults.” Site Location
Legend
Historic
Holocene
Late Quaternary
Quaternary
Regional Faults
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
FIGURE 3.4-1 SOURCE: USGS; CA Department of Conservation; CKGEO 2022 Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-4

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-5
Holocene-active faults have been responsible for large historical earthquakes in Southern California, including the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (moment magnitude1 [Mw] 6.7), the 1992 Landers earthquake (Mw 7.3), the 2019 Searles Valley earthquake (Mw 7.1), the 1952 Kern County earthquake (Mw 7.5), and the 1933 Long Beach earthquake (Mw 6.4). The moment magnitude is the most commonly used method of describing the size of earthquakes. It measures the size of seismic events in terms of how much energy is released, and it relates to the amount of rock movement. The Southern California region also includes blind thrust faults, which are faults that do not rupture at the surface but are capable of generating substantial earthquakes and associated ground shaking. Examples include the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake (Mw 5.9) and the 1994 Northridge earthquake (Mw 6.7). Both of these earthquakes occurred on previously unidentified blind thrust faults.

Most of the Holocene-active faults in California are recognized as fault zones in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Fault zones are defined as a region, varying in width but typically approximately 0.25 miles in width, that bounds major fault traces. The Project site is not located within or immediately adjacent to any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS 2023).

Regional Holocene-active faults within the vicinity of the Project site are listed in Table 3.4-1, Regional Faulting, and are described in the following subsections. Distances from the Project site to individual faults represent the distance to the nearest fault segment within the respective fault zones.

San Andreas Fault
The Holocene-active San Andreas Fault is California’s most prominent structural feature, trending in a generally northwest direction for almost the entire length of the state. The southern segment of the fault is approximately 280 miles long, extending from the Mexican border into the Transverse Ranges west of Tejon Pass. Along this segment, there is no single traceable fault line; rather, the fault is composed of several branches. The fault is located approximately 47 miles to the northeast of the Project site and is capable of producing up to a Mw 8.25 earthquake (CGS 2023; CIT 2023).

Newport-Inglewood Fault
The Holocene-active Newport-Inglewood Fault is located approximately 2.6 miles to the east of the Project site and extends from the southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains southeastward to an area offshore of Newport Beach and possibly offshore beyond San Diego. This zone can be traced at the surface by following a line of relatively young anticlinal (folded) hills and mesas. These hills and mesas include the Cheviot Hills, Baldwin Hills, Rosecrans Hills, Dominguez Hills, Signal HillReservoir, Alamitos Heights, Landing Hill, Bolsa Chica Mesa, Huntington Beach Mesa, and Newport Mesa. Earthquake focal mechanisms for 39 small earthquakes (1977 to 1985) show faulting along the north segment (north of Dominguez Hills) and along the south segment (south of Dominguez Hills to Newport Beach). The 1933 Long Beach earthquake (magnitude 6.3) has been attributed to movement on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. Based on historic earthquakes, the fault zone is considered Holocene-active. Movement along the fault is northeast side up, resulting in vertical 1 Moment magnitude (Mw) is considered to be a more reliable estimate of an earthquake’s size as compared to the more well-known Richter magnitude (M) scale; however, both scales are used in this section, depending on what is used in the reference material.

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-6
displacement of water-bearing sediments extending for several miles. The Newport-Inglewood Fault is capable producing of a maximum probable magnitude Mw 6.0 to 7.5 earthquake (CIT 2023).

Palos Verde Fault
The Holocene-active to pre-Holocene Palos Verdes Fault is located approximately 6 miles west of the Project site and is traceable in the subsurface along the northern front of the Palos Verdes Hills.

Offshore data, consisting of acoustic and reflection profiles, suggests very recent movement along the Palos Verdes Fault. No historic large magnitude earthquakes are associated with this fault; however, it is estimated that this fault is capable of producing a maximum probable magnitude Mw

6.0–7.7 earthquake (CIT 2023).

Whittier-Elsinore Fault
The Whittier-Elsinore Fault is located approximately 17 miles to the east of the Project site. The Whittier Fault together with the Chino Fault comprises the northernmost extension of the northwest trending Elsinore fault system. The mapped surface of the Whittier Fault extends in a west-northwest direction for a distance of 20 miles from the Santa Ana River to the terminus of the Puente Hills. It is estimated that this fault is capable of producing a magnitude Mw 7.8 earthquake (CIT 2023).

Raymond Fault
The Raymond Fault is located approximately 18 miles to the northeast of the Project site. This fault serves as a groundwater barrier, which divides the San Gabriel Valley into groundwater subbasins.

Much of the geomorphic evidence of this fault has been destroyed by urbanization. The recurrence interval for this fault is estimated to be approximately 3,000 years, with a documented event occurring 1,600 years ago. Historical accounts also suggest an event occurring in 1855 associated with the Raymond Fault. The Raymond Fault is estimated to be capable of producing a magnitude Mw 6.8 earthquake (CIT 2023).

Hollywood Fault
The northeast–southwest trending Hollywood Fault (Holocene-active) is a left-reverse lateral strikeslip fault that is deeply buried, is concealed by dense urbanization, and is located approximately 16 miles north of the Project site. This fault trends east-west along the base of the Santa Monica Mountains from the West Beverly Hills Lineament in the West Hollywood-Beverly Hills area to the Los Feliz area of Los Angeles. The Hollywood Fault has not produced any damaging earthquakes during the historical period (i.e., from 1769 to the present) and has had relatively minor micro-seismic activity. It is estimated that the Hollywood Fault is capable of producing a maximum magnitude Mw

6.7 earthquake (CIT 2023).

Blind Thrusts Faults
Buried or blind thrusts faults are faults without a surface expression but are significant sources of seismic activity. Due to their buried nature, their existence is sometimes not known until they produce an earthquake. There are two blind thrust faults in the Los Angeles metropolitan region, identified as the Elysian Park blind thrust and the Puente Hills blind thrust. The Puente Hills blind thrust extends

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-7
eastward from downtown Los Angeles to the City of Brea in northern Orange County BSSA 2002).

This fault includes three north-dipping segments, named from east to west as the Coyote Hills segment, the Santa Fe Springs segment, and the Los Angeles segment. The Elysian Park bling thrust fault, located approximately 19 miles northeast of the site, has been estimated to cause an earthquake every 500 to 1,300 years in the magnitude range of Mw 6.2 to 6.7. This fault is located approximately 15 miles to the northeast of the Project site.

Table 3.4-1. Regional Faulting
Regional Faulting
Approximate Closest
Distance to Project
Site (miles) Fault Age
Magnitude
Potential (Mw)
Newport-Inglewood Fault 2.6 Holocene-active 7.5
Palos Verdes Fault 5.8 Holocene-active
to pre-Holocene

7.7 Whittier-Elsinore Fault System 17 Holocene-active 7.8 Santa Monica Fault 14.6 Holocene-active 7.4
Hollywood Fault 15.9 Holocene-active 6.7
Raymond Fault 18.2 Holocene-active 6.8
Puente Hills Blind Thrust System 8.5 Holocene-active 7.0 Elysian Park Fault 15 Holocene-active 6.7
San Andreas Fault 46.8 Holocene-active 8.25
Source: CGS 2023; CIT 2023; BSSA 2002.

Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is the movement of the earth's surface as a result of an earthquake. Ground motion produced by seismic waves emanates from slow or sudden slip on a fault. The degree of ground shaking felt at a given site depends on a number of different factors including the distance from the earthquake source, the magnitude of the earthquake, the type of subsurface material on which the site is situated, duration of shaking and topography. Generally, ground shaking is less severe on rock than on alluvium or fill where the materials under some conditions can amplify ground shaking, but other local characteristics may override this generalization. Ground shaking can produce significant ground horizontal and vertical movement that can result in severe damage to structures that are generally not equipped to withstand it. The Project site is located in the seismically active Southern California region and could be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many Holocene-active Southern California faults.

Detectable ground shaking at the Project site could be observed by a seismic event occurring on any of the active or potentially active faults in the region. The amount of ground shaking would depend on a number of factors including distance and depth to the epicenter. The Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, Santa Monica, and Palos Verdes Faults are the active faults most likely to cause high ground accelerations within the City, as a whole; however, the San Andreas Fault has the highest probability of generating a maximum credible earthquake in California within the next 30 years (USGS 2015).

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-8
Surface Rupture
Surface rupture involves the displacement and cracking of the ground surface along a fault trace.

Surface ruptures are visible instances of horizontal or vertical displacement, or a combination of the two, typically confined to a narrow zone along the fault. Surface rupture is more likely to occur in conjunction with active fault segments where earthquakes are large, or where the location of the movement (earthquake hypocenter) is shallow.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 regulates development near Holocene-active faults to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. This act requires the state geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Alquist-Priolo Special Study Fault Zones) around the surface traces of Holocene-active faults and to issue appropriate maps. Local agencies must regulate development projects within these zones by requiring a fault hazard geologic investigation that can demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed across active faults. If a Holocene-active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault.

The Project site is not located within or adjacent to any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Appendix E; CGS 2023). There are no known Holocene-active or Pre-Holocene faults that underlie the Project site and the closest Alquist-Priolo Fault to the Project site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 2.6 miles to the northeast (Appendix E).

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated cohesionless granular soils below the groundwater table are subject to a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excess pore pressure during cyclic loading conditions such as those induced by an earthquake. Materials will then behave more like a liquid than a solid. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where groundwater is less than 50 feet from the surface, and where soils are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained sand. In addition to the necessary soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of sufficient level to initiate liquefaction.

Liquefaction can result in the shifting of foundations, settling of roadways, and rupture of underground pipelines and cables. Buildings and other objects on the ground surface can settle, tilt, and collapse as the foundations beneath them lose support, and lightweight buried structures may float to the surface. The northwest corner of the Project site is located in an area that has been mapped as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction area (Figure 6 of Appendix E). However, according to site specific analysis conducted during the preliminary geotechnical investigation of the Project site, the liquefaction hazard at the site was deemed to be low (Appendix E).

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading, a geotechnical hazard related to liquefaction, occurs when liquefiable materials move as a block towards an exposed slope or free face of a slope. Compact surface materials may slide on a liquefied or low shear strength layer at a shallow depth, moving laterally several feet down slopes of less than 2 degrees. Such a condition may be present where conditions conducive to

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-9
shallow liquefaction exist. However, it was determined that the potential for lateral spreading to occur within the Project site is low (Appendix E).

Slope Instability/Landslides
A landslide is the downhill movement of masses of earth material under the force of gravity. The factors contributing to landslide potential are steep slopes, unstable terrain, and proximity to earthquake faults. This process typically involves the surface soil and an upper portion of the underlying bedrock. Movement may be very rapid, or so slow that a change of position can be noted only over a period of weeks or years (creep). The size of a landslide can range from several square feet to several square miles.

The Project site is located in a developed area that is relatively level and is not located near any exposed hillsides. In addition, the Project site is not located with an earthquake-induced landslide zone (Appendix E). Because of the little to no change in topography of the site, the geotechnical report determined that landslides do not pose a hazard at the Project site (Appendix E).

Subsidence
Subsidence is the permanent collapse of the pore space within a soil or rock and downward settling of the earth’s surface relative to its surrounding area. Subsidence can result from the extraction of water or oil, liquefaction, or the addition of water to the land surface—a condition called “hydrocompaction.” The compaction of subsurface sediment caused by the withdrawal or addition of fluids can cause subsidence.

Land subsidence can disrupt surface drainage, reduce aquifer storage, cause earth fissures, damage buildings and structures, and damage wells, roads, and utility infrastructure.

In general, the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area experiences subsidence due to a variety of natural and human-induced causes including tectonic deformation, oil-field operations, and groundwater extraction and injection. Since these activities occur in overlapping proximity, it can be difficult to determine the cause of observed deformations using standard surveying techniques (USGS 2023). Human-induced land deformation also produces horizontal surface motion that obscures, or in some cases mimics, the tectonic signals expected from the blind thrust faults beneath Los Angeles. However, according to mapping compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Project site is located to the north of an area of subsidence attributed to groundwater withdrawal (USGS 2023).

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils exhibit volumetric changes with changing moisture content where they tend to swell with seasonal increases in soil moisture in the winter months and shrink as soils become drier in the summer months. Repeated shrinking and swelling of expansive soils over time can lead to stress and damage of structures, foundations, and fill slopes and can cause overlying concrete to crack and settle. Soils with a high clay content typically have high shrink/swell characteristics. According to the soil sampling performed during the geotechnical investigation of the Project site, the surficial soils at the Project site were found to have a low to very low expansion potential (Appendix E).

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-10
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the remains of once living plants and/or animals and their traces (e.g., burrows and tracks) preserved in Earth’s crust, and are generally considered to be greater than 5,000 years old or prior to recorded human history per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010) guidelines. With the exception of fossils found in low-grade metasedimentary rocks, significant paleontological resources are found in sedimentary rock units that are old enough to preserve the remains or traces of plants and animals.

As discussed in the Cultural Resources Assessment, included as Appendix C to this EIR, the geologic units underlying the Project site are mapped as Holocene alluvial fan deposits of clay and sand.

Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, but material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits.

3.4.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
The following federal regulations pertaining to seismicity and geologic hazards would apply to the Project.

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
In October 1977, the U.S. Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards reduction program. To accomplish this goal, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. This program was substantially amended in November 1990 by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act, which refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives.

The mission of National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improved building codes and landuse practices; risk reduction through post-earthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improved mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency as the lead agency of the program and assigns several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities. Other National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act agencies include the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

State
The following state regulations pertaining to seismicity and geologic hazards would apply to the Project.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Sections 2690–2699.6) addresses earthquake hazards from non-surface fault rupture, including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides.

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-11
The act established a mapping program for areas that have the potential for liquefaction, landslide, strong ground shaking, or other earthquake and geologic hazards. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate “seismic hazard zones.” Cities and counties must regulate certain development projects within these zones until the geologic and soil conditions of their project sites have been investigated and appropriate mitigation measures, if any, have been incorporated into development plans. Under California Public Resources Code Section 2697, cities and counties must require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, submission of a Preliminary Geotechnical Report defining and delineating any seismic hazard. State publications supporting the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act include the CGS SP 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (CGS 2008), discussed previously, and SP 118, Recommended Criteria for Delineating Seismic Hazard Zones in California.

SP 117A provides guidelines to assist in the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones requiring investigations and to promote uniform and effective Statewide implementation of the evaluation and mitigation elements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.2 SP 118 provides recommendations to assist the CGS in carrying out the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act to produce the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps for the State. The Project site is partially located within a seismic hazard zone for liquefaction and must conform to the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
In California, the State Water Resources Control Board administers regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (55 CFR 47990), requiring the permitting of stormwatergenerated pollution under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In turn, the State Water Resources Control Board’s jurisdiction is administered through nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Under these federal regulations, an operator must obtain a general permit through the NPDES Stormwater Program for all construction activities with ground disturbance of 1 acre or more. The general permit requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce sedimentation into surface waters and to control erosion. One element of compliance with the NPDES permit is preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that addresses control of water pollution, including sediment, in runoff during construction.

California Building Code
The state regulations protecting structures from geo-seismic hazards are contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2 (the California Building Code [CBC]), which is updated every 3 years. These regulations apply to public and private buildings in the state and establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability. The CBC is based on the International Building Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. The 2022 CBC, which became effective January 1, 2023, is based on the 2021 International Building Code and enhances 2 Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, prepared by California Geologic Survey, 2008, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/ webdocs/Documents/sp117.pdf.

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-12
the sections dealing with existing structures. Seismic-resistant construction design is required to meet more stringent technical standards than those set by previous versions of the CBC.

Construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation and trenching, as specified in the California Safety and Health Administration regulations (Title 8 of the CCR) and in Chapter 33 of the CBC. These regulations specify the measures to be used for excavation and trench work where workers could be exposed to unstable soil conditions. The construction contractors would be required to employ these safety measures during any excavation and trenching required for construction.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, and educational value and are afforded protection under state laws and regulations (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]). Paleontological resources are explicitly afforded protection by CEQA, specifically in Section VII(f) of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the Environmental Checklist Form, which addresses the potential for adverse impacts to “unique paleontological resource[s] or site[s] or … unique geological feature[s]” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq.). This provision covers fossils of single importance—remains of species or genera new to science, for example, or fossils exhibiting features not previously recognized for a given animal group—as well as localities that yield fossils significant in their abundance, diversity, preservation, and so forth. Further, CEQA provides that, generally, a resource shall be considered “historically significant” if it has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][3][D]).

Paleontological resources would fall within this category. The California Public Resources Code, Chapter 1.7, Sections 5097.5 and 30244, also regulates removal of paleontological resources from state lands, defines unauthorized removal of fossil resources as a misdemeanor, and requires mitigation of disturbed sites.

Local
The following local/regional regulations pertaining to seismicity and geologic hazards would apply to the Project.

City of Gardena General Plan
The City of Gardena General Plan was adopted in 2006 and includes goals and policies within the required elements including the Public Safety Plan and the Conservation Plan. The Public Safety Plan within the General Plan for the City was updated and adopted February 2022. The following is a list of goals and policies applicable to the proposed Project relating to Geology and Soils:

Public Safety Plan
PS Goal 3. Protect the community from dangers associated with geologic instability, seismic hazards and other natural hazards.

PS 3.1: California Building Code. Require compliance with seismic safety standards in the California Building Code, as adopted and amended.

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-13
PS 3.2: Geotechnical Studies. Require geotechnical studies for all new development projects in the City, including those located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or areas subject to liquefaction.

3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project impacts related to geology and soils are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to geology and soils would occur if the Project would:

Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
b. Strong seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic-induced ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Based on the results of the Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix A), the Project would result in less-than-significant geology and soils impacts related to resulting in substantial soil erosion or the loss of top soil and no impacts with regard to landslides or having soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. As such the following thresholds are evaluated in this section of the Draft EIR:

GEO-1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-14
iii. Seismic-induced ground failure, including liquefaction? GEO-2. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
GEO-3. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? GEO-4. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

3.4.4 Impact Analysis
Threshold GEO-1. Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest such zone is located along the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 2.6 miles to the east of the Project site. In addition, no known faults traverse on or immediately adjacent to the Project site. Furthermore, development of the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause or exacerbate existing fault rupture risks. As a result, no impacts related to surface rupture of a known earthquake fault would occur.
ii Strong seismic ground shaking?
The Project site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California with numerous regional faults capable of causing substantive ground shaking at the Project site. The Holocene-active Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is located relatively close (2.6 miles to the east) to the Project site.

Other regional faults include the San Andreas, Palos Verde, Hollywood, Raymond, and Elysian Park faults), any of which could be the source of producing moderate to large seismic events (i.e., earthquakes) that could adversely affect the Project site, if the proposed improvements are not constructed appropriately and in accordance with current regulatory requirements. However, Project construction would be completed in accordance with current CBC requirements, which include seismic design criteria. The CBC provides procedures for earthquake-resistant structural design that includes considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure, including the structural system and height. Although substantial damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes, the proposed structures would be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage, and loss of life.

Chapters 18 and 18A of the CBC include (but are not limited to) the requirements for foundation and soil investigations (Sections 1803 and 1803A); excavation, grading, and fill (Sections 1804 and 1804A); damp-proofing and water-proofing (Sections 1805 and 1805A); allowable load-bearing

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-15
values of soils (Sections 1806 and 1806A); the design of foundation walls, retaining walls, embedded posts and poles (Sections 1807 and 1807A), and foundations (Sections 1808 and 1808A); and design of shallow foundations (Sections 1809 and 1809A) and deep foundations (Sections 1810 and 1810A). In conjunction with City policies aimed at mitigating and minimizing geologic hazards, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. iii Seismic-induced ground failure, including liquefaction? As discussed previously, according to mapping compiled by the CGS, the northwestern corner of the Project site is located in a seismic hazard zone for liquefaction. The preliminary geotechnical investigation included an evaluation for liquefaction at the Project site and determined that the potential for liquefaction at the site is low (Appendix E). Regardless, all proposed development within the Project site would be required to adhere to requirements of the CBC and Special Publication 117A, for anything located within the Liquefaction Seismic Hazard Zone, for the mitigation of liquefaction hazards. As part of adherence to these building code requirements, final Project designs would require geotechnical engineering measures such as site preparation (e.g., treatment of liquefiable layers or use of engineered fills) and foundation design that would minimize damage from the effects of liquefaction at the Project site as necessary to meet building code standards.

In addition, development of the Project site would not increase or exacerbate the potential for liquefaction to occur and therefore would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold GEO-2. Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? According to the geotechnical report that was prepared for the Project, the site is underlain by artificial fills, sludge-bearing fills, and alluvial deposits. The artificial fills are characterized in the geotechnical report as undocumented, which indicates that they may not have been placed in accordance with current compaction standards to adequately support proposed improvements.

The Project site is relatively level and there are no existing slopes or proposed grading that would create slope conditions that would be susceptible to slope failure or landslides. As a result, the potential to result in on- or off-site landslides would be considered less than significant. Lateral spreading, a geotechnical hazard related to liquefaction, was evaluated as part of the preliminary geotechnical investigation. The geotechnical report concluded that the site conditions are such (i.e., no continuous liquefiable layers that could move toward an unconfine area or open slope face) that the potential for lateral spreading is considered low (Appendix E). The potential for liquefaction was also determined to be low at the Project site. The Project site is located outside of a known area of subsidence and there would be no extraction of groundwater or petroleum at the site such that the potential for subsidence due to fluid withdrawal is not likely. Otherwise, even though there are undocumented artificial fills at the site that likely would not be sufficient to adequately support proposed improvements, building code requirements would include measures to ensure that site preparations (e.g., removal of artificial fills and replacement with engineered fills compacted to current building code standards) are included as part of design plans. Completion of these site

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-16
preparation measures, consistent with building code specifications, would ensure that underlying soil units are sufficient to adequately support proposed improvements on a long-term basis. As a result, with adherence to the current CBC and City building code requirements, the potential impacts related to unstable geologic units or soils would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold GEO-3. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils are clay-rich soils that can experience volumetric changes (i.e., shrinking and swelling) with changes in moisture content. Over time, these cyclical changes in volume can exert substantial pressure on foundations, resulting in structural distress and/or damage to above ground improvements. According to the preliminary geotechnical report, the underlying soils at the Project site were found to have low to very low expansion potential (Appendix E). Any imported engineered fill materials that might be brought onto the site would be required to meet building code specification, which would include ensuring that the fills have negligible expansive properties. As a result, the Project construction would not increase or exacerbate the potential for expansive soils to create substantial direct or indirect risk of the property and the potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold GEO-4. Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As discussed in the Cultural Resources Assessment, included as Appendix C to this EIR, the geologic units underlying the Project area is mapped as Holocene alluvial fan deposits of clay and sand.

Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, but material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase.

While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant such that potentially significant impacts could occur. Excavation activity associated with the development of the Project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive; however, inclusion of mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 is required in order to reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources, in the event that they are encountered. Impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

3.4.5 Mitigation Measures
In order to reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources, the following mitigation measure is required.

MM-GEO-1 Inadvertent Discovery. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-17
to recommence in the area of the find. Salvaged fossils deemed to be significant shall be donated to an accredited repository with retrievable storage such as a museum.

Costs for preparing the fossils for accessioning into the accredited repository and any associated curation fees shall be paid by the Project Applicant.

3.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold GEO-4: Potential impacts related to paleontological resources with adherence to existing building code requirements would be less than significant with implementation of MM GEO-1.

3.4.7 Cumulative Effects
The geographic context for the cumulative analysis is the greater Los Angeles Basin, which even though it has wide-ranging geologic conditions, there is a general risk of seismic hazards due to the regional seismic activity and presence of numerous Holocene-active faults. Potential cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would result if cumulative projects would combine to create or exacerbate geologic hazards, including seismicity, erosion/loss of topsoil, or unstable geologic conditions. However, the majority of geologic hazards, including liquefaction, ground shaking, landslides, and unstable soils, tend to be site-specific with conditions changing, sometimes substantially, over relatively short distances and are therefore generally reduced to the extent practicable on a project-by-project basis through adherence to building code requirements. Each cumulative project identified in Table 3-1 would be required to adhere to the same required building engineering design standards as the proposed Project, per the most recent version of the CBC, to ensure the safety of building occupants and thus avoiding a cumulative geologic hazard. Additionally, as needed, cumulative projects would incorporate individual mitigation or geotechnical measures that are appropriate for site-specific conditions present on each individual cumulative project site.

Therefore, since geologic hazards tend to be site-specific and do not combine to become cumulatively considerable, but all cumulative projects would adhere to current building code requirements, the proposed Project would not combine with other cumulative projects. As such, the proposed Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact associated with geology and soils and the impact would be less than significant.

3.4.8 References
BSSA (Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America) 2002. Puente Hills Blind-Thrust System, Los Angeles, California. December 2002. Accessed on August 16, 2023. http://activetectonics.asu.edu/bidart/bibliography/bssa/bssa_92_8/shaw_plesch_dolan_ pratt_fiore_2002.pdf.

CGS. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces: Note 36. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf.

CGS. 2008. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Accessed January 2022. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/ webdocs/Documents/sp117.pdf.

3.4 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.4-18
CGS. 2023. “Fault Activity Map of California.” Interactive map. Accessed on August 16, 2023. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.

CIT (California Institute of Technology). 2023. “Southern California Earthquake Data Center:

Earthquake Information.” Fault Name Index. Accessed August 16, 2023. http://scedc.caltech.edu/significant/fault-index.html#a.

SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, 2010.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2015. “UCERF3: A New Earthquake Forecast For California’s Complex Fault System.” Fact Sheet 2015-3009, March 2015. Accessed January 2022. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2015/3009/pdf/fs2015-3009.pdf.

USGS. 2023. “Areas of Land Subsidence in California”. Interactive map. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html. 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.5-1

3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section describes the existing greenhouse gas (GHG) conditions of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (Project) site and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed Project. Information contained in this section is based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1, to estimate the Project’s GHG emissions from both construction and operations and existing land use operation. For the relevant data, refer to the following appendix:
▪ Appendix F, Greenhouse Emissions Assessment, dated June 2024

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

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

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual humancaused CO2 emissions, approximately 55% is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45% of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013). Table 3.5-1 describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.

3.5 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.5-2
Table 3.5-1. Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human-related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years. The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298.

Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87% by volume. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the Global Warming Potential is 25.

Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year Global Warming
Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to 14,800 for HFC23.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above the earth’s surface.

Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum

3.5 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.5-3
Table 3.5-1. Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
production and semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warming Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.

Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.

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

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

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

Black Carbon Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter, which has been identified as a leading environmental risk factor for premature death. It is produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning, particularly from older diesel engines and forest fires. Black carbon warms the atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation, influences cloud formation, and darkens the surface of snow and ice, which accelerates heat absorption and melting. Black carbon is a short-lived species that varies spatially, which makes it difficult to quantify the global warming potential. Diesel particulate matter emissions are a major source of black carbon and are TACs that have been regulated and controlled in California for several decades to protect public health.

3.5 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 3.5-4
Table 3.5-1. Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Water Vapor The primary source of water vapor is evaporation from the ocean, with additional vapor generated by sublimation (change from solid to gas) from ice and snow, evaporation from other water bodies, and transpiration from plant leaves. Water vapor is the most important, abundant, and variable GHG in the atmosphere and maintains a climate necessary for life.

Ozone Tropospheric O3, which is created by photochemical reactions involving gases from both natural sources and human activities, acts as a GHG. Stratospheric O3, which is created by the interaction between solar ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen (O2), plays a decisive role in the stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric O3, due to chemical reactions that may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet-B radiation.

Aerosols Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels.

Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.

Sources: IPCC 2007; EPA 2010, 2018.

Global Warming Potential
Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the substance produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the earth (e.g., affect cloud formation or albedo) (EPA 2017). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the global warming potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e).

The current version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (Version 2022.1) assumes that the GWP for CH4 is 25 (so emissions of 1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2), and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007).

Gardena City CouncilFebruary 25, 2025

Gardena City Council
February 25, 2025