Gardena City Council
February 25, 2025

4.4 Significant Irreversible Changes
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR address any significant irreversible changes that would be caused by implementation of a project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c), such a change would involve one or more of the scenarios discussed in Sections 4.4.1 through 4.4.4.

4.4.1 Change in Land Use That Commits Future Generations to Similar Uses
The Project site is currently developed with several small businesses housed in warehouses or trailers, along with one residential unit. The undeveloped eastern portion of the Project site is an area known as the Gardena Sumps, which is contaminated with oil sludge. The City recently amended the Land Use and Zoning for hundreds of properties in the City in compliance with adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The Project site has retained its Specific Plan land use designation, and the zoning has been changed to 1450 Artesia Specific Plan. Implementation of the Project would commit the Project site to a mixed-use development with a total building area of 268,000 square feet, including self-storage, warehouse and office/retail uses under the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan.

However, because the Project is a redevelopment project within a fully developed and urbanized portion of the City, it would not commit future generations to new urban land uses. The replacement of underutilized buildings and surface parking following remediation of site contamination (not part of the proposed Project) would result in changes to the current land uses in a manner that is consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies (see Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning).

4.4.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
The Project site is developed with several small businesses housed in warehouses or trailers, along with one residential unit. Implementation of the Project would commit the Project site to a 268,000-squarefoot mixed use Project. The land use proposed by the Project is compatible with the existing land uses that are located west, north, and east of the Project site and along Artesia Boulevard. The Project would not result in unavoidable physical impacts to the environment. Accordingly, the Project and its environmental effects would not compel or commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those that are existing today or those that are planned by the City of Gardena General Plan. For this reason, the Project would not result in significant, irreversible effects to nearby, off-site properties. 4 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 4-18

4.4.3 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
As discussed in detail in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, prior to development of the Project, the eastern portion of the Project site (known as the Gardena Sumps) will be remediated by the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC) through a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) under the direction of the DTSC. The RAP includes installing an engineered cap, soil vapor probes, and associated infrastructure before the Applicant commences construction of the proposed Project.

The Project Applicant will undertake measures to protect this remedy and avoid any 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 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 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 as a parking lot, which would be located atop ARC’s engineered cap as part of the DTSC-approved RAP. While there is still a chance that an accident related to the area covered under the RAP could occur, implementation of the RAP and protection of the remedy throughout operation of the Project would minimize the potential and severity of such accidents and prevent any irreversible damage to the environment.

Aside from the contamination within the Gardena Sumps area, potential environmental accidents of concern include those events that would adversely affect the environment or the public due to the type or quantity of materials released and the receptors exposed to that release. Demolition and construction activities associated with the Project would involve some risk of environmental accidents. However, these activities would be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and would follow professional industry standards for safety. Once operational, use, transport, and storage of any materials that could cause environmental accidents would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, ensuing that any hazardous materials used on site would be safely and appropriately handled to preclude any irreversible damage to the environment that could result if hazardous materials were released from the Project site.

4.4.4 Large Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources
Commitment of nonrenewable resources includes issues related to increased energy consumption, loss of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. There would be an irretrievable commitment of labor, capital, and materials used during construction and operation of the Project.

Nonrenewable resources committed would primarily be in the form of fossil fuels such as fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by equipment associated with construction of the Project.

Consumption of other non-renewable or slowly renewable resources would also occur. These resources would include lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, and metals such as steel, copper, and lead.

To ensure that energy implications are considered in Project decisions, CEQA requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy (California Public Resources 4 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 4-19
Code Section 21100[b][3]). Energy conservation implies that a project’s cost effectiveness be reviewed not only in dollars but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, cost effectiveness may be determined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. A lead agency may consider the extent to which an energy source serving the project has already undergone environmental review that adequately analyzed and mitigated the effects of energy production.

Consistent with both California Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and a ruling set forth by the court in California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland, potentially significant energy implications of a project must be considered in an EIR to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. Accordingly, based on the energy consumption thresholds set forth in Appendix F and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project’s estimated energy demands (both short-term construction and long-term operational demands) were evaluated (see Section 3.3, Energy, of this EIR). The overall purpose of the energy analysis was to evaluate whether the Project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

As further assessed in the energy analysis, for new development such as that proposed by the Project, compliance with California Title 24 energy efficiency requirements is considered demonstrable evidence of efficient use of energy. The Project would provide for and promote energy efficiencies beyond those required under other applicable federal and state standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all Title 24 standards.

4.5 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project, as follows:

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects that would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

Growth-inducing impacts can occur when implementation of a development project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth or by leading to the construction of additional development in the project area. Also included in this category are projects that would remove physical obstacles to population growth, such as the construction of a new roadway into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity to serve additional new development. Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the immediate development that they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth, are those that may provide a catalyst 4 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 4-20
for future unrelated development in the area (such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents). The growth-inducing potential of a project can also be considered significant if it fosters growth in excess of what is assumed in local master plans and land use plans or in projections made by regional planning agencies.

The proposed Project would require a temporary construction workforce and a permanent operational workforce, both of which could potentially induce population growth in the Project area. The number of construction workers needed during any given period would largely depend on the specific stage of construction. These short-term positions are anticipated to be filled primarily by construction workers who reside in the Project site’s vicinity; therefore, construction of the Project would not generate a permanent increase in population within the Project area.

During normal operations, there would be approximately 40 employees. According to the SCAG Demographics & Growth Forecast (an appendix to the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS), employment in the City is anticipated to expected to accommodate 32,100 jobs by 2045 (SCAG 2020), an increase of approximately 2,800 jobs. It is anticipated that the Project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements could be met by the local existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the Project region and the Project would therefore not stimulate population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans. Even assuming all employees would not be local, a Project-related increase of approximately 40 employees would be minimal in comparison to the increase anticipated in the SCAG Demographics & Growth Forecast.

Growth-inducing impacts can also occur when implementation of a project includes infrastructure improvements that would remove physical obstacles to population growth. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth, are those that may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in the area. The Project is currently served by existing infrastructure, including water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, gas, electric, and telecommunication lines. As part of the Project, some of these lines would be extended or upsized within the Project site; however, these activities would be undertaken solely for purposes of supporting the Project. Further, as discussed in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, given the lack of population growth that would result from the Project and the fact that the Project site and surrounding area are already served by existing facilities, the Project would not tax existing community service facilities or require construction of substantial new facilities.

4.6 References
CAL FIRE (California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2022a. FHSZ Viewer.

Accessed February 16, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

CAL FIRE. 2022b. State Responsibility Area Viewer. Accessed February 18, 2022. https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id= 468717e399fa4238ad86861638765ce.

CalGEM (California Geologic Energy Management Division). 2022. Well Finder. Accessed February 17, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/ -118.30107/33.87192/17.
4 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 4-21
California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed February 1, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Conservation. 2024. SMARA Mineral Land Classification. Accessed January 2024. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral-land-classificationsmara. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans [map]; dated April 2019. Accessed March 2022. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP.

CDFW. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 5 web-viewer. Accessed March 2022. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

CGS (California Geologic Survey). 2022. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.

Accessed February 15, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.

City of Gardena. 2006a. Gardena General Plan, Public Safety Plan. Accessed February 16, 2022. http://www.cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/generalplan8.pdf.

City of Gardena. 2006b. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Gardena General Plan 2006.

Accessed February 17, 2022. https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/04/General-Plan-Update-2006-Final-EIR.pdf.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, web-viewer.

Accessed March 2022. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2022. Best Available Maps. Web mapping application. Accessed February 18, 2022. https://gis.bam.water.ca.gov/bam/.

Gardena Police Department. 2022. Emergency Preparedness Information, Gardena Community Emergency Response Training (CERT). Accessed February 16, 2022. http://www.gardenapd.org/emergency-prepardness-information/.

LADPW (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works). 2008. City of Gardena Disaster Route Map. Accessed February 16, 2022. https://ladpw.org/dsg/DisasterRoutes/ map/Gardena.pdf.

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2014. A-NET (Interactive Map). Location:

Publisher (if available). Accessed February 16, 2022. https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=acf2e87194a54af9b266bf07547f240a.

SCAG (Southern California Associated of Governments). 2020. Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. September 3, 2020.
4 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 4-22
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

South Coast Wildlands. 2008. South Coast Missing Linkages: A Wildland Network for the South Coast Ecoregion. Produced in cooperation with partners in the South Coast Missing Linkages Initiative. Accessed March 2022. http://www.scwildlands.org.

Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M.

Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. Accessed March 2022. http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18366.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Database; results for the Project Site. Accessed March 2022. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

USFWS. 2022b. National Wetlands Inventory, online Wetland Mapper. Accessed March 2022. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html.
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-1
5 Alternatives

5.1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15126.6, this chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains a comparative evaluation of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (Project) with alternatives to the Project, including a No Project Alternative.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this chapter focuses on alternatives to the proposed Project that are capable of avoiding or substantially reducing any significant adverse impacts associated with the Project, even if the alternatives may impede attainment of Project objectives or prove less cost efficient. In addition, implementation of a Project alternative may potentially result in new impacts that would not have resulted from the Project.

The CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.) require that the analysis of alternatives provide sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with a proposed project. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) outlines the scope of alternatives to a proposed project that must be evaluated:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selection of a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

Under case law and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), the discussion of alternatives is subject to a rule of reason and need not be exhaustive. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) states that “if an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternatives shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” Determining factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (b) infeasibility, or (c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 defines “feasibility” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.”
An EIR need not consider a project alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained, whose implementation is remote and speculative, or whose execution does not substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects of a proposed project. 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-2
As discussed throughout Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise. For all other environmental issue areas, the Project would result in either less-than-significant impacts or no impact.

5.2 Alternatives Considered But Rejected
An EIR is required to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible. Among the factors described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 in determining whether to exclude alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are failure to meet most of the basic objectives of the project, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to a proposed project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(t)(l) states the following:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries ... and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.

In determining an appropriate range of project alternatives to be evaluated in this Draft EIR, several possible alternatives were initially considered and then rejected. Project alternatives were rejected because they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the Project, they would not have resulted in a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts, or they were considered infeasible to construct or operate.

The Project involves the requested 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 SF and an approximate height of 75 feet. The development would include a self-storage use (three levels totaling 186,000 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), an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF), and associated surface parking. A description of each alternative and the rationale for rejection is provided below.

5.2.1 Residential Development
Years ago, the City initially explored a variety of potential types of development for the Project site, including residential development. However, as discussed in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and elsewhere throughout this EIR, the proposed Project site is contaminated and is being remediated and monitored by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC) under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC). The Final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was approved by DTSC on June 30, 2022 (Appendix G3). The Final RAP includes provisions for long-term monitoring and maintenance by ARC of an engineering cap for a large portion of the proposed Project’s parking area, soil vapor via soil vapor probes and by groundwater monitoring wells. The Final RAP also includes a provision for a legal land use covenant to limit future uses of the site to be recorded on the property, which will limit futures uses to commercial and industrial uses and bar residential and other sensitive uses. 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-3
Infeasibility. The forthcoming land use covenant for the Project site, as also stated in PDF-HAZ-1, Remedial Action of the Gardena Sumps Site, will limit future uses of the site to commercial and industrial uses and prohibit sensitive uses, such as residential developments, because the RAP will not achieve a cleanup standard that is safe for residential and other sensitive uses. Therefore, residential development will not be allowed on the Project site and would be infeasible due to legal and health and safety considerations. No further discussion of this alternative is required.

5.2.2 Avoid Significant Construction Noise Impacts
As described in Section 3.9, Noise, Project construction would exceed City noise standards at residential receptors near the Project site, in particular the residential receptor immediately (15 feet) west of the Project site, which would be significant for all construction phases except for architectural coating, even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation. Constructing the building on the eastern side of the Project site and the parking on the western side would move many major noise-generating construction elements farther from the residential receptor to the west and create a buffer that would reduce construction noise impacts. However, the Final RAP precludes the construction of buildings on the east portion of the Project site (Cooper Sump area) due to contamination present from the past sump activities and the location of the engineered cap there over which the RAP prohibits vertical construction.

Infeasibility. The Final RAP prohibits the construction of buildings on the eastern side of the Project site (Cooper Sump area) due to the location of the former sump and the engineered cap that ARC will install in this area as such construction could damage the cap and impede access to it needed for its operation, maintenance and repair. Therefore, developing the Project building on the eastern side of the Project site is not allowed and is therefore infeasible. No further discussion of this alternative is required.

5.2.3 All-Commercial Alternative
The City considered an alternative that includes all commercial uses, including big box retail, which would be allowed under the forthcoming land use covenant for the Project site, as also stated in PDFHAZ-1, Remedial Action of the Gardena Sumps Site, will limit future uses of the site to commercial and industrial uses. An All-Commercial Alternative could therefore be allowed on the Project site.

Infeasibility. The Project site was identified within the former Artesia Corridor Specific Plan, which was in place from July 2006 to February 2023. The Specific Plan identified commercial land uses, ideally big box retail for the Project site. A report called Retail Development Potential for the Artesia Boulevard Retail District was also completed by the City in April of 2006 (Appendix L). During the entire duration when the Specific Plan was in place, no commercial development was proposed for the Project site. Since the time of preparation of the Specific Plan, the market for retail commercial development has changed such that big box retail is less in demand and many of the retailers that were discussed in the 2006 report no longer even exist. As such, it is infeasible to implement an AllCommercial Alternative. This alternative has been rejected due to market infeasibility. 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-4

5.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Consideration
Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City selected a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the effects of the Project. As discussed previously, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts related to construction noise. Only the No Project Alternative would avoid or reduce this impact. However, the other alternatives would reduce impacts in other resource areas. Based on the evaluation of potential alternatives that were considered but rejected in Section 5.2, four alternatives have been carried forward for further analysis in Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.4. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, sufficient information about each alternative has been included in the descriptions below to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project.

In analyzing the alternatives, it is important to note that the RAP will be implemented regardless. The RAP involves demolition of the two buildings closest to Artesia Boulevard – the U-Haul building and the front warehouse, leaving in place the rear warehouse and a residential unit.

5.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the specific alternative of “no project” along with its impact. As stated in this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed Project with the impacts of not approving the proposed Project. As specified in Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, the no project alternative for a development project consists of the circumstance under which a proposed project does not proceed.

Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) further states that “in certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” In this case, Alternative 1 assumes the proposed Project would not proceed 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.

Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not achieve the underlying purpose of the Project or meet any of the Project objectives. Because it would not develop a project and would leave the Project site as it currently exists, with the exception of implementation of the RAP, it would not 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 construction and operations phases, generate property 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, or provide the City with a space to host periodic community outdoor events.
5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-5
Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Alternative 1 to the Proposed Project All construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be avoided under the No Project Alternative because no Project development would occur on the Project site.

While some construction impacts would occur under the RAP, those impacts were evaluated in the environmental analysis completed for RAP implementation. As such, Alternative 1 would not require implementation of MM-HAZ-1 and the No Project Alternative would reduce all environmental impacts associated with the Project and avoid the one significant and unavoidable construction noise impact.

5.3.2 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.

Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Because the Project elements included in Alternative 2 are the same as the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would meet all of the Project objectives but not to the same degree as the proposed Project. It would 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 construction and operations phases – although it would only employ approximately 20 people instead of 40, generate property tax revenues for the City to enhance its services to the community and infrastructural improvements, and provide the City with a space to host periodic community outdoor events. However, due to its reduced density, it would not meet the financial-related objectives as well as the proposed Project. Because of its smaller scale, Alternative 2 would produce fewer short-and long-term jobs during construction and operations phases, generate less property tax revenues for the City to enhance its services to the community and infrastructural improvements and the City would not receive any monetary public benefit to the City’s General Fund.

Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Alternative 2 to the Proposed Project Because Alternative 2 would develop half the building square footage over the Project footprint of half the size and would generate half the operational employment of the proposed Project, it would reduce environmental impacts in many resource areas compared to the proposed Project but it would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact. Further details are provided in the subsections that follow.
5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-6
Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Due to its reduced development footprint and building size, Alternative 2 would result in lower overall construction impacts related to air quality, energy, and GHG emissions than the proposed Project.

However, daily construction intensity and associated emissions would likely remain the same.

Because air quality impacts are based on maximum daily construction emissions, impacts would not change under Alternative 2 and would thus remain less than significant for the same reasons described in Section 3.1, Air Quality, of this EIR. For construction health risk, even assuming that reducing the Project by half would result in a corresponding reduction of the health risk by half, the risk would still be above the threshold of significance and would require implementation of MM-AQ-1.

Construction-related GHG emissions and energy use would be reduced compared to the proposed Project and would remain less than significant.

Operational activity for Alternative 2, including vehicle trips, energy use, maintenance, and stationary sources, would be reduced by half compared to the proposed Project. As such, air pollutant emissions, energy use, and GHG emissions during operation would be less than the proposed Project and would remain less than significant for the same reasons described in Section 3.1, Section 3.3, and Section 3.5 of this EIR.

Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would be located on the same site as the proposed Project but with a reduced footprint that covers the western half of the Project site. Alternative 2 would result in the demolition of the same existing on-site structures and excavation to the same depth for construction of the building as the proposed Project. Although the construction footprint would be reduced under Alternative 2, ground disturbance would still occur over the whole proposed Project site due to excavation associated with implementation of the Final RAP. Therefore, as with the proposed Project, MM-CUL1 through MM-CUL-3 would apply to Alternative 2 and would reduce impacts to less than significant for the same reasons described in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would be located on the same site as the proposed Project but with a reduced footprint that covers the western half of the Project site. As such, it would impact the same geological setting as the proposed Project but within a smaller area and its impacts related to geology and soils would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would be designed and built with adherence to the same building code requirements as the proposed Project, which would ensure that as with the proposed Project, geology and soils impacts of Alternative 2 would be less than significant for the same reasons described in Section 3.4, Geology and Soils, of this EIR.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Although the proposed Project would only include parking over the eastern half of the Project site, which would not interfere with or damage the engineered cap being installed as part of the Final RAP, Alternative 2 would be located only on the western half of the Project site and would completely avoid the engineered cap. Therefore, the operation of Alternative 2 would not include any responsibilities or requirements related to maintaining the remedy. As such, portions of PDF-HAZ-1, as described in 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-7
Section 3.6 of this EIR would not be applicable to Alternative 2 because the reduced Project alternative would be outside the footprint of the remediation area. However, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would include a building on the western half of the Project site. Therefore, the installation of a soil vapor barrier and ventilation system beneath the structure, required as specified inPDF-HAZ-2, would apply to Alternative 2.

Under the RAP, two of the buildings will be demolished. During construction, Alternative 2 would require the demolition of the remaining existing industrial building on the western half of the Project and the residence in the southwestern corner of the site, which, based on their age, have the potential to contain asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paints, and other hazardous building materials. As such, implementation of MM-HAZ-1 would be required during demolition of the on-site structures on the western portion of the Project site under Alternative 2 to reduce impact to less than significant. Additionally, construction of Alternative 2 would occur on the west side of the Project site where there are small areas of diesel contamination above risk-based screening levels (ESLs) for construction and commercial exposure, and gasoline-range organics and PCE concentrations in soil vapor above ESLs for commercial exposure. As such, excavation and relocation/removal of these soils could result in hazards to the public or environment such that impacts would be potentially significant if the contaminated soil is not appropriately managed for the same reasons described in Section 3.6. Therefore, development of a soil management plan (SMP) in accordance with MM-HAZ2 would be required under Alternative 2 to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 2 would have a construction footprint half the size of the proposed Project’s footprint and would require less water for dust suppression during construction. Because Alternative 2 would be half the size of the proposed Project, its water demand during operation would be half that of the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2’s impact on groundwater supplies would be less than that of the proposed Project and would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR. Alternative 2 would include the same drainage features as the proposed Project, sized proportionally for the drainage and runoff that would be generated by a development with half the footprint of the proposed Project. As such, its impact related to runoff would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.7 of this EIR. Alternative 2 would employ BMPs as part of a SWPPP during construction and as stated previously, would have a reduced water demand compared to the proposed Project and employ the same drainage features as the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impacts related to water quality control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.7 of this EIR.

Land Use and Planning
Alternative 2 would develop the same uses on the same site as the proposed Project but within a smaller footprint. Therefore, its consistency with land use plans, policies and regulations would be the same as the proposed Project, as discussed in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR, and would remain less than significant.
5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-8
Noise
Alternative 2 would have a reduced construction period compared to the proposed Project. However, construction of Alternative 2 would include the same construction equipment and phases as the proposed Project and be located the same distance from the nearest sensitive receptor as the proposed Project. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.9 of this EIR, Alternative 2 would result in a significant and unavoidable noise impact to nearby receptors during construction.

As the operation of Alternative 2 would contain the same uses but be half the size of the proposed Project, operational noise from Alternative 2 would likely be reduced compared to the proposed Project and would therefore remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.9.

Transportation
Because Alternative 2 would include the same operational uses as the proposed Project but at half the size, it would also generate half the trips as the proposed Project. The industrial warehouse/distribution and self-storage components under Alternative 2 would generate approximately 60 trips and 54 trips, respectively, which are still above the screening threshold of 110 trips for VMT analysis. However, because the trips generated by Alternative 2 would be half of those generated for the proposed Project, the VMT impacts would be less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.10, Transportation, of this EIR. Because site access would be the same as the proposed Project but with half the vehicle volume, Alternative 2’s impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.10 of this EIR.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would be located on the same site as the proposed Project but with a reduced footprint that covers the western half of the Project site. As such, it would impact the same tribal cultural resources setting as the proposed Project but within a smaller area. Alternative 2 would result in excavation to the same depth for construction of the building as the proposed Project. Because of its reduced footprint, the likelihood of encountering unanticipated tribal cultural resources would be reduced compared to the proposed Project but encountering resources could still be a possibility.

Therefore, MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4 would apply to Alternative 2 and would reduce impacts to less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.11, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would develop a Project half the size of the proposed Project but with the same uses.

As such, its demand on all utilities, water supplies and wastewater treatment and its solid waste generation would be half that of the proposed Project and would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR. 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-9

5.3.3 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 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.

Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Because Alternative 3 involves construction and operation of a facility of the same size and within the same footprint as the proposed Project but without the industrial warehouse/distribution use, Alternative 3 would meet all of the Project objectives but not to the same degree as the proposed Project. It would redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with an economically commercial use 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- jobs during the construction phase and only two jobs during the operations phase and provide the City with a space to host periodic community outdoor events. However, due to the elimination of the industrial use, it would not meet the financial-related objectives as well as the proposed Project.

Alternative 3 would produce fewer long-term jobs during the operational phase and generate less property tax revenues for the City to enhance its services to the community and infrastructural improvements and would not provide the revenue to make any monetary contribution to the City.

Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Alternative 3 to the Proposed Project Because Alternative 3 involves construction and operation of a facility of the same size and within the same project footprint as the proposed Project but without the industrial warehouse/distribution use, it would have essentially the same impacts as the proposed Project in most resource areas, with the exception of operational air quality and transportation impacts, which would be reduced given that fewer vehicle trips would occur. Alternative 3 would not reduce or eliminate the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact. Further details are provided in the subsections that follow.

Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Because Alternative 3 would construct a structure of the same square footage on the same footprint and with the same parking SF and landscaping components as the proposed Project, construction emissions would be approximately the same as those of the proposed Project. As such, impacts would not change under Alternative 3 and would thus remain less than significant for the same reasons described in Section 3.1 of this EIR. For construction health risk, because construction emissions would be approximately the same as the proposed Project, the risk would be above the threshold of significance and would require implementation of MM-AQ-1. 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-10
Operational activity for Alternative 3, including energy use, maintenance, and stationary source emissions, would be similar to the proposed Project. Because Alternative 3 would include primarily self-storage (2,100 units) and no industrial warehouse/distribution component, trip generation for Alternative 3 would be 380 total daily trips when compared to the 578 total daily trips under the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would also not include truck trips associated with the industrial warehouse uses. Therefore, mobile source emissions would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project. As such, air pollutant emissions, energy use, and GHG emissions during operation would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project, and impacts would be less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.1, Section 3.3, and Section 3.5 of this EIR.

Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would be located on the same site and within the same development footprint as the proposed Project. As such, it would impact the same cultural resources setting as the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would result in the demolition of the same existing on-site structures and excavation to the same depth for construction of the building as the proposed Project. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.2 of this EIR, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3 would apply to Alternative 3 and would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Geology and Soils
Alternative 3 would be located on the same site and within the same development footprint as the proposed Project. As such, it would impact the same geological setting as the proposed Project.

Alternative 3 would be designed and built with adherence to the same building code requirements as the proposed Project, which would ensure that as with the proposed Project, geology and soils impacts of Alternative 3 would be less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.4 of this EIR.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 3 would be located on the same site and within the same development footprint as the proposed Project. As such, it would overlap the engineered cap being installed over the Cooper Sump area of the Project site as part of the Final RAP. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in Section

3.6 of this EIR, Alternative 3 would require adherence to PDF-HAZ-1 and PDF-HAZ-2.

As discussed in Section 3.6 for the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would require the additional demolition of the remaining industrial building and residence on the western half of the Project site, which, based on their age, have the potential to contain asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paints, and other hazardous building materials. As such, implementation of MM-HAZ-1 would be required during construction of Alternative 3 to reduce impact to less than significant. Additionally, construction of Alternative 3 would encounter the small areas of diesel contamination above riskbased screening levels (ESLs) for construction and commercial exposure, and gasoline-range organics and PCE concentrations in soil vapor above ESLs for commercial exposure on the west side of the Project site. As such, excavation and relocation/removal of these soils could result in hazards to the public or environment such that impacts would be potentially significant if the contaminated soil is not appropriately managed. Therefore, development of a soil management plan (SMP) in 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-11
accordance with MM-HAZ-2 would be required under Alternative 3 to reduce impacts to less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.6 of this EIR.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 3 would have the same construction footprint as the proposed Project. As such, it would require the same amount of water for dust suppression during construction. Because Alternative 3 would not include the industrial warehouse/distribution use, its water demand would be the same or less than proposed Project. As such, its impact on groundwater supplies would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.7 of this EIR. Alternative 3 would include the same drainage features as the proposed Project. As such, its impact related to runoff would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.7 of this EIR. Alternative 3 would employ BMPs as part of a SWPPP during construction and as stated previously, would have a similar water demand compared to the proposed Project and employ the same drainage features as the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impacts related to water quality control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.7 of this EIR.

Land Use and Planning
Alternative 3 would develop a Project within the same footprint as the proposed Project that contains two of the uses included in the proposed Project (self-storage and office). Therefore, its consistency with land use plans, policies and regulations would be the same as the proposed Project, as discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIR and would remain less than significant.

Noise
Because Alternative 3 would involve development of a building and Project footprint that is the same as the proposed Project, construction of Alternative 3 would be approximately the same as that of the proposed Project. It would include the same construction equipment and phases and be located the same distance from the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.9 of this EIR, Alternative 3 would result in a significant and unavoidable noise impact to nearby receptors during construction.

Alternative 3 would not include truck and loading dock activities. However, as shown in Table 3.9-8, Stationary Source Noise Levels (dBA), of the EIR, truck and loading dock activities would not produce the highest noise level at any of the nearby receivers under the proposed Project. Storage loading and unloading activities would produce the highest noise levels at residential receptors to the southwest and west given their immediate adjacency to residential uses. Therefore, self-storage only operation as proposed under Alternative 3 would likely result in the same operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors as under the proposed Project.

Transportation
Alternative 3 would include approximately 2,100 self-storage units and no industrial warehouse/distribution use. Alternative 3 would result in a total of 380 total daily trips when compared to the 578 total daily trips under the proposed Project. Because the trips generated by 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-12
Alternative 3 would be notably less than those generated for the proposed Project, the VMT impacts would be less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.10 of this EIR.

Because site access would be the same as the proposed Project under Alternative 3, impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.10.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would be located on the same development footprint with excavation to the same depth as the proposed Project. As such, it would impact the same tribal cultural resources setting as the proposed Project and have the same chance of encountering unanticipated tribal cultural resources as the proposed Project. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIR, MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4 would apply to Alternative 3 and would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 3 would develop a Project of the same size as the proposed Project but without the industrial warehouse/distribution use. As such, its demand on all utilities, water supplies and wastewater treatment and its solid waste generation would be less than that of the proposed Project and would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.12 of this EIR.

5.3.4 Alternative 4 – Truck-Storage Lot Alternative
Alternative 4 would replace the Project’s self-storage, industrial, and office/mezzanine use building (totaling 268,000 SF) 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 on-site 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.

Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 4 would meet some of the Project objectives but not to the same degree as the proposed Project. It would redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property but not with the proposed Project’s economically vibrant industrial and commercial uses. It would 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. Alternative 4 would produce far fewer short-term- jobs during construction and only two jobs during the operations phase. 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-13
Alternative 4 would also generate less property tax revenues for the City to enhance its services to the community and infrastructural improvements and would not provide the City any monetary public benefit to the City’s General Fund. Additionally, Alternative 4 would not meet the objective of providing the City with a space to host periodic community outdoor events.

Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Alternative 4 to the Proposed Project Construction of Alternative 4 would produce lesser air quality, GHG and noise impacts than the proposed Project because construction intensity and duration would be reduced. However, because construction activity would still occur over the entire Project site and at the same distances to surrounding sensitive receptors, Alternative 4 would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable noise impact. During operations, Alternative 4 would have lower operational noise, vibration, transportation, and pedestrian safety impacts than the proposed Project. Further details are provided in the subsections that follow.

Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Because Alternative 4 would involve substantially less construction than the proposed Project, construction emissions would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. As such, impacts would remain less than significant for the same reasons described in Section 3.1 of this EIR. For construction health risk, while construction emissions would be less than the proposed Project, grading of the Project site would still be required, and thus the need for implementation of MM-AQ-1 is required. As such, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operational activity for Alternative 4, including energy use, maintenance, and stationary source emissions, would be substantially less than the proposed Project. Employee vehicle trips would also be greatly reduced (4 daily trips for security personnel) compared to 578 total daily trips under the proposed Project. And the stored trucks at the site would have engines off, thereby producing little to no air emissions. Therefore, mobile source emissions would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project. As such, air pollutant emissions, energy use, and GHG emissions during operation would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project, and impacts would be less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.1, Section 3.3, and Section 3.5 of this EIR.

Cultural Resources
Alternative 4 would be located on the same site and within the same development footprint as the proposed Project. As such, it would impact the same cultural resources setting as the proposed Project. Alternative 4 would result in the demolition of the same existing on-site structures. While the excavation depth would likely be reduced and thus potentially reduce impacts to such resources compared to the proposed Project, grading activities would still be required, and as such, for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.2 of this EIR, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3 would apply to Alternative 4 and would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Geology and Soils
Alternative 4 would be located on the same site and within the same development footprint as the proposed Project. As such, it would impact the same geological setting as the proposed Project. 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-14
However, Alternative 4 would not involve the construction of habitable structures as the security station would be modular. The parking lot, lighting and other elements of Alternative 4 would be designed and built with adherence to applicable code requirements. Therefore, the geology and soils impacts of Alternative 4 would be less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.4 of this EIR.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 4 would be located on the same site and within the same development footprint as the proposed Project. As such, it would overlap the engineered cap being installed over the Cooper Sump area of the Project site as part of the Final RAP. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in Section

3.6 of this EIR, Alternative 4 would require adherence to PDF-HAZ-1 and PDF-HAZ-2.

As discussed in Section 3.6 for the proposed Project, Alternative 4 would require the demolition of the remaining existing industrial and residential buildings on the western half of the Project site, which, based on their age, have the potential to contain asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paints, and other hazardous building materials. As such, implementation of MM-HAZ-1 would be required during construction of Alternative 4 to reduce impacts to less than significant. Additionally, construction of Alternative 4 would encounter the small areas of diesel contamination above riskbased screening levels (ESLs) for construction and commercial exposure, and gasoline-range organics and PCE concentrations in soil vapor above ESLs for commercial exposure on the west side of the Project site. As such, excavation and relocation/removal of these soils could result in hazards to the public or environment such that impacts would be potentially significant if the contaminated soil is not appropriately managed. Therefore, development of a soil management plan (SMP) in accordance with MM-HAZ-2 would be required under Alternative 4 to reduce impacts to less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.6 of this EIR.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 4 would have the same construction footprint as the proposed Project. As such, it would require the same amount of water for dust suppression during construction. Because Alternative 4 would not involve buildings that would require water use during operations, water demand would be substantially less than proposed Project. As such, Alternative 4’s impact on groundwater supplies would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.7 of this EIR.

Alternative 4 would include similar drainage features as the proposed Project. As such, its impact related to runoff would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.7 of this EIR. Alternative 4 would employ BMPs as part of a SWPPP during construction and as stated previously, would have a much lower water demand compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 4’s impacts related to water quality control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.7 of this EIR.

Land Use and Planning
Alternative 4 would develop a Project within the same footprint as the proposed Project, which has a land use designation of Specific Plan and is zoned as the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan, with a notation that it would be developed for industrial and commercial uses once a specific plan was adopted. 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-15
Alternative 4 would develop an industrial use at the Project site, which would be consistent with the zoning and land use designation. Therefore, it would be consistent with land use plans, policies and regulations and would remain less than significant.

Noise
Construction of Alternative 4 would be less intensive, shorter and involve fewer types of construction equipment than the proposed Project. However, it would be constructed on the same footprint as the proposed Project and would therefore be constructed the same distance form surrounding sensitive receptors. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.9 of this EIR, Alternative 4 would result in a significant and unavoidable noise impact to nearby receptors during construction though the duration of the impact would be reduced.

Alternative 4 would not include storage loading and unloading activities, which were shown to produce the highest noise levels at off-site residential receptors to the southwest and west under the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in lower operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors than the proposed Project. Impacts would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.9 of this EIR.

Transportation
Alternative 4 would develop a truck-storage lot that would result in 4 total daily trips, compared to the 578 total daily trips under the proposed Project. Because the trips generated by Alternative 4 would be much less than those generated for the proposed Project, the VMT impacts would be less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.10 of this EIR.

Because site access would be the same as the proposed Project under Alternative 4, impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.10.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 4 would be located on the same development footprint as the proposed Project As such, it would impact the same tribal cultural resources setting as the proposed Project. Alternative 4 would result in the demolition of the same existing on-site structures. While the excavation depth would likely be reduced and impacts to such resources would also likely be less compared to the proposed Project, grading of the Project site would still be required, and as such, for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIR, MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4 would apply to Alternative 4 and would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 4 would develop a truck-storage lot with minimal utility requirements. As such, its demand on all utilities, water supplies and wastewater treatment and its solid waste generation would be far less than that of the proposed Project and would remain less than significant for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.12 if this EIR.
5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-16

5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a project shall identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the EIR shall identify another Environmentally Superior Alternative among the remaining alternatives.

A summary of the environmental impacts associated with each alternative is provided in Table 5-1.

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 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.
5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-17
Table 5-1. Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts Comparison Environmental Issue
Area Project
No Project
Alternative
(Alternative 1)
Reduced Density
Alternative
(Alternative 2)
Self-Storage Only
Alternative
(Alternative 3)
Truck-Storage 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
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
5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-18
Table 5-1. Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts Comparison Environmental Issue
Area Project
No Project
Alternative
(Alternative 1)
Reduced Density
Alternative
(Alternative 2)
Self-Storage Only
Alternative
(Alternative 3)
Truck-Storage Lot
Alternative
(Alternative 4)
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
Truck-Storage Lot Alternative Conceptual Plan
1450 Artesia Specific Plan Draft EIR
FIGURE 5-1
Z:\Projects\j1393801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD
SOURCE: May 2023 Draft 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (City of Gardena) 5 – ALTERNATIVES
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 5-20

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 6-1
6 List of Preparers

6.1 City of Gardena
Amanda Acuna, Community Development Manager
Lisa Kranitz, City Attorney

6.2 Dudek
Nicole Cobleigh, Senior Project Manager
Laura Masterson, Deputy Project Manager
Elena Nuno, Air Quality Scientist
Jim Cowan, Noise Scientist
Eric Schniewind, Hydrogeologist
Sabita Tewani, Transportation Planner
Andrew Gries, Graphics

6.3 Subconsultants
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Ryan Chiene – BS, City and Regional Planning, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 2012
Health Risk Assessment
Alex Pohlman, LEED AP, EIT – MBA, Environmental Engineering, National University Cultural Resources
David Brunzell, RPA – MA, Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton Joseph Orozco, RPA – MA, Anthropology/Archaeology, California State University, Los Angeles Geology and Soils
Carl Kim, PE, GE – BS, University of California, Berkeley, M.Eng., Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hazards
Mauricio Escobar, PG – BA, Earth Science, University of California, Berkeley Jaydeep Purandare, PE – MS, Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati and BE, Civil Engineering 6 – LIST OF PREPARERS
1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR 13938
JULY 2024 6-2
Noise and Vibration
Ryan Chiene – BS, City and Regional Planning, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 2012
Transportation
Sowmya Chandrasekhar, PE, TE, PTOE – MS, Civil Engineering, BS, Civil Engineering Mehul Champaneri, PTP, RSP – MS, Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, BS, Civil Engineering, CEPT University
Utilities and Service Systems
Tanaya Bell, PE (CO), ENV SP – MS, Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, BS, Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno
Austin Alarcon, PE – BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine Final Environmental Impact Report
1450 Artesia Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2023060263
JANUARY 2025
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.

FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 TOC-i
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Preface.........................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose............................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Format of the Final EIR...................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Environmental Review Process......................................................................................1-2

1.3.1 Notice of Preparation..........................................................................................1-2

1.3.2 Noticing and Availability of the Draft .................................................................1-2

1.3.3 Final EIR...............................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR...............................................................................................1-3 2 Responses to Comments ...........................................................................................................2-1 3 Errata ...........................................................................................................................................3-1 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program..........................................................................4-1 TABLES
2-1 List of Commenters.....................................................................................................................2-1 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project .........4-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 TOC-i

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 1-1
1 Preface

1.1 Purpose
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Gardena (City) for the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (Project or proposed Project). This Final EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) statutes (Cal. Pub. Res.

Code, Section 21000 et. seq., as amended) and implementing guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.).

Before approving a project, CEQA requires the lead agency to prepare and certify a Final EIR. The City has the principal responsibility for approval of the proposed Project and is therefore considered the lead agency under CEQA Section 21067. According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:
▪ The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR
▪ Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary ▪ A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR ▪ The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
▪ Any other information added by the lead agency

1.2 Format of the Final EIR
This Final EIR consists of the August 2024 Draft EIR and the following four chapters:

1.0 Preface. This chapter summarizes the contents of the Final EIR and the environmental review process.

2.0 Response to Comments. During the public review period for the Draft EIR, six comment letters were received. This chapter contains these comment letters and the City’s responses to the comments.

3.0 Errata. Comments that are addressed in Chapter 2.0 may have resulted in minor revisions to the information contained in the August 2024 Draft EIR. Where necessary, deletions to the text are shown strikeout and additions to the text are shown in double underline in with references to where those changes apply to the text of the Draft EIR. Additionally, through the certification of this Final EIR, where the term “Draft EIR” is used in the text, this is now deemed to be “Final EIR.”

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This section of the Final EIR provides the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the proposed Project. The MMRP is presented in table format and identifies mitigation measures for the proposed Project, the implementation period for each measure, the implementing party, and the enforcing agency. The MMRP also provides a section for recordation of mitigation reporting.
1 – PREFACE
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 1-2

1.3 Environmental Review Process

1.3.1 Notice of Preparation
The City determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed Project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, interested agencies, and groups on June 8, 2023. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, recipients of the NOP were requested to provide responses within 30 days after their receipt of the NOP. The 30-day NOP public review period ended July 10, 2023. Comments received during the NOP public review period were considered during the preparation of this EIR. The NOP and NOP comments are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

1.3.2 Noticing and Availability of the Draft
The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. The 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR started on August 1, 2024, and ended on September 16, 2024. At the beginning of the public review period, an electronic copy of the Draft EIR and an electronic copy of the Notice of Completion (NOC) were submitted to the State Clearinghouse. Relevant State agencies, including the California Air Resources Board, Caltrans, the California Department of Conservation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, the California Native American Heritage Commission, the State Office of Historic Preservation, the California Highway Patrol, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Public Utilities Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Natural Resources Agency, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Department of Water Resources also received electronic copies of the documents. A Notice of Availability (NOA) was distributed to over 40 interested parties and surrounding property owners and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk. The NOA described where the document was available and how to submit comments on the Draft EIR. The NOA and Draft EIR were also made available for public review, by appointment, at the City Clerk’s office (1700 West 162nd Street, Gardena). Additionally, the document was available to be viewed on City’s website at:
https://cityofgardena.org/community-development/planning-projects/ The 45-day public review period provided interested public agencies, groups, and individuals the opportunity to comment on the contents of the Draft EIR.

1.3.3 Final EIR
The Final EIR addresses the comments received during the public review period and includes minor changes to the text of the Draft EIR in accordance with comments that necessitated revisions. This Final EIR will be presented to the City for potential certification as the environmental document for the proposed Project. All agencies who commented on the Draft EIR will be provided with a copy of 1 – PREFACE
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 1-3
the Final EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). The Final EIR will also be posted on the City’s website at:
https://cityofgardena.org/community-development/planning-projects/ Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City shall make findings for each of the significant effects identified in this EIR and shall support the findings with substantial evidence in the record.

After considering the Final EIR in conjunction with making findings under Section 15091, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the Project. When a lead agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency is required by CEQA to state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record.

Because the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, a “statement of overriding considerations” will be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

1.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR
The comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR resulted in several minor clarifications and modifications in the text of the August 2024 Draft EIR. In addition, minor editorial corrections have been made in sections of the Draft EIR. These changes are included as part of the Final EIR, to be presented to City decision makers for certification and Project approval.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 identifies when a lead agency must recirculate an EIR. A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification of the Final EIR.

Information includes changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not considered significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.

As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), significant new information requiring recirculation includes the following:

A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.

The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
1 – PREFACE
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 1-4
The minor clarifications, modifications, and editorial corrections that were made to the Draft EIR are shown in Chapter 3.0, Errata, of this Final EIR. None of the revisions that have been made to the EIR resulted in new significant impacts; none of the revisions resulted in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact identified in the Draft EIR; and, none of the revisions brought forth a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that is considerably different from those set forth in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the revisions do not cause the Draft EIR to be so fundamentally flawed that it precludes meaningful public review. As none of the CEQA criteria for recirculation have been met, recirculation of the EIR is not warranted. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), “recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-1
2 Responses to Comments
A draft version of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Project was circulated for public review from August 1, 2024 to September 16, 2024. This chapter of the Final EIR includes a copy of each comment letter provided during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR. The City of Gardena (City) has prepared responses to each comment, which are included in this chapter.

The comments are ordered numerically, and the individual issues within each comment letter are bracketed and numbered. The City’s responses to comments on the Draft EIR represent a good-faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency is required to evaluate and provide written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088).

As shown in Table 2-1, the City comment letters from four agencies: Los Angeles County Fire Department, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, the City of Torrance, and Caltrans. Additionally, letters representing two organizations were submitted. To finalize the EIR for the proposed Project, responses have been prepared to comments that were received during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), the City will provide a written response on comments submitted by public agencies to each respective public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR.

Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Comment Letter Name Date
Agencies
A-1 Los Angeles County Fire Department 08/16/2024
A-2 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts 09/09/2024
A-3 City of Torrance 09/16/2024
A-4 Caltrans 09/11/2024
Organizations
O-1 Lozeau Drury LLP 08/27/2024
O-2 Blum, Collins & Ho LLP 09/12/2024
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-2

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-3
Comment Letter A1
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-4
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-5
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-6

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-7
Response to Comment Letter A-1
Los Angeles County Fire Department
Ronald Durbin, Chief, Forestry Division
August 16, 2024
A-1.1 This comment is introductory and nature and does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-1.2 This comment states that the Planning Division does not have any comments at this time.

As such, no further response is required.

A-1.3 This comment references an attached page with a correction that needs to be incorporated into the Project Description. In response to this comment, the last sentence of the first paragraph under the “Circulation Improvements and Pedestrian Access” on page 2-6 of the EIR is revised to read as follows:

Per Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements, a 26-foot 28-foot-wide fire access lane would surround the property structure with direct access to Artesia Boulevard.

A-1.4 This comment states that specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the Fire Department building plan check review. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-1.5 This comment states that adequate water supply for fire protection purposes will be required and that fire hydrant locations and fire flow requirements will be confirmed during the plan check process. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-1.6 This comment is a closing statement from the Land Development Unit. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-1.7 This comment states the responsibilities of the Forestry Division. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-1.8 This comment acknowledges that there is future mitigation of contaminated soil at the project site and requests that project development activities be coordinated with DTSC prior to disturbing onsite soil. As discussed in Project Design Feature (PDF)-HAZ-1 in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project construction activities will be done in coordination with DTSC.
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-8
A-1.9 This comment is the suggested correction to the Project Description, as discussed under Comment A-1.3. In response to this comment, the correction, as noted in Response A-1.3, is incorporated into the Final EIR.
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-9
Comment Letter A-2

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-10
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-11
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-12

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-13
Response to Comment Letter A-2
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Patricia Horsley
September 9, 2024
A-2.1 This comment is introductory and nature and does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-2.2 This comment references a letter provided by the Sanitation Districts, dated June 29, 2023, where it was indicated that the Project would generate approximately 6,037 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater flow upon completion of construction, rather than the 604 gpd cited in the EIRAs discussed in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, the existing water demand is 604 gallons per day (gpd), consistent with the existing demand used in the Project’s wastewater analysis included in Appendix L1 of the EIR. The existing wastewater generation amount is estimated at 1,510 gpd, which is also discussed in Appendix L1 of the EIR. This comment estimates the total proposed wastewater demand would be 6,037 gpd upon Project buildout. As discussed on page 3.12-13 in Section

3.12 of the Draft EIR, the analysis within the EIR assumed an expected increase in average wastewater from the Project to be 17,786 gpd, which is significantly greater than the amount estimated by the Sanitation Districts. As shown in Section 3.12, even with this higher estimate, the Project would not require the construction of additional wastewater treatment facilities and potential impacts would be less than significant.

A-2.3 This comment states that the while the Draft EIR identifies that two sewer lines are owned and maintained by the LACSD, LACSD actually owns the 21-inch sewer main line in Artesia Boulevard, and the 8-inch sewer line in South Normandie Avenue is owned by the City of Gardena. In response to this comment, the last sentence of the first full paragraph on page

3.12-3 is revised to read as follows:
“Both sewer lines areThe 21-inch sewer line in Artesia Boulevard is owned and maintained by the LACSD, while the 8-inch sewer line in South Normandie Avenue is owned and maintained by the City. The site currently connects to the 21-inch sewer main in Artesia Boulevard via a lateral connection.”
A-2.4 This comment notes that all other information concerning the District’s facilities and sewage service within the Draft EIR is correct and provides contact information for the commenter. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-2.5 This comment is introductory and was part of the letter submitted on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) on June 29, 2023. The comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-14
A-2.6 This comment discusses how wastewater flow originating from the Project site would discharge and flow through the wastewater system. This comment was addressed and incorporated into the analysis included in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-2.7 This comment identifies that wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson and identifies the treatment capacity of this Plant. This comment was addressed and incorporated into the analysis included in Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-2.8 This comment references a letter provided by the Sanitation Districts, dated June 29, 2023, where it was indicated that the Project would generate approximately 6,037 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater flow upon completion of construction, rather than the 604 gpd cited in the EIR. See Response A-2.2 above regarding the estimated wastewater flows from the Project site.

A-2.9 This comment discusses that the Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewage System and how the fee is utilized by the Districts. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-2.10 This comment discusses how all expansion of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that is consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional growth forecasts. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required. 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-15
Comment Letter A-3
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-16

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-17
Response to Comment Letter A-3
City of Torrance
Oscar Martinez
September 16, 2024
A-3.1 This comment is introductory in nature and identifies that the City of Torrance has reviewed the Draft EIR and Local Transportation Assessment. The comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-3.2 This comment requests traffic signal equipment and appurtenances, as well as the reconstruction of the curb ramp at the southeast corner to achieve ADA compliance, to the satisfaction of the City of Torrance Public Works Director. The comment specifically asks for the following:
▪ Contactless Pedestrian Push Buttons
▪ Pedestrian Countdown Heads
▪ Signal head and backplates with Yellow Retroreflective Border ▪ Video Detection System
▪ Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP)
▪ Battery Backup Unit
▪ Rewire entire intersection
▪ Remove and replace two damaged Type 15 traffic signal poles at the southwest and southeast corners
The analysis shown in Appendix J2 of the EIR demonstrates that the Project does not result in impacts to this intersection and to roadway segments, that would trigger any improvements to the equipment.. As such, no further response is required.

A-3.3 This comment provides contact information for the commenter. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required. 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-18

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-19
Comment Letter A-4
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-20
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-21
Response to Comment Letter A-4
Caltrans
Anthony Higgins
September 11, 2024
A-4.1 This comment is introductory in nature and defines the Project, as analyzed in the Draft EIR. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-4.2 This comment questions if the Class III bike lane along Normandie Avenue is up to standard and recommends developing the roadway under a Complete Streets framework to encourage bike-sharing facilities and to prepare for the integration of Class II and/or Class IV bike lane networks. The comment also requests that bicycle parking be located as close to the main entrance as possible. This design recommendation is being shared with decision-makers; however, this comment is not within the scope of the environmental analysis included in the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-4.3 This comment recommends installing shade trees along Artesia Boulevard to enhance mobility of non-motorized users. The right-of-way along Artesia Boulevard, and the wall that has been installed beneath the ground surface to contain contamination on the Project site limits the ability to install shade trees. Additionally, this comment is not within the scope of the environmental analysis included in the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-4.4 This comment recommends a raised crosswalk to connect the Project to Artesia Boulevard to ensure a safer and more comfortable crossing for those walking and using mobility devices. The comment also requests that surface parking not face the street directly and that landscaping along the sidewalks would encourage recreational walking. The Project includes a landscape buffer along Artesia Boulevard, as shown in Figure 2-6, Landscape Plan, of the Draft EIR. The raised crosswalk recommendation is being shared with decisionmakers; however, this comment is not within the scope of the environmental analysis included in the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-4.5 This comment states that if any heavy construction equipment and/or materials would require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State Highways, a permit from Caltrans must be obtained. Additionally, if any construction traffic is expected to cause issues on State Highways, a construction traffic control plan must be submitted to Caltrans. These comments and needs are understood. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

A-4.6 This comment provides contact information for the commenter. This comment does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required. 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-22

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-23
Comment Letter 0-1
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-24

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-25
Response to Comment Letter O-1
Lozeau Drury LLP
Brian B. Flynn
August 27, 2024
O-1.1 This comment is introductory and nature and does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-1.2 This comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. The comment further states that because of shortcomings a revised Draft EIR should be prepared and recirculated. However, no specific deficiencies are identified by the commenter and no mitigation measures are recommended. This comment does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-1.3 This comment states that the Supporters Alliance for Responsibility reserves the right to supplement these comments during the administrative process. This comment is understood. However, the comment does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-26

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-27
Comment Letter
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-28
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-29
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-30
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-31
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-32
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-33
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-34
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-35
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-36
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-37
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-38
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-39
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-40
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-41
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-42
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-43
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-44
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-45
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-46
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-47
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-48
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-49
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-50
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-51
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-52
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-53
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-54
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-55
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-56
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-57
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-58
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-59
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-60
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-61
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-62
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-63
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-64
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-65
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-66
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-67
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-68
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-69
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-70
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-71
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-72
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-73
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-74
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-75
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-76
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-77
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-78
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-79
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-80
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-81
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-82
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-83
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-84
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-85
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-86
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-87
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-88
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-89
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-90
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-91
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-92
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-93
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-94
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-95
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-96
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-97
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-98
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-99
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-100
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-101
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-102
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-103
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-104
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-105
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-106
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-107
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-108
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-109
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-110
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-111
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-112
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-113
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-114
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-115
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-116
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-117
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-118
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-119
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-120
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-121
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-122
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-123
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-124
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-125
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-126
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-127
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-128
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-129
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-130
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-131
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-132
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-133
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-134

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-135
Response to Comment Letter O-2
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
Gary Ho
September 12, 2024
O-2.1 This comment is introductory and nature and does not raise any comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. The comment requests that the commenter be added to the public interest list for future project notifications. This action has been taken.

O-2.2 This comment summarizes the proposed project. It does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.3 This comment asserts that the Project Description does not include detailed building elevations, a detailed site plan, floor plans, or a conceptual grading plan and that the exclusion of these figures and certain information from Figure 2-4, Site Plan, renders the EIR inadequate as an informational document because meaningful analysis cannot be ascertained based on the information provided in the DEIR. See Response O-2.4 for a discussion of building elevations and grading plans.

The intent of Figure 2-4, Site Plan is to provide the reader with an appropriate level of detail to easily understand the major elements of the proposed project, not to depict every detail of the project. The information cited by the commenter can be found either elsewhere in the EIR or in the Draft Specific Plan, which is incorporated by reference into the EIR. Site coverage is discussed in Section 3.7.4, Impact Analysis, Threshold HYD-1 of Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. Parking requirements are described in Section

5.7, Vehicle Parking, of the Draft Specific Plan, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is described Section 5.3, Development Standards, of the Draft Specific Plan.

O-2.4 The comment states that building elevations were not included in the Draft EIR and that they are vital to review the maximum building heights. The building height is described in Section 2.5.1, Project Components, of the Draft EIR. Additionally, Figure 2-5, Architectural Features provides renderings of the project structure which clearly depict the scale and height of the building in relation to its surroundings. This provides sufficient information for the reader to understand the maximum height of the building.

The comment also states that the Draft EIR does not include grading plans and does not provide information on the quantity of cut/fill material during grading which is necessary to inform the quantity of truck hauling trips during grading. Grading plans were included in the Draft Specific Plan, which is incorporated by reference into the EIR. No haul trips were included during grading because the project site would be balanced.

The comment requests a revised EIR that includes a detailed floorplan, grading plan, building elevations and project narrative. The paragraphs above address the grading plan and building elevations. A detailed floorplan is not necessary to adequately assess and 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-136
disclose project impacts. Section 2.5.1 describes the location, square footage and other relevant details of each project use. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR provides a detailed project narrative with sufficient information for a reader to understand the proposed project and to allow for meaningful analysis throughout the Draft EIR, consistent with the requirements outlined in Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines.

O-2.5 The comment states that the Draft EIR excluded the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan and Development Agreement and therefore does not comply with CEQA Guidelines 15121 and California Public Resources Code 21003(b). It further asserts that incorporation by reference, as allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 (f), is inadequate. It is not common practice nor is it a requirement that subject specific plans and/or development agreements be included as appendices to CEQA documents. The incorporation by reference of the Draft 1450 Artesia Specific Plan is appropriate, as allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 (f). Additionally, the Draft 1450 Artesia Specific Plan was readily available for review alongside the Draft EIR. The link provided in the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR directs to a page on the City’s website that contains links to both the Draft 1450 Artesia Specific Plan and the DEIR, appendices and associated notices. Additionally, all physical components of the Draft Specific Plan were discussed and analyzed in the Draft EIR and the Development Agreement does not contain any information that requires analysis pursuant to CEQA.

O-2.6 The comment generally states the proposed project would generate air pollution in an area with high pollution burden under existing conditions. As discussed in Draft EIR pages 3.1- 30 to 3.1-31, and 3.1-33 to 3.1-35, the proposed project would not exceed any South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional or localized thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. The SCAQMD’s criteria pollutant emissions thresholds are based on the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAAQS) to protect human health. Thus, projects that do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds are not anticipated to result in human health effects or impacts.

The project’s Health Risk Assessment (HRA) also evaluated potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic impacts to sensitive receptors in the site vicinity. Impacts at sensitive receptors were determined to be less than significant with implementation of MM AQ-1 (Tier 4 Construction Equipment) and MM AQ-2 (Electric Cargo Handling Equipment). Thus, there would be no health-related impacts from air pollution or other sources as a result of the proposed project.

O-2.7 The comment states that the project’s census tract ranks in the 91st percentile for solid waste impacts and the 67th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts and that these facilities can expose people to hazards and pose a health risk to nearby populations. This comment is noted, and in fact the project, in part, helps redevelop a contaminated site that has been polluting the surrounding land uses and environment. However, the comment does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-137
O-2.8 The comment states that the project’s census tract ranks in the 96th percentile for impaired waters and 87th percentile for groundwater threats and that these pollutants can be harmful to wildlife and people. This comment is noted, and in fact the project, in part, helps redevelop a contaminated site that has been polluting the surrounding land uses and environment. However, the comment does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.9 The comment states that the project’s census tract ranks in the 89th percentile for cleanup site impacts. It states that these sites should be cleaned up, that they expose nearby populations to chemicals and that some studies have shown that neighborhoods with cleanup sites are generally poorer and have more people of color than other neighborhoods. This comment is noted, and in fact the project, in part, helps redevelop a contaminated site that has been polluting the surrounding land uses and environment.

The Draft EIR describes the existing site contamination and the cleanup that would occur prior to implementation of the proposed project under a Department of Toxic Substances Control-approved Final Remedial Action Plan. However, the comment does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.10 The comment states various statistics related to the diversity, education and socioeconomic status of the project’s census tract. It states that poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution and that living in poverty can precipitate health impacts. This comment is noted, and in fact the project, in part, helps redevelop a contaminated site that has been polluting the surrounding land uses and environment.

However, the comment does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.11 The comment states that the project’s census tract, as well as surrounding census tracts, are identified as Disadvantaged Communities. It states that the Draft EIR does not discuss this fact or utilize it in the analysis and that it should be included in a revised EIR. This comment is noted. However, as shown throughout Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not cause any significant and unavoidable impacts aside from temporary significant construction noise impacts to immediately adjacent residential receptors.

Therefore, there would be no ongoing significant impacts to the surrounding community, regardless of whether it is identified as a Disadvantaged Community. Therefore, the information is not pertinent to the analysis. Additionally, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, social and economic effects are not treated as significant effects on the environment under CEQA unless they result in a physical change, which is not the case for the proposed project.

O-2.12 The comment questions the validity of the energy calculations and analysis in the Draft EIR and states project energy consumption should be quantified using one of the following approved Title 24 models: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and/or IES VE. Project energy consumption was calculated using CalEEMod output files and CARB EMFAC2021 data to analyze potential energy impacts in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The State 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-138
CEQA Guidelines do not require energy analyses to utilize Title 24 modeling programs to evaluate environmental impacts. As discussed in Section 3.3, Energy, of the Draft EIR, energy consumption from the project would be nominal and would not cause a wasteful, inefficient, and/or unnecessary consumption of energy during Project construction, operation, and/or maintenance, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation.

O-2.13 The comment asserts that the Draft EIR cumulative analysis should be revised to include analysis of projects approved since adoption of the City’s General Plan and projects “in the pipeline” to assess whether the project would exceed the General Plan buildout scenario. As discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, as per CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), cumulative analysis can be based on 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. Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the Draft EIR includes a comprehensive list of cumulative projects including past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), option (A), which were considered in the cumulative analyses throughout Chapter 3. As such, the cumulative analyses were conducted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15130.

O-2.14 The comment asserts that due to modeling errors and unsupported modeling, the consistency analysis for SCAG’s 2020-2045 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS is invalid. As discussed in detail in Response O-2.12 and Responses O-2.33 through O-2.39, the modeling in the Draft EIR is adequate and appropriate. Therefore, as supported by the results of the modeling, the consistency analysis in the Draft EIR is accurate, and no changes or revisions to the EIR are required in response to this comment.

O-2.15 The comment asserts that the EIR does not provide substantial or meaningful evidence to support the claim that the project does not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and lists ten General Plan Policies and Goals whose consistency it claims are not supported.

Table 3.8-2, Consistency with Applicable City of Gardena General Plan Policies, includes a consistency analysis of all General Plan Policies that were determined to be applicable to the proposed project. The majority of the Goals and Policies cited in the comment are not applicable to the project. However, in response to this comment, the consistency analysis for LU Goal 2, LU Goal 3, DS Goal 4 and DS 4.5 have been added to Table 3.8-2. The title of Table 3.8-2 has also been revised as shown below. As shown in the revised Table 3.8- 2, the additional analysis does not result in any new or different environmental impacts than those already addressed in the Draft EIR.
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-139
The following revisions have been made to Table 3.8-2:

Table 3.8-2. Consistency with Applicable City of Gardena General Plan Goals and Policies
LU Goal 2: Develop and preserve high quality
commercial centers and clean industrial uses
that benefit the City’s tax base, create jobs and
provide a full range of services to the residents
and businesses.

Consistent. The Project’s Specific Plan includes
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
that support this policy, including architectural
standards, landscaping requirements and
maintenance standards.

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

Consistent. The Project’s Specific Plan includes
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
that support this policy, including architectural
standards, landscaping requirements and
maintenance standards.

DS Goal 4: Achieve high quality design for
commercial uses.

Consistent. The Project’s Specific Plan includes
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
that support this policy, including architectural
standards, landscaping requirements and
design principles.

DS 4.5: New or remodeled commercial
structures and properties should be designed
to reflect the City’s architectural diversity, yet
be compatible with nearby existing buildings.

Consistent. The Project’s Specific Plan includes
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
that support this policy. As stated in the
Specific Plan’s Summary Statement, “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.”
O-2.16 The comment asserts that a conclusion of consistency with General Plan policies based on implementation of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan is invalid because the Specific Plan was not included as an appendix to the Draft EIR. See Response 0-2.5 for a discussion of the appropriateness of incorporating the Specific Plan by reference.

O-2.17 The comment reiterates the City’s VMT Guidelines. No response is required.

O-2.18 The comment states that, because the industrial portion of the project has an FAR of 0.26, it would not screen out from a project-level VMT analysis, as the City’s VMT Guidelines state that screening out may not be appropriate if the project’s FAR is less than 0.75.

Please see below errata for the third paragraph on page 3.10-11 as well as the third full paragraph on page 3.10-12 of the Draft EIR, confirming the project would meet the Project Type screening:

The Project’s industrial and self-storage land use components (as shown in Appendix J2 and J3) are estimated to generate more than 110 daily vehicle trips; thus, the industrial 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-140
and self-storage uses are not screened out initially based on Project Type screening. The Project’s office component is estimated to generate less than 110 daily vehicle trips; hence it will be screened out. Alternatively, this component could be developed as retail use. As mentioned above, local-serving retail use less than 50,000 square feet would screen out of conducting a detailed VMT analysis.

Based on the VMT screening, the Project’s special events component, along with the office and industrial uses would screen out of a VMT analysis using Project Type Screening criteria and would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. Only the self-storage components of the Project would not initially screen out based on the three screening criteria and would require a VMT analysis. Therefore, a VMT impact analysis was conducted for the self-storage use.

O-2.19 The comment states that the project’s VMT analysis concerning the self-storage component is too speculative and does not provide sufficient evidence that the selfstorage use would reduce trip lengths. Adding a new self-storage facility in the region would reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by providing more localized access to storage, minimizing the need for longer trips. Customer-based land uses, like self-storage, are designed to minimize trip distances by being located near the highest demand areas. As shown in the Exhibit 4 of the project’s VMT analysis, the project site is located outside the service areas of existing surrounding self-storage facilities, therefore by filling the gap high demand storage facilities the project would shorten trip distances and consolidate visits with other local activities. This also reduces out-of-region travel for those seeking storage elsewhere, especially benefiting local residents and businesses that require convenient storage options. Over time, the proximity of the new facility would encourage more efficient travel patterns, ultimately lowering VMT in the area. Thus, it is appropriate to assume that the project would have a less-than-significant VMT impact.

O-2.20 The comment states that the project’s Special Event component VMT analysis lacks evidence that it would result in less-than-significant impacts, and these special events “are not locally-serving activities”. The commenter has not provided any substantial evidence that farmers markets, mobile vaccination events, food giveaways, or other types of events listed would attract non-locals. These events are City-organized, City-sponsored, and intended for City residents and residents of nearby communities.

O-2.21 The comment states that the EIR fails to evaluate potential hazards from design features such as truck turning, and that no truck turning exhibits are provided within the EIR. The Specific Plan was posted to the City’s website along with the Draft EIR for public review and is incorporated by reference as noted in the Project Description. As provided in the Project Description, Figures 2-8a and 2-8b depict the project’s truck/trailer site access and on-site circulation under typical conditions (Figure 2-8a) and special events (Figure 2- 8b), in addition to the site’s driveway and drive aisle measurements, and turn radii along the on-site truck route. Based on the information contained in those figures, the project has been designed consistent with the City’s Standard Plans for driveway spacing (ST-1) and commercial driveway widths (ST-2 and ST-3). The on-site truck turn radii shown on the site plan is consistent with truck turn radii specifications in Table 2-5a – Minimum Turning Radii of Design Vehicles of the American Association of State Highway Transportation 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-141
Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (The Green Book, 2018). During special events, two-way truck traffic would occur along the internal drive aisle. During those times, truck traffic generated by the project would be very low thus allowing trucks to adequately maneuver around each other in the drive aisle without impeding on-site pedestrian and passenger-car traffic.

With regard to project truck traffic on adjacent streets, Artesia Boulevard, Western Avenue, and Vermont Avenue are classified as Arterial roadways in the City’s General Plan, Circulation Plan (updated 2020). Per the Circulation Plan, Arterials connect traffic from smaller roadways to freeway interchanges and regional roadway corridors, serve regional bus transit routes, and are the primary truck routes in the community. Therefore, Artesia Boulevard, where the project would have primary truck access, is designed to accommodate truck traffic generated by the project. Regarding the six on-site parking spaces within the gated warehouse truck loading area, those spaces are for the employees of the proposed warehouse use who will have direct access to the warehouse portion of the site. Since access to those six spaces would be gated on both sides, patrons of the self-storage facility would not be able to use those spaces and therefore would not be interacting with on-site truck traffic. Based on the project being consistent with the City’s Standards on driveways and access, AASHTO’s truck turn radii standards, and the provision of internal gates preventing self-storage patrons entering the warehouse’s truck loading area, impacts to truck access and circulation would still be less than significant.

O-2.22 The comment states that the project does not evaluate horizontal and vertical sight distance at project driveways and adjacent streets. As noted in the project’s Local Transportation Assessment, the project’s trips were analyzed at intersections and roadway segments identified in cooperation with the City through a Traffic Scoping Agreement. The project’s Local Transportation Analysis found that the project would not require any roadway improvements. The commenter has not provided substantial evidence that vertical or horizontal sight distances would be impeded by the project such that a significant environmental impact would occur.

O-2.23 The comment asserts that the EIR does not provide a source calculation for the number of employees that would be supported during project operations and suggests a calculation based on SCAG’s Employment Density Study. However, the generation rates used in the comment’s calculations do not accurately reflect the project’s intended operations. Specifically, the use of the Other Retail/Service generation rate is not appropriate for the self-storage use because its use would artificially inflate the number of employees. Self-storage uses generate very few employees and absent a published generation rate for this specific use, the applicant’s experience with similar projects was utilized to estimate the number of employees. The applicant’s estimate was three employees for 186,000 gross square feet (GSF) of self-storage. Additionally, the use of the Light Manufacturing generation rate is not appropriate for the warehouse uses proposed and its use would artificially inflate the number of employees. The number of employees for 72,000 sf of industrial and 10,000 sf of office/retail was estimated based on the applicant’s market estimation and determined to be 37 employees. Section 4.2.11, Population and Housing of Chapter 4, Other CEQA Considerations, includes a detailed 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-142
comparison of project’s estimated employment to the Demographics and Growth Forecast technical report in SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. According to this report, the City had 29,300 jobs in 2016 and is expected to accommodate 32,100 jobs by 2045 (SCAG 2020), an increase of approximately 2,800 jobs. The project is expected to be operational in approximately the fall of 2025. Assuming that the City keeps pace with SCAG’s growth projections and that growth is evenly divided across the planning horizon (approximately

96.5 jobs per year), the City is expected to experience an increase of approximately 193 jobs between 2023 and the time of project buildout (2025). The employment provided by the project upon project buildout would fall within these projections. Assuming that the project would accommodate new businesses in the City (as opposed to businesses that relocate from elsewhere in the City), the project’s 40 jobs would equate 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 2023 and the project’s anticipated buildout year (2025).

O-2.24 The comment asserts that based on the employee generation of 558 employees the commenter has calculated, the proposed project would represent 19.9% of the City’s employment growth from 2016-2045. It then uses this calculated number of employees to argue the need for a revised EIR. As discussed in Response O-2.23 above, the employee generation rates used in the commenter’s calculations are not appropriate for the project’s proposed uses and the commenter’s estimate is therefore highly inflated and not reflective of the proposed project’s operations. As stated in the Draft EIR and explained above, the project is estimated to generate 40 employees. As such, the arguments based on the commenter’s inaccurate employee generation calculation are not valid. See Response O-2.13 for a discussion of cumulative impact analysis.

O-2.25 The comment asserts that the Draft EIR defers analysis by stating that the Los Angeles County Fire Department would review the project plans to ensure adequate emergency access as part of the building plan check process. Citing compliance with required processes or regulations does not constitute a deferral of analysis under CEQA. In addition, as part of the Project planning process, the plans have already been reviewed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Project was designed to meet its recommendations. Additionally, the commenter’s interpretation that any minor changes to design that may come out of a project’s plan check process constitute a deferral of analysis would mean that projects could not be assessed pursuant to CEQA until after the plan check process has been completed. This interpretation is not reasonable and is in direct conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15004 (b), which states that environmental documents should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment. Any minor changes to project design resulting from the plan check process, including review by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, would not change the project such that the information provided in the Draft EIR is not meaningful. 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-143
O-2.26 The comment asserts that the proposed project would add 588 employees, which constitutes 19.9% of the City’s employment growth from 2016-2045. The calculations and conclusions in the comment rely on the commenter’s inaccurate and inflated calculation of the proposed project’s operational employment. See Response O-2.23 for a detailed discussion of the project’s operational employment. The comment also asserts that the cumulative analysis should include projects approved since General Plan adoption and projects “in the pipeline.” See Response O-2.13 for a discussion of the project’s cumulative impact analysis. Lastly, the comment asserts that the EIR should be revised to include demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers. As discussed in Section 4.2.11, Population and Housing of Chapter 4, Other CEQA Considerations, because the project would be located in a developed area within Los Angeles County that has close access to major freeways, it is anticipated that jobs created by the Project would be filled by existing City residents or by residents of neighboring cities.

Additional detail on potential employees would be speculative.

O-2.27 The comment states that the EIR must include a cumulative analysis discussion as it related to the City’s General Plan, particularly because the Project EIR tiers form the General Plan EIR. The commenter is incorrect that the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan EIR tiers from the General Plan EIR. The EIR for the Project is a standalone, project-level EIR which refers to the General Plan as necessary for the analysis contained therein. Tiering, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, is limited to situations where the project is consistent with general plan and zoning of the city or county in which the project is located (15152 (e)), which is not the case for the project. See Response O-2.13 for a discussion of the project’s cumulative impact analysis.

O-2.28 The comment asserts that the energy modeling for the Project is erroneous because energy consumption was not modeled in compliance with Title 24 modeling software. See response to comment O-2.12 above.

O-2.29 The comment asserts that the EIR does not adequately discuss or analyze the commitment of resources or cumulative analysis, basing the assertion on the commenter’s inaccurate and inflated calculation of the project’s operational employment. Section 4.4.1, Large Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources, assesses the project’s commitment of resources based on the assumptions and calculations used for the analysis contained in the EIR. See Response O.2-23 for a detailed discussion of the project’s operational employment. See Response O-2.13 for a discussion of cumulative impact analysis.

O-2.30 The comment asserts that the EIR does not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives and that it must include an alternative that that reduces all significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant levels. Section 5.2, Alternatives Considered but Rejected includes a detailed discussion of why there is no feasible alternative that could reduce the significant an unavoidable impact to less than significant under Section 5.2.2, Avoid Significant Construction Noise Impact. Construction of any project on the western side of the project site would trigger significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts due to the presence of residential receptor immediately (15 feet) west of the project site. The only way to potentially reduce noise impacts at the adjacent receptors would be to move construction farther from the receptors, to the eastern side of the project site and to leave 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-144
the existing dilapidated structures in place. However, the Final RAP prohibits the construction of buildings on the eastern side of the project site (Cooper Sump area) due to the location of the former sump and the engineered cap that ARC will install in this area as such construction could damage the cap and impede access to it needed for its operation, maintenance and repair. Therefore, developing the project building on the eastern side of the project site is not allowed and is therefore infeasible. Additionally, the Final RAP also includes a provision for a legal land use covenant to limit future uses of the project site to be recorded on the property, which will limit futures uses to commercial and industrial uses and bar residential and other sensitive uses. The alternatives carried forward for analysis, as assessed in detail in Section 5.3, represent a reasonable range of alternatives which take into account the constraints of developing the project site.

O-2.31 The comment is a conclusionary statement which broadly restates the commenter’s assertion that a revised EIR must be prepared. It does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.32 The comment is the introductory statement of Attachment A of the comment letter, which consists of an assessment by SWAPE of the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis conducted for the project. The comment asserts broadly that the EIR fails to adequately evaluate the project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. It does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.33 The comment states there is not enough information provided in the Draft EIR regarding CalEEMod inputs and requests the project’s JSON files for CalEEMod. All CalEEMod output files are provided in the Draft EIR, which show project-specific data to quantify air quality and GHG emissions. In addition, the methodology and inputs to CalEEMod are described in detail in the methodology sections of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Draft EIR Sections (Sections 3.1 and 3.5, respectively).

O-2.34 The comment states that CalEEMod inputs and project information are inconsistent and that the project’s construction/operational emissions are underestimated. However, the commenter does not provide specific detail on any inconsistencies. Construction and operational emissions were modeled in CalEEMod based on applicant-provided information regarding construction schedule, site design, and general project operations, as well as the project tip generation analysis.

O-2.35 The comment suggests the Draft EIR should include air quality and GHG emissions for cold storage facilities. The project does not include any cold storage facilities. The Draft EIR incorrectly states on page 3.5-28 that the energy analysis conservatively assumes the total building area of the warehouse would be refrigerated. This is a typo and will be corrected in the Errata. Additionally, the Specific Plan prohibits refrigerated uses. No further response is required.
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-145
O-2.36 The comment questions the validity of the construction schedule and phasing used in CalEEMod. Construction emissions were calculated based on the estimated construction schedule and general construction information (e.g., disturbance acreage, demolition volumes, etc.) provided by the Applicant. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the project’s construction air quality emissions are well below the SCAQMD’s regional and localized thresholds of significance and would not result in any significant impacts. The commenter’s request to adjust the construction schedule are unjustified, would likely result in minimal changes (if any) and would not change the significance findings of the EIR.

O-2.37 The comment states that the vehicle trips used in CalEEMod are incorrect and underestimate the project’s mobile emissions. The trip generation data modeled in CalEEMod was taken directly from the project’s Local Transportation Assessment (LTA).

The project’s daily trips were intentionally separated by vehicle type and modeled on separate land use types in CalEEMod to quantify mobile emissions by vehicle type, trip purpose, trip length, and fleet mix. The trips modeled in CalEEMod (945 daily trips) represent the maximum daily trips generated by the project (725 daily trips + 220 trips for a special event = 945 maximum daily trips) and associated air quality emissions. The project’s mobile emissions comprise most of total operational air emissions, which are well below SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds. Any adjustments to the mobile traffic inputs in CalEEmod would likely result in nominal changes (if any) to the project’s operational mobile emissions and would not change the significance findings of the EIR.

O-2.38 The comment states that there are unsubstantiated changes to the default operational fleet mix percentages in the CalEEMod model. See response to comment O-2.37 above.

O-2.39 The comment presents a commenter-prepared construction CalEEMod model output for a hypothetical change to the project construction schedule. There is no evidence or basis for the changes to the project construction schedule/phasing, and no further response is required.

O-2.40 The comment states the project would contribute to disproportionate health risk impacts for residents surrounding the site and environmental justice communities. As discussed in the Draft EIR, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the project. Health risk impacts were assessed for the nearest residents and students (children) to the project site. According to the HRA, the maximum mitigated cancer risk would be approximately

6.71 in one million for residents and 0.66 in one million for students and would not exceed SCAQMD’s cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. SCAQMD does not currently have a separate methodology or threshold to evaluate a project’s contribution to cumulative cancer risk. Instead, projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. It should also be noted that per data published by the SCAQMD in the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES V), the average cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continues to decline despite consistent cumulative growth in Southern California.
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-146
O-2.41 The comment states that the project’s GHG emissions are incorrectly modeled, uses an outdated threshold, and the project may result in a potentially significant impact. See response to comments O-2.33 and34 and O-2.36 and37 above. Given that neither the City, CARB, nor SCAQMD have adopted a numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions within the City or region, the approach for evaluating the Project’s impacts related to GHG emissions relies on compliance with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, which includes CARB’s Scoping Plan, SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and statewide 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets identified in SB 32 and EO S-3-05. The compliance evaluation is the sole basis for determining the significance of the project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment.

Analysis to the SCAQMD’s recommended 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold utilized in the Draft EIR is to illustrate compliance with the applicable plans, policies, and regulations.

The SCAQMD’s recommended threshold is based on the supporting analysis outlined in SCAQMD’s draft GHG guidance and meeting notes and would capture 90 percent of GHG emissions from projects in the region. This type of market capture analysis captures a substantial fraction of the GHG emissions from future development to accommodate for future population and job growth and excludes small development projects that would contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. The 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold was used to evaluate the potential for the project to result in a significant GHG emissions impact under CEQA because it has been recommended by SCAQMD and SCAQMD is an expert agency in the Southern California region. Further, the SCAQMD provides substantial evidence that the thresholds are consistent with policy goals and 2050 GHG emissions reduction targets set by the State. Specifically, the thresholds were set at levels that capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from the above-described uses, consistent with EO S-3-05 target of reducing GHGs to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Mitigation measures were imposed to bring the project below the threshold.

O-2.42 The comment states that the DEIR’s GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. See response to comments O-2.33 and 34 and O-2.36 and 37 above.

O-2.43 The comment states the Draft EIR utilizes an outdated GHG emissions threshold and that a service population threshold is more appropriate to evaluate the project’s potential GHG impacts. See response to comment O-2.41 above. The service population threshold as recommended in the comment is based on statewide population and emissions data and has been invalidated by the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego case in 20181. In addition, as discussed in Draft EIR pages 3.5-31 to 3.5-40, the proposed project would comply with the local and state GHG reductions plans with implementation of mitigation. Since the project would not conflict with any GHG reduction plans, a less than significant impact would occur.

O-2.44 The comment states the project should result in a potentially significant GHG impact and identifies a potential service population GHG threshold. See response to comment O-2.43 above.
1 Golden Door Properties v. County of San Diego, 27 Cal. App. 5th 892 (2018). 2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-147
O-2.45 The comment provides a list of potential mitigation measures to further reduce the project’s air quality and GHG emissions. The Draft EIR identifies numerous air quality and GHG mitigation measures to reduce potential project impacts. The air quality and GHG mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR effectively reduce project emissions below thresholds and reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and thus, no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

O-2.46 This comment is a disclaimer regarding the information contained in the comment letter.

It does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.47 This comment is an attachment to the comment letter which contains construction emission calculations for the project completed by the commenter. It does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.48 This comment is an attachment to the comment letter which contains CalEEMod output files for a model run conducted by the commenter. It does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.49 This comment is an attachment to the comment letter which consists of the professional resume of Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP. It does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.

O-2.50 This comment is an attachment to the comment letter which consists of the professional resume of Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. It does not raise any specific or concrete comments, questions or concerns about the adequacy of the environmental analysis included in the EIR. As such, no further response is required.
2 – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 2-148

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 3-1
3 Errata
The comments received by the City during the public review period for the Draft EIR included information that has resulted in several minor revisions to the text of the Draft EIR. These revisions are shown below and are categorized by section number and page number. Text from the Draft EIR that has been removed is shown in strikethrough (i.e., strikethrough), and text that has been added as part of the Final SEIR is shown as double underlined (i.e., underline). Revisions are shown with surrounding sentences for context. These errata merely clarify and corrects minor facts and does not constitute “substantial revisions” requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15073.5.

Chapter 2, Project Description
First paragraph on Page 2-6:

Per Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements, a 26-foot 28-foot-wide fire access lane would surround the property structure with direct access to Artesia Boulevard.

Section 3.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Last bullet on Page 3.5-28:
▪ Energy Consumption. Energy consumption consists of emissions from Project consumption of electricity and natural gas. Although the Project is a speculative warehouse, the analysis conservatively assumed a worst-case scenario that total building area of the warehouse would be refrigerated. The Project would result in approximately 973 MTCO2e/yr from energy consumption (refer to Table 3.5-6).

Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning
Table 3.8-2:

Table 3.8-2. Consistency with Applicable City of Gardena General Plan Goals and Policies
LU Goal 2: Develop and preserve high quality
commercial centers and clean industrial uses
that benefit the City’s tax base, create jobs and
provide a full range of services to the residents
and businesses.

Consistent. The Project’s Specific Plan includes
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
that support this policy, including architectural
standards, landscaping requirements and
maintenance standards.

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

Consistent. The Project’s Specific Plan includes
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
that support this policy, including architectural
standards, landscaping requirements and
maintenance standards.
3 – ERRATA
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 3-2
Section 3.10, Transportation
Second paragraph on Page 3.10-11 and third full paragraph on Page 3.10-12:

The Project’s industrial and self-storage land use components (as shown in Appendix J2 and J3) are estimated to generate more than 110 daily vehicle trips; thus, the industrial and self-storage uses are not screened out initially based on Project Type screening. The Project’s office component is estimated to generate less than 110 daily vehicle trips; hence it will be screened out. Alternatively, this component could be developed as retail use. As mentioned above, local-serving retail use less than 50,000 square feet would screen out of conducting a detailed VMT analysis.

Based on the VMT screening, the Project’s special events component, along with the office and industrial uses would screen out of a VMT analysis using Project Type Screening criteria and would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. Only the self-storage components of the Project would not initially screen out based on the three screening criteria and would require a VMT analysis.

Therefore, a VMT impact analysis was conducted for the self-storage use.

Table 3.8-2. Consistency with Applicable City of Gardena General Plan Goals and Policies
DS Goal 4: Achieve high quality design for
commercial uses.

Consistent. The Project’s Specific Plan includes
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
that support this policy, including architectural
standards, landscaping requirements and
design principles.

DS 4.5: New or remodeled commercial
structures and properties should be designed
to reflect the City’s architectural diversity, yet
be compatible with nearby existing buildings.

Consistent. The Project’s Specific Plan includes
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
that support this policy. As stated in the
Specific Plan’s Summary Statement, “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.”
Noise Plan
N 2.4: Require mitigation of all significant noise
impacts as a condition of project approval.

Consistent. Construction noise impacts are
significant and unavoidable yet mitigated to the
extent feasible. With the incorporation of MMNOI-1 during Special Events on the Project site, noise impacts during both construction and
operation would be less than significant.
3 – ERRATA
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 3-3
Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems
First full paragraph on page 3.12-3:

Both sewer lines areThe 21-inch sewer line in Artesia Boulevard is owned and maintained by the LACSD, while the 8-inch sewer line in South Normandie Avenue is owned and maintained by the City.

The site currently connects to the 21-inch sewer main in Artesia Boulevard via a lateral connection. 3 – ERRATA
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 3-4

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-1
4 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that, upon certification of an EIR, “the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.”
This chapter contains the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that has been developed for the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project (Project or proposed Project). This MMRP has been developed in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures in the table are coded by alphanumeric identification consistent with the EIR. The following items are identified for each Project Design Feature and Mitigation Measure:

Monitoring. This section of the MMRP lists the stage of the proposed Project during which the Project Design Feature or Mitigation Measure would be implemented and the stage during which proper implementation would be monitored and verified. It also lists the agency that is responsible for ensuring that the Project Design Feature or Mitigation Measure is implemented and that it is implemented properly.

Verification of Compliance. This section of the MMRP provides a location for the implementing party and/or enforcing agency to make notes and to record their initials and the compliance date for each Project Design Feature and Mitigation Measure.

This MMRP shall be enforced throughout all phases of the Project. The Applicant or its successor shall be responsible for implementing each Project Design Feature and Mitigation Measure and shall maintain records demonstrating compliance with each Project Design Feature and Mitigation Measure.

After review and approval of the final MMRP by the Lead Agency, minor changes and modifications to the MMRP are permitted, but can only be made by the Applicant or its successors subject to Lead Agency approval. The Lead Agency, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or departments, will determine the adequacy of any proposed change or modification. This flexibility is necessary in light of the nature of the MMRP and the need to protect the environment with a workable program. No changes will be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of CEQA, as determined by the Lead Agency.

Project Design Features (PDFs) are listed first for each environmental topic, with mitigation measures (MMs) related to each specific threshold following the PDFs. 4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-2
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
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 offroad 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
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-3
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-4
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
Building
manager or
designee

Cultural Resources
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
Prior to start of
construction
activities
Documentation of
WEAP Training
presentation and
handout or pamphlet
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s)
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-5
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-6
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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 Secretary of the Interior’s
Prior to and during
construction
activities
Presence of a qualified
archaeologist;
Consultation between
the City of Gardena
and the Project
Archaeologist as
applicable in the event
of an unanticipated
discovery; Daily
monitoring logs
March JPA,
Consulting
Tribe(s)
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-7
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
During ground
disturbing activities
Consultation with
and/or monitoring by a
tribal representative
as applicable in the
event of an
unanticipated
discovery
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s)
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-8
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures
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
During ground
disturbing activities
Presence of a
paleontological
monitor; Review of
documentation and
collection of the find
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-9
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
Project Design Features
PDF-GHG-1.

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

Prior to issuance of a
grading and/or
building permit
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-10
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
Mitigation Measures
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
Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-11
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project Design Features
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
Prior to the start of
construction
activities
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications;
Implementation of the
RAP
ARC,
California
Department
of Toxic
Substances
Control, City
of Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-12
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-13
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
will be 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.

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
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Monitoring probes;
Review and approval
of the OM&M Plan
ARC,
California
Department
of Toxic
Substances
Control, City
of Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-14
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

Mitigation Measures
MM-HAZ-1. Pre-Demolition Hazardous
Materials Abatement.

Prior to demolition
activities
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-15
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
Prior to
commencement of
any earthmoving
activities
Review and approval
of the SMP
California
Department
of Toxic
Substances
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-16
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
Control, City
of Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-17
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
submitted to DTSC for review and
approval prior to earthmoving activities.

Noise
Mitigation Measures
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
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
Prior to issuance of a
Demolition Permit
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-18
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
noise-sensitive receptors.

Amplification systems will also be
Prior to issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-19
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
distributed to minimize sound levels
closest to individual sources.

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;
Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Review and approval
of a Vibration
Management Plan
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-20
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
▪ 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.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures
MM-TCR-1. Native
American Monitoring.

A. Prior to commencement of
ground-disturbing 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
“ground-disturbing activity” for
the subject Project at all Project
locations (i.e., both on-site and
any off-site locations that are
included in the Project
Prior to
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
Presence of a Native
American Monitor;
Submission of a copy
of the monitoring
agreement; Daily
monitoring logs;
Consultation between
the Monitor and the
Project Applicant
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s)

4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-21
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

C. The monitor will complete daily
monitoring logs that will provide
descriptions of the relevant
ground-disturbing activities, the
type of construction activities
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-22
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-23
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
contact for the Project
Applicant/lead agency that all
ground-disturbing activities and
phases that may involve
ground-disturbing activities on
the Project site or in connection
with the Project are complete;
or (2) a determination and
written notification by the
monitor to the 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
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3 shall be
implemented in the event that Project
activities encounter cultural resources.

In addition, the following TCR-specific
During ground
disturbing activities
Consultation with
Consulting Tribe(s) and
Tribal Monitor as
applicable in the event
of an unanticipated
discovery; Review and
approval of a
treatment plan as
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s)

4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-24
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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 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
applicable in the event
of an unanticipated
discovery
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-25
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-26
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
Los Angeles, if such an
institution agrees to accept the
material. If no institution
accepts the archaeological
material, they shall be offered
to a local school or historical
society for educational
purposes.

MM-TCR-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.

During ground
disturbing activities
Consultation with the
County Coroner, the
Project Archaeologist,
and Consulting Tribe(s)
as applicable in the
event of an
unanticipated
discovery of human
remains
City of
Gardena, Los
Angeles
County
Coroner,
Consulting
Tribe(s)

4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-27
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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 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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-28
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-29
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
During ground
disturbing activities
Consultation with the
Project Archaeologist
and Consulting Tribe(s)
as applicable in the
event of an
unanticipated
discovery of human
remains; Review and
approval of submitted
documentation
relating to the find
including a Final
Report submitted to
NAHC and the Tribe
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s),
NAHC

4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-30
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
and a separate treatment plan
shall be created.

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

Cremations will either be
removed in bulk or by means as
necessary to ensure complete
recovery of all sacred materials.

D. In the case where discovered
human remains cannot be fully
documented and recovered on
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-31
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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 grounddisturbing activities may
resume on the Project site, the
landowner shall arrange a
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-32
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-33
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
G. The tribe will work closely with
the Project’s qualified
archaeologist to ensure that
the excavation is treated
carefully, ethically and
respectfully. If data recovery is
approved by the tribe,
documentation shall be
prepared and shall include (at a
minimum) detailed descriptive
notes and sketches. All data
recovery data recovery related
forms of documentation shall
be approved in advance by the
tribe. If any data recovery is
performed, once complete, a
final report shall be submitted
to the tribe and the NAHC. The
tribe does NOT authorize any
scientific study or the utilization
of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on
human remains.
4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-34

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-2
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
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 offroad 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
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-3
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-4
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
Building
manager or
designee

Cultural Resources
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
Prior to start of
construction
activities
Documentation of
WEAP Training
presentation and
handout or pamphlet
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s)
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-5
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-6
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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 Secretary of the Interior’s
Prior to and during
construction
activities
Presence of a qualified
archaeologist;
Consultation between
the City of Gardena
and the Project
Archaeologist as
applicable in the event
of an unanticipated
discovery; Daily
monitoring logs
March JPA,
Consulting
Tribe(s)
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-7
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
During ground
disturbing activities
Consultation with
and/or monitoring by a
tribal representative
as applicable in the
event of an
unanticipated
discovery
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s)
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-8
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures
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
During ground
disturbing activities
Presence of a
paleontological
monitor; Review of
documentation and
collection of the find
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-9
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
Project Design Features
PDF-GHG-1.

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

Prior to issuance of a
grading and/or
building permit
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-10
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
Mitigation Measures
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
Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-11
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project Design Features
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
Prior to the start of
construction
activities
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications;
Implementation of the
RAP
ARC,
California
Department
of Toxic
Substances
Control, City
of Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-12
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-13
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
will be 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.

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
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Monitoring probes;
Review and approval
of the OM&M Plan
ARC,
California
Department
of Toxic
Substances
Control, City
of Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-14
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

Mitigation Measures
MM-HAZ-1. Pre-Demolition Hazardous
Materials Abatement.

Prior to demolition
activities
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-15
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
Prior to
commencement of
any earthmoving
activities
Review and approval
of the SMP
California
Department
of Toxic
Substances
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-16
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
Control, City
of Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-17
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
submitted to DTSC for review and
approval prior to earthmoving activities.

Noise
Mitigation Measures
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
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
Prior to issuance of a
Demolition Permit
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-18
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
noise-sensitive receptors.

Amplification systems will also be
Prior to issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy
Review and approval
of plans and
specifications
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-19
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
distributed to minimize sound levels
closest to individual sources.

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;
Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Review and approval
of a Vibration
Management Plan
City of
Gardena
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-20
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
▪ 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.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures
MM-TCR-1. Native
American Monitoring.

A. Prior to commencement of
ground-disturbing 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
“ground-disturbing activity” for
the subject Project at all Project
locations (i.e., both on-site and
any off-site locations that are
included in the Project
Prior to
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
Presence of a Native
American Monitor;
Submission of a copy
of the monitoring
agreement; Daily
monitoring logs;
Consultation between
the Monitor and the
Project Applicant
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s)

4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-21
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.

C. The monitor will complete daily
monitoring logs that will provide
descriptions of the relevant
ground-disturbing activities, the
type of construction activities
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-22
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-23
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
contact for the Project
Applicant/lead agency that all
ground-disturbing activities and
phases that may involve
ground-disturbing activities on
the Project site or in connection
with the Project are complete;
or (2) a determination and
written notification by the
monitor to the 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
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3 shall be
implemented in the event that Project
activities encounter cultural resources.

In addition, the following TCR-specific
During ground
disturbing activities
Consultation with
Consulting Tribe(s) and
Tribal Monitor as
applicable in the event
of an unanticipated
discovery; Review and
approval of a
treatment plan as
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s)

4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-24
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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 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
applicable in the event
of an unanticipated
discovery
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-25
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-26
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
Los Angeles, if such an
institution agrees to accept the
material. If no institution
accepts the archaeological
material, they shall be offered
to a local school or historical
society for educational
purposes.

MM-TCR-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.

During ground
disturbing activities
Consultation with the
County Coroner, the
Project Archaeologist,
and Consulting Tribe(s)
as applicable in the
event of an
unanticipated
discovery of human
remains
City of
Gardena, Los
Angeles
County
Coroner,
Consulting
Tribe(s)

4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-27
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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 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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-28
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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.
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-29
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
During ground
disturbing activities
Consultation with the
Project Archaeologist
and Consulting Tribe(s)
as applicable in the
event of an
unanticipated
discovery of human
remains; Review and
approval of submitted
documentation
relating to the find
including a Final
Report submitted to
NAHC and the Tribe
City of
Gardena,
Consulting
Tribe(s),
NAHC

4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-30
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
and a separate treatment plan
shall be created.

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

Cremations will either be
removed in bulk or by means as
necessary to ensure complete
recovery of all sacred materials.

D. In the case where discovered
human remains cannot be fully
documented and recovered on
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-31
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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 grounddisturbing activities may
resume on the Project site, the
landowner shall arrange a
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-32
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
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
4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR THE 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN 13938
JANUARY 2025 4-33
Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 1450 Artesia Specific Plan Project Project Design Feature/
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring/Reporting
Verification of
Compliance
Monitoring/
Reporting Phase
Monitoring/
Reporting Method
Enforcing
Agency and
Responsible
Agency Initial Date Comments
G. The tribe will work closely with
the Project’s qualified
archaeologist to ensure that
the excavation is treated
carefully, ethically and
respectfully. If data recovery is
approved by the tribe,
documentation shall be
prepared and shall include (at a
minimum) detailed descriptive
notes and sketches. All data
recovery data recovery related
forms of documentation shall
be approved in advance by the
tribe. If any data recovery is
performed, once complete, a
final report shall be submitted
to the tribe and the NAHC. The
tribe does NOT authorize any
scientific study or the utilization
of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on
human remains.

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.

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
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.

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].

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
ORDINANCE NO. 1879

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDENA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE 1450 SPECIFIC PLAN AND A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH 1450 ARTESIA ACQUISITION

COMPANY LLC
(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
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; and
ORDINANCE NO. 1879
2 WHEREAS, prior to adopting this Ordinance the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6693 certifying the EIR, making the findings required by CEQA, and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program;

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

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the 1450 Specific Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A. This approval is based on the following findings:

A. Adoption of the Specific Plan is consistent with the Land Use Plan of the General Plan which designates this property for Specific Plan and consistent with Section

18.08.015 of the Gardena Municipal Code which requires adoption of the 1450 Artesia Specific Plan for development of the site.

B. The Specific Plan complies with state and local law and contains all necessary elements.

C. The Specific Plan creates a new zone which will act as the zoning for the property and establishes the permitted uses and development standards that apply to the property. Adoption of the Specific Plan is required to allow development of the property.

D. Development of the Specific Plan will allow for the following benefits:

1. Redevelopment of a contaminated property with a use that has been approved by the Department of Toxic Substance Control which has approved a Remedial Action Plan for the property.

2. Redevelopment of contaminated property that cannot be used for residential or other sensitive uses. Despite being zoned for commercial use for decades, no such development was ever proposed.

3. Redevelopment will bring one-time monetary benefits to the City in the form of permit and inspection fees and increased business license fees for contractors working on the project.

4. Redevelopment will increase the value of the property and the amount of property tax which the City receives.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B based on the following findings:

ORDINANCE NO. 1879
3 A. The Development Agreement will implement the Specific Plan and will provide the City with certain benefits that would otherwise be unattainable through the other land use approvals in exchange for providing valuable development rights.

B. The Development Agreement provides for the following benefits which could not be obtained through the normal development procedures, in addition to the benefits set forth above, including:

1. A one million dollar one-time monetary contribution to the City to be used for any public purpose benefiting the City’s residents;

2. Space for the City to hold community events up to 36 times a year and storage space for the City’s equipment for such events; and

3. An agreement to follow local hiring/local buying program policies.

SECTION 3. Site Plan Review #5-21, included as Appendix B to the Specific Plan, is approved as part of the Specific Plan. The City Council makes the following findings with regard to the Site Plan:

A. 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 the applicable standards:

Analysis: 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.

B. The development is consistent with the intent and general purpose of the general plan and provisions of the Zoning Code:

Analysis: 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.

C. The health and safety services (police and fire) and public infrastructure are sufficient to accommodate the new development:

Analysis: 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.

D. The project is compatible with the surrounding sites and neighborhoods:

ORDINANCE NO. 1879
4 Analysis: 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.

E. The project has been determined to be exempt from CEQA or the appropriate environmental document has been completed and required findings have bene made:

Analysis: An EIR has been prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and the EIR was certified prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. 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 5. This Ordinance shall take effect on the thirty-first day after passage.

SECTION 6. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute passage and adoption thereof in the records of the meeting at which time the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published as required by law, in a publication of general circulation.

ORDINANCE NO. 1879
5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________, 2025. _____________________________
TASHA CERDA, Mayor
ATTEST:

MINA SEMENZA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CARMEN VASQUEZ, City Attorney
Exhibit A – 1450 Artesia Specific Plan
Exhibit B – Project Plans
Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit D – Development Agreement

CITY OF GARDENA
1450 ARTESIA

SPECIFIC PLAN
January 2025

1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN
January 2025
City of Gardena
1700 West 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247
Applicant:
1450 Artesia Acquisition Company, LLC
2015 Manhattan Beach Blvd.

Suite 104
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
This page is intentionally left blank.
i

CONTENTS

1.0 - SUMMARY STATEMENT

1.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 - INTRODUCTION

2.1 Authority ................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Purpose and Intent.................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Site Location ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Project History and Background............................................................................................... 6

2.5 Project Description.................................................................................................................... 8

2.6 Environmental Assessment..................................................................................................... 10

2.7 Related Applications and Documents .................................................................................... 10

3.0 - CONTEXT AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Project Site and Land Uses.................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Topography ............................................................................................................................ 14

3.3 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Hydrology................................................................................................................................ 15

3.5 General Plan and Zoning Designations .................................................................................. 15

3.6 Circulation ............................................................................................................................... 15

3.7 Utilities and Services...............................................................................................................16

4.0 - SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTS

4.1 Projects Goals and Objectives............................................................................................... 19

4.2 Site Plan and Land Use Plan ..................................................................................................20

4.3 Transportation and Circulation Plan........................................................................................ 22

4.4 Grading Plan ............................................................................................................................27

4.5 Public Facilities and Utilities Plan ......................................................................................... . 28

4.6 Recreation and Open Space ................................................................................................... 29

4.7 Phasing Plan ...........................................................................................................................29

4.8 Landscape Plan ..................................................................................................................... 30 This page is intentionally left blank.
ii
CONTENTS CONT.

5.0 - DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

5.1 General Provisions ................................................................................................................. 33

5.2 Allowable Land Uses .............................................................................................................. 33

5.3 Development Standards ......................................................................................................... 36

5.4 Architectural Standards ...........................................................................................................37

5.5 Landscaping Requirements.................................................................................................... 38

5.6 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards............................................................................. 38

5.7 Vehicle Parking ....................................................................................................................... 38

5.8 Maintenance Standards.......................................................................................................... 40

5.9 Standards for Walls/Fences, Outdoor Storage, Lighting, Signage and City Storage ............. 40

5.10 CALGreen Standards...............................................................................................................41

6.0 - DESIGN GUIDELINES

6.1 Architecture............................................................................................................................ 43

6.2 Architecture Landscape and Streetscape .............................................................................. 46

7.0 - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

7.1 Applicable Goals and Policies............................................................................................... 49

7.2 General Plan Consistency Analysis ........................................................................................ 50

8.0 - IMPLEMENTATION

8.1 Phasing Plan ........................................................................................................................... 61

8.2 Plan Review Process................................................................................................................61

8.3 CEQA Review...........................................................................................................................61

8.4 Infrastructure Improvements / Coordination ............................................................................61

8.5 Financing Measures.................................................................................................................61

8.6 Administration of Plan ............................................................................................................. 62 This page is intentionally left blank.
iii

EXHIBITS
Figure 1 Local Vicinity Map............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2 Project Location................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3 Gardena Sumps Location................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4 Previously Existing and 1450 Specific Plan Areas ......................................................... 9 Figure 5 Existing Uses ................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 6 Topographic Survey...................................................................................................... 14 Figure 7 Site Plan and Land Use Plan ........................................................................................ 20 Figure 7a Site Plan and Land Use Plan - Special Events with Circulation Buffer.......................... 21 Figure 8 Proposed Circulation Plan - Vehicular Access ............................................................. 22 Figure 9 Proposed Circulation Plan - Truck Access..................................................................... 23 Figure 9a Proposed Circulation Plan - Truck Access Special Events Area.....................................24 Figure 10 Proposed Fire Access.......................................................................................................25 Figure 11 Proposed Grading Plan...................................................................................................27 Figure 12 Proposed Landscape Plan..............................................................................................30 Figure 13 Architectural Features.....................................................................................................44 Figure 14 Color and Material Board.................................................................................................45 Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix B: Site Plan

APPENDICES
This page is intentionally left blank.
1 CHAPTER 1.0: SUMMARY STATEMENT
The 1450 Artesia Specific Plan (1450 ASP or Specific Plan or Plan) Project (Project) facilitates a redevelopment of underutilized uses into a revitalized building for warehouse, office/retail and self-storage mixed-use building and special events property.

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.

1.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT
This page is intentionally left blank.
2 - 3
CHAPTER 2.0: INTRODUCTION

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 AUTHORITY
The 1450 ASP provides for the orderly and efficient development and revitalization of the Plan area consistent with the City of Gardena General Plan policies and objectives. The 1450 ASP has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457. The code grants local government agencies the authority to prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of their General Plan for all or part of the area covered by the General Plan.

Government Code Sections 65450 through 65454 establish the authority to adopt a Specific Plan, identify the required contents of a Specific Plan, and mandate consistency with the General Plan.

Per Government Code Section 65451, a Specific Plan must include text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:
• The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space within the area covered by the plan.
• The proposed distribution, location, extent, and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the land area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
• Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. • A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects and financing measures necessary to carry out the above items. • A discussion of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan.

As a regulatory document, the Specific Plan implements the General Plan as the new zoning for the Specific Plan area. All future development plans and entitlements within the Specific Plan boundaries must be consistent with the applicable standards set forth in this document as described in Chapters 5 (Development Regulations and Requirements), 6 (Design Guidelines), and 8 (Implementation); the Gardena Municipal Code (GMC), where not modified by the Specific Plan; and the General Plan.
2 - 4
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

2.2 PURPOSE AND INTENT
The 1450 ASP provides newly constructed development of industrial warehouse, office, and selfstorage options specifically to create a modern facility along Artesia Boulevard. The aim is to repurpose underutilized parcels to provide high quality industrial and commercial uses to the City of Gardena (City). See Chapter 4.1 for detailed project goals and objectives.

2.3 SITE LOCATION
The Project site is located at the southwest corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue in the City. The Project’s regional vicinity is depicted in Figure 1: Local Vicinity Map and the Project’s specific site location is depicted in Figure 2: Project Location.

REGIONAL SETTING
Regionally positioned within the County of Los Angeles, the City has developed as the ‘City of Opportunity’ since its incorporation in 1930 including development into 5.9-square-miles with a population of just over 61,000 based on 2020 Census data. The City is a transit-oriented city bound by the Century Freeway (I-105) to the north, San Diego Freeway(I-405) to the south and west, and the Harbor Freeway (I-110) to the east. The Artesia Freeway (SR-91) begins approximately

0.9 miles east of the Project site and runs east-west throughout the City. 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. Additionally, the City is within close proximity to downtown Los Angeles (12 miles), and Los Angeles Ports (7 miles). The Project’s regional setting is illustrated in Figure 1: Local Vicinity Map.

LOCAL SETTING
The Project site is comprised of six parcels (APNs 6106-036-010, -012, -034, 035, -036, and -037) totaling approximately 6.33 acres located in the southern portion of the City. 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.

The Specific Plan area is generally surrounded by commercial and residential land uses. Adjacent to the Specific Plan area are Artesia Boulevard and commercial uses to the north, residential and LA County Flood Control uses (Dominguez Channel) to the south, LA County Flood Control and railroad uses to the east, and live/work and multi-family residential uses directly to the west as depicted in Figure 2: Project Location.
2 - 5
CHAPTER 2.0: INTRODUCTION
N.T.S. Figure 1: Local Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Project Location N.T.S.
2 - 6
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

2.4 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The Plan area was initially developed as early as the 1920s at which time was leased by Moneta Brick Company. The property was utilized for industrial purposes, with multiple sumps on the property for clay mining operations. The sumps were filled with sludge consisting of disposal material through the 1950s, including refinery wastes, tank bottom sludges, and rinse water acids and are 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. Figure 3: Gardena Sumps Locations, details the approximate location of the collective Gardena Sumps.

Development continued over portions of the sump areas in the following years, including excavations, which changed the grade and elevation of the site, as well as construction of parking lots and buildings. Starting in the 1980’s, the Department of Health Services (DHS) and Environmental Protection agency (EPA)’s 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 the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). Presently, multiple monitoring wells and cap are located on this portion of the property which limits redevelopment options. Remediation and monitoring efforts have been under a Final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the site, dated June 30, 2022, which DTSC approved. 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 soil vapor probes and an engineered cap with a specialized geosynthetic cover and clean soil cover over the Haack Sump and Cooper Sumps. The remediation will be completed by Atlantic Richfield Company which is the responsible party that will implement the RAP, 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 to commercial and industrial uses, which are consistent with the Project’s uses, as well as long-term operation, monitoring and maintenance of the cap and other remedy elements. 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. 2 - 7
CHAPTER 2.0: INTRODUCTION
Figure 3: Gardena Sumps Location
Cooper North Sumps
Haack North Sump
Haack
Rework Cooper South Sumps
N.T.S.
2 - 8
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

2.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2004 the City completed a citywide retail analysis which 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 commercial uses. Mixed use residential and commercial has been developed within parts of the Artesia Corridor.

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, including changes to the Land Use Map, Urgency Ordinance No. 1847 amending the Zoning Code and revising the Zoning Map. The Resolution and Ordinance (Resolution No. 6620 & Ordinance No. 1848) also rescinded the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan, changed the land use designation for five of the six areas in the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan area, and rezoned all six Artesia Corridor Specific Plan areas. The property that is the subject of this Specific Plan retained the land use designation of Specific Plan, and the zoning was changed to 1450 Artesia Specific Plan with a Code amendment that it would be developed for industrial and commercial uses once a specific plan was adopted.

For historical purposes, the 1450 ASP area includes former Artesia Corridor Specific Plan Areas 4B and 5. See Figure 4: Previously Existing and 1450 Specific Plan Areas.

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 (three levels over the bottom floor industrial totaling 186,000 GSF with up to 1,480 storage units), an industrial warehousing use (one level totaling 72,000 GSF plus up to ten loading docks), and an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF).

Additionally, the City will host occasional, medium-size special events on an approximately 36,000-SF (0.8 acre) portion of the parking area. See Section 4.2 for a detailed list of the types of permitted events. The Project’s building design will incorporate engineering controls set forth within the approved Final RAP and Remedial Design and Implementation Plan (RDIP) detailed in Section 3.3. As implemented, the Final RAP will protect human health and the environment and make the Project site safe for use and occupancy for its intended commercial and industrial use. 2 - 9
CHAPTER 2.0: INTRODUCTION
Figure 4: Previously Existing and 1450 Specific Plan Areas Dominguez Channel
Dominguez Channel
Previously Existing: The Artesia Corridor Specific Plan 1450 Artesia Specific Plan
2 - 10
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined by §15161 of the CEQA Guidelines to address the potential environmental effects of the 1450 ASP and greater area surrounding the Project site. As required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that was adopted, the Project will implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts resulting from Project implementation to a less-than-significant level [(SCH#2023060263)].

All mitigation measures identified in the EIR are incorporated in this Specific Plan by reference within Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

2.7 RELATED APPLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS
In addition to approval of this Specific Plan (SP #1-23), the following entitlements have also been approved by the City to develop the Project:

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA #1-21)
A development 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 five years, with one (1) fiveyear (5 year) administrative extension, in exchange for receiving a monetary contribution, space to hold community events and other public benefits.

SITE PLAN REVIEW (SPR #5-21)
Site Plan Review (SPR #5-21) for review of the physical design of the development.

The City will also administratively approve the following:

LOT MERGER (LM #1-21)
A lot merger combining the 1450 ASP site’s six legal lots into a single development site.

This page is intentionally left blank.

This page is intentionally left blank.
3 - 13
CHAPTER 3.0: CONTEXT AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 PROJECT SITE AND LAND USES
The 1450 ASP area consists of six parcels (APNs 6106-036-010, -012, -034, -035, -036, and -037) totaling approximately 6.33 acres in size, situated between Artesia Boulevard and the Dominguez Flood Control Channel. Existing land uses in the 1450 ASP area included a light manufacturing parcel with current U-Haul and metal works facility, one vacant parcel with a Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) cap for contaminated sumps, and four residential parcels behind the industrial properties adjacent to the Dominguez Channel (1450, 1452, 1462 and 1472 West Artesia Boulevard) at the time the Plan was initiated. Three blighted homes were demolished prior to implementation of the Project with two additional structures to be removed as part of the Remedial Action Plan. Remaining structures will be removed as part of Project Implementation.

A map of the existing parcels and uses is provided in Figure 5: Existing Uses.

3.0 CONTEXT AND EXISITING

CONDITIONS
N.T.S. Figure 5: Existing Uses
Dominguez Channel
Artesia Boulevard
Normandie Avenue
3 - 14
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN
Figure 6: Topographic Survey N.T.S.

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY
The Project site’s topography is generally level, with areas that are gently to moderately sloping.

Artificial fill soils cover most of the site and are thickest near the center of the site where the Dominguez Creek was infilled, and at the eastern end of the site where a sump was excavated and filled.

An existing unpaved maintenance roadway owned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District lies along the Dominguez Channel to the south of the site.

The Project site’s topographical survey is provided in Figure 6: Topographic Survey.

3.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A geotechnical study of the 1450 ASP area was prepared by Carl Kim Geotechnical Inc. on February 4, 2022. Existing geology and soils conditions are taken from the geotechnical study.

Based on review of available geologic maps, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The City is located within a seismically active region that includes numerous 3 - 15
CHAPTER 3.0: CONTEXT AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
active, potentially active, and inactive fault traces and, consequently, is subject to the risks and hazards associated with potentially destructive earthquakes. The area located along Artesia Boulevard and the Dominguez Flood Control Channel in the southern portion of the City is located within a liquefaction zone.

The primary geologic hazard at the site is moderate to strong ground motion (acceleration) caused by an earthquake on any of the local or regional faults. The potential for other earthquake-induced hazards was also evaluated including surface rupture, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, inundation and land sliding.

Based on available groundwater monitoring reports dated 2020, groundwater ranges from 12 and 14 feet below ground surface (bgs) from onsite monitoring well MW-05. It was recommended by the geotechnical consultant that a groundwater level of 10 feet below ground surface conservatively be assumed for design and construction.

Much of the site is underlain by sump materials. Due to the contaminants of concern remaining in the subsurface soil, engineering controls including an engineered cap over impacted soils, soil vapor probes and related features, and soil vapor barrier design with ventilation systems will be required for future construction as part of the building foundation designed to prevent indoor soil vapor intrusion.

3.4 HYDROLOGY
A hydrology study of the 1450 ASP area was prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates on August 3, 2022, which concluded approximately 14,000 cu-ft must be detained onsite to attenuate the runoff and mitigate impacts to the surrounding area.

The grading pattern for the proposed development will largely be consistent with that of the existing condition and surface flow towards Artesia Boulevard and stormwater cisterns to be installed along the western boundary of the property. The site is currently approximately 74 percent impervious. The Project will increase the pervious area of the site by approximately 14 percent.

3.5 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
As discussed in the Project History above, the Project site is designated Specific Plan2 and is consistently zoned as 1450 Artesia Specific Plan.

3.6 CIRCULATION
Three major freeways provide regional access to the Project site: I-405 to the south and west, and I-110 and SR-91 to the east. These freeways connect to the Project via Artesia Boulevard which runs along the northern boundary of the 1450 ASP area. Artesia Boulevard provides local access to the site, and is classified as a major divided arterial, with a total of six lanes. Local access to the Plan area is also provided from Normandie Avenue, traveling north-south just east of the Specific Plan area. The 405 freeway is also accessible from Western Avenue to the south of the Project site. A sidewalk along the south side of Artesia Boulevard provides pedestrian access to the site.

See Section 4.3 for local vehicular access to the Project site. 3 - 16
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

3.7 UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Ensuring the 1450 ASP area is served by adequate infrastructure is critical to successful 1450 ASP implementation and future development of the area. See Table 4-1, Public Services & Utilities within Chapter 4.5 for a list of public services and utilities that will serve the Plan area.

Utilities
Stormwater Drainage
• Stormwater from the 1450 ASP area will be collected in a cistern along the western boundary of the property.
• Further discussion on stormwater and drainage best management practices are included in Chapter 4.5.

Sewer
• The Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) is responsible for ownership and maintenance for the existing sewer a 21-inch in Artesia Boulevard, and the existing 8-inch sewer off Normandie Avenue, which that provide wastewater collection, conveyance, and management surrounding the property.
• One existing sewer lateral from the City of Gardena’s public sewer system connects to the 21- inch main within Artesia Boulevard to the Project.

Water
• Water and fire services are provided to the property by a 21-inch cast iron line owned and maintained by the Golden State Water Company (GSWC).
• An 8-inch fire water line and 3-inch domestic water line are proposed water laterals serving the site.

Electrical Power
• The site is currently served by overhead power lines on the south side of Artesia Boulevard owned and maintained by Southern California Edison (SCE).

Natural Gas
• The site is currently served by electricity not by natural gas. 2 City of Gardena. 2022. Land Use Plan. https://cityofgardena.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-Updated-Land-Use-Plan-04-21.pdf (accessed October 2022). 3 - 17
CHAPTER 3.0: CONTEXT AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Services Characteristics
Solid Waste
• Waste Resources of Gardena provides solid waste pickup services for the City.

Fire Protection Services
• The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) provides fire protection services and emergency medical service to the City.
• The closest facility to the Project site is Fire Station 158 at 1650 W. 162nd Street in Gardena, California, located approximately 1.4 miles to the north of the project site and a 3-minute driving distance.
• The provision of water for fire suppression is available from existing water lines via adjacent hydrants.

Police Protection Services
• The Gardena Police Department (Gardena PD) provides police protection services to the City. • The Specific Plan area is approximately 1.4 miles from the police station located at 1718 W 162nd Street.
• The Gardena PD divides the City into three districts, each with its own District Policing Team.

The Project site is located within District 3.

Library Services
• The Los Angeles County Library provides library services to the City. • There is one library within City limits which is the Gardena Mayme Dear Library at 1731 W Gardena Boulevard located 1.3 miles to the north and a two-minute driving distance. There are other public libraries located just outside of the City limits.

Schools
• The Los Angeles Unified School District provides educational services and facilities for students from kindergarten through twelfth grade.
• The Project site is within the service district of LAUSD and is served by three schools: 186th Street Elementary School, Peary Middle School, and Gardena Senior High School.

This page is intentionally left blank.
4 - 19
CHAPTER 4.0: SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTS

4.1 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The 1450 ASP’s overall purpose is to improve the major development corridor of Artesia Boulevard transforming an underutilized area with newly constructed self-storage, industrial warehousing, and office solutions to the City. The 1450 ASP permits commercial and industrial land uses and establishes building and site design, transportation, and infrastructure, to achieve this vision. The Project is guided by the following major objectives:
• 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; and • Provide the City with an outdoor venue to hold community events.

4.0 SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTS
4 - 20
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN
Figure 7: Site Plan and Land Use Plan

4.2 SITE PLAN AND LAND USE PLAN
The site plan provided in Figure 7: Site Plan and Land Use Plan, sets forth the proposed plan for development of the Specific Plan area including the following uses: fgbdgn • a self-storage use (three levels of self-storage over the bottom floor industrial totaling up to 186,000 GSF with 1,480 storage units); the self-storage leasing office will be approximately 1,000 GSF on the bottom floor,
• an industrial/warehouse use (one level totaling 72,000 GSF plus ten loading docks), • an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF), and • a 200 square foot storage building will be provided for the City’s use for the storage of equipment for the special events.

N.T.S.
4 - 21
CHAPTER 4.0: SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTS
N.T.S.

The Land Use designation for the Specific Plan area is Specific Plan and the zoning is 1450 Artesia SP. A copy of the Site Plan, including renderings, is attached as Appendix B: Site Plan.

Development within the Specific Plan area must be substantially in conformance with this Appendix.

Additionally, special events are a permitted use planned for approximately 36,000-SF portion (0.8 acre) of the parking area (over approximately 63 parking spaces). A storage building will be placed along the eastern edge of the truck area.

See Figure 7a: Site Plan and Land Use Plan - Special Events Area with Circulation Buffer.

Figure 7a: Site Plan and Land Use Plan - Special Events with Circulation Buffer 4 - 22
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

4.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PLAN
The circulation plan for the 1450 ASP is provided in Figure 8: Proposed Circulation Plan - Vehicular Access.

ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
An existing raised median along Artesia Boulevard limits access to eastbound right-turn entry/ right-turn exit site access only. The Project replaces two driveways on Artesia Boulevard, which currently allow both ingress and egress and are separated by approximately 100 feet. Two new driveways, one for ingress and one for egress, that are separated by a 20-foot landscape divide will be constructed as part of the Project. Each driveway will be 35-feet and located at the northwest corner of the Project site.

VEHICULAR ACCESS
The Project driveway will only service the Project. See Figure 8: Proposed Circulation Plan - Vehicular Access.

Figure 8: Proposed Circulation Plan - Vehicular Access N.T.S. 4 - 23
CHAPTER 4.0: SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTS
Parking will be located along the Project site’s northeastern portion. The Project proposes 124 automobile parking stalls and 10 dock doors. There is room for truck parking and staging within the secured truck parking. No parking will be allowed around the perimeter access loop.

TRUCK ACCESS
The dock doors would be oriented to face east. Trucks will access the Project similar to vehicular access with ingress within the northwest portion of the Project and circulation continuing along the western to southern edge of the property and into the loading docks. Trucks will exit the loading dock area heading north within the parking lot with egress back through the northwest of the Project site. The truck circulation will be a loop around the proposed building with an aim to ease flow of onsite traffic. See Figure 9: Proposed Circulation Plan - Truck Access.

Figure 9: Proposed Circulation Plan - Truck Access N.T.S. 4 - 24
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

SPECIAL EVENTS TRUCK ACCESS
During the time of City special events, trucks will be required to exit the loading area in the same direction they entered and will not be allowed to circulate along the eastern and northeastern sides of the property. The City will be required to provide a temporary physical barrier to prevent circulation along the eastern and northern boundaries. Additionally, the City will be allowed to install temporary physical barriers to prevent vehicles from entering drive aisles near the event, provided that access is still provided to the parking areas for the self-storage uses. During the special events, the parking area for these events shall occur only in the Special Event Area as depicted in Figure 7a: Site Plan and Land Use Plan - Special Events Area with Circulation Buffer and in Figure 9a: Proposed Circulation Plan - Truck Access Special Events Area.

Figure 9a: Proposed Circulation Plan - Truck Access Special Events Area N.T.S. 4 - 25
CHAPTER 4.0: SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTS

FIRE ACCESS
Per the Los Angeles County Fire Department, a 28-foot-wide fire access lane is required and provided surrounding the property structure with direct access to Artesia Boulevard. See Figure 10: Proposed Fire Access.

Figure 10: Proposed Fire Access N.T.S.
4 - 26
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
Pedestrian access to the Project site will be provided from sidewalks located along Artesia Boulevard with primary pedestrian access located at the building lobby located on the northern portion of the site and to the parking lot within the northeastern portion of the property. Areas with loading docks will be gated to prohibit pedestrian access for safety.

TRANSIT ACCESS
The Plan area is located in the vicinity of the following routes:
• Line 2 (GTrans): This line runs north south along South Western Avenue and Vermont Avenue in a loop. The nearest bus stop is located west of the Plan area at Artesia Boulevard and South Western Avenue approximately 0.5 miles from the Project site. • Line 1 (Torrance Transit): This line goes from Del Amo Fashion Center at Carson and Hawthorne Boulevards to Figueroa Street located at the 105 Freeway. Both the northbound and southbound stops are at Vermont Avenue and Artesia Boulevard approximately 0.6 mile from the Project site.
• Line 13 (Torrance Transit): This line goes from Veteran’s Park in Redondo Beach, north to Artesia Boulevard through Hermosa Beach to Vermont Avenue, past California State University Dominguez Hills, and ending in the City of Commerce across from the Crystal Casino. Both the eastbound and westbound stops are located directly in front of the Project site at Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.
• Line 344 (Metro): This line goes from Palos Verdes Drive and Hawthorne Boulevard to Artesia Boulevard, and then along Vermont Avenue to the Harbor Gateway Transit Center. The bus stops are also located directly in front of the Project site at Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Ave.
• Harbor Gateway Transit Center: The Transit Center, located at 731 West 182nd Street, is a large bus station that serves as a transport hub for the South Bay region of Los Angeles County, including the City of Gardena. The J line can be accessed from this station, which provides transit to both downtown Los Angeles and San Pedro. Numerous other lines can also be accessed from this station. The Transit Center also includes a 980-space park and ride. The Transit Center is approximately 1 mile from the Project site.

BICYCLE ACCESS
No bicycle lanes are provided along Artesia Boulevard as it is an arterial roadway prior to the entrance of State Route 91. Along the Dominguez Channel there is the Laguna Dominguez Bike Path; however, it is not connected within the City.
4 - 27
CHAPTER 4.0: SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTS
Figure 11: Proposed Grading Plan

4.4 GRADING PLAN
The grading plan for the 1450 ASP area is provided in Figure 11: Proposed Grading Plan. The site will be graded to maintain the existing grading and drainage patterns. The overall site grading and drainage pattern will be towards the center of the parking lot following the planned drainage and storm drain system and further discussed in Stormwater and Drainage below.

N.T.S.
4 - 28
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

4.5 PUBLIC FACILITES AND UTILITIES PLAN
Existing utility infrastructure capacity for this area has been confirmed through regional area capacity studies and load-based assessment using proposed development parameters as described in Table 4-1, Public Services & Utilities.

TABLE 4-1: PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILITIES

SERVICE TYPE SERVICE PROVIDER
Fire protection Los Angeles County Fire Department
Police protection Gardena Police Department
Public Schools Los Angeles Unified School District
Library Mayme Dear Library
Water supply Golden State Water Company
Sewer lines City of Gardena Public Works Department
Sewage treatment Los Angeles County Sanitation District Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
Gas supply Southern California Gas Company
Electric supply Southern California Edison
Telecommunications Multiple Providers
Stormwater drainage City of Gardena Public Works Department Solid waste collection and disposal Waste Resources of Gardena Transit services Bus services: G Trans (City of Gardena), Torrance Transit (City of Torrance), Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)

STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE
Five storm drain inlets are proposed within the 1450 ASP area leading to an underground polycoated CMP cistern located within the western portion of the Site. Collected stormwater shall be carried to a subsurface detention basin installed downstream of storage for additional volume control and treatment. The underground stormwater cistern will detain water to mitigate flows to pre-project conditions and will detain for Low Impact Development (LID) storm event. From the underground stormwater cistern, water will be conveyed, through a flow-controlled outlet, to a LID biofiltration device prior to offsite release. No stormdrain piping, inlets or supporting infrastructure shall be included on the former sumps.

In compliance with existing regulations, the 1450 ASP developers will provide all necessary drainage improvements and implement best management practices (BMPs) in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.

The drainage improvements are subject to the City’s standard development review and permit process, including plan checks and inspections.

Based on City code, the project will be required to treat the volume of water as determined by the Los Angeles County 85th Percentile 24-hour event precipitation isohyetal map. 4 - 29
CHAPTER 4.0: SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTS
SEWER
The City as-built plans show an 8-inch sewer line approximately 24 feet east of the centerline of Normandie Avenue. There is an additional 21-inch trunk sewer main line on Artesia Boulevard at the centerline of the road with an average grade of 0.41 percent.

Onsite sewer lateral connects to the main line within Artesia Boulevard to serve the Plan area. The existing sewer demand of 604 GPD and the proposed total wastewater demand is 18,390 GPD.

WATER
GSWC Southwest System service area serves the Project. The water demands will increase to 20,043 GPD or 21 AFY with the Project. As noted above, there is an existing fire hydrant on the south side of Artesia Boulevard adjacent to the northwestern portion of the site.

Project development will include all state mandated water-saving features, including water-efficient faucets and toilets.

The Project will connect a domestic water line, a fire line, and irrigation line to the existing main.

ELECTRICAL POWER
As noted above, the site is currently served by overhead power lines on the south side of the Artesia Boulevard owned and maintained by Southern California Edison.

NATURAL GAS
As noted above, the site is currently served by underground lines within Artesia Boulevard owned and maintained by Southern California Gas Company.

SOLID WASTE
As noted above, solid waste pickup for the site will be handled by Waste Resources of Gardena.

The trash pickup location will be coordinated with Waste Resources.

PUBLIC SERVICES
The Project site and surrounding area is developed and afforded all municipal services. Police protection services for the City are provided by the Gardena PD. Fire protection and emergency medical response services for the City are provided by the LACFD. Educational services are provided to the City by the LAUSD with three schools including 186th Street Elementary School, Peary Middle School, and Gardena Senior High School.

4.6 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
Based on the historical use of the site and known contamination beneath the site, open space and recreation areas are not provided within the Plan area.

4.7 PHASING PLAN
The Project within the 1450 ASP area is envisioned to be built in one phase. Phased occupancy of the Project is permitted.
4 - 30
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

4.8 LANDSCAPE PLAN
The Project landscaping will provide a distinct visual impression within the property and frontage of Artesia Boulevard to enhance the built environment with aesthetically pleasing and droughttolerant landscaping and provide a high level of aesthetic standards complemented by the quality of the building materials. The landscape plan for the 1450 ASP area is provided in Figure 12, Proposed Landscape Plan.

STREETSCAPE
The Artesia Boulevard streetscape will provide a combination of shrubs and trees along the frontage of Artesia Boulevard as well as within the Project development to provide a valuable vertical element, and create a pedestrian scale screen between the ground level and the upper floors of the building. Areas within the DTSC environmental cap will include a combination of both boxed and elevated planters.

PLANT MATERIAL
The landscape plan includes a layered landscape program with the proposed plants throughout the Project regionally adapted with a focus on minimizing water use. The Project will be consistent with the State and City water efficient landscape ordinances, and a minimum of 75 percent of the plantings will be water efficient.

Figure 12: Proposed Landscape Plan N.T.S.
4 - 31
CHAPTER 4.0: SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTS
The total landscaped area will be at least 50,000 SF; however, the exact amount will be determined based on final review from DTSC. All trees shall be a minimum of 24-inch box size and shrubs must be a minimum of 1 gallon size.

The plant design utilizes water-wise landscaping principles, including a low percentage of waterthirsty plants, smart irrigation controllers, drip irrigation, and weed germination. The Project’s proposed plant schedule is shown in Table 4-2, Plant Palette.

TABLE 4-2: PLANT PALETTE

SYMBOL CODE BOTANIAL / COMMON NAME
LW
PC
Lagerstroemic indica x fauriei ‘Natchez’ /
Natchez Crape Myrtle Multi-Trunk
Pistacia chinensis/ Chinese Pistache
AA Agave attenuate/ Foxtail Agave
AP Agave parryi / Parry’s Agave
AB Anigozanthos x ‘Big Red’ / Big Red Kangaroo Paw
BR Bougainvillea x ‘Rosenka’ / Rosenka Bougainvillea
LH Lantana x ‘New Gold’/ New Gold Lantana
MC Melaleuca viminalis/ Weeping Bottlebrush
MA Muhlenbergia capillaris ‘Autumn Blush’ / Autumn Blush Pink Muhly Grass
MD Muhlenbergia Dubia / Pine Muhly
OL Olea Europaea ‘Montra’/ Little Ollie Olive
PF Pennisentum x ‘Fairy Tails’ / Evergreen Fountain Grass PR Phormuim Tenax ‘Radiance’ / New Zealand Flax
PA Phormium x ‘Amazing Red’/ Amazing Red New Zealand
Flax
SS Salvia greggi ‘Furmans Red’ / Furman’s Red Autumn
Sage
WF Westringia Fruticosa / Coast Rosemary
RH Rosmarinus officinalis ‘Huntington Carpet’/ Huntington Carpet Rosemary
TS Trachelospermum jasminoides ‘Star’ / Star Jasmine
This page is intentionally left blank.
5 - 33
CHAPTER 5.0: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

5.0 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

AND REQUIREMENTS
This Chapter establishes the land use and development standards to establish the desired physical form and identity of the built environment. These regulations implement the Specific Plan Land Use Plan and ensure compatibility of land uses. Development standards address the physical features of each land use such as buildings, lots, setbacks, parking, landscaping, walls and fencing, outdoor storage, and signs. These standards address buildings and site improvements and are essential to achieve the vision of the Specific Plan.

5.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Section applies to any development within the Specific Plan area. In reviewing individual projects requiring discretionary approval, additional conditions may be applied by the approving body to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and the General Plan.

5.2 ALLOWABLE LAND USES
Permitted uses are subject to all applicable development standards and guidelines outlined in this Chapter and Chapter 6 – Design Guidelines.

PERMITTED USES
A project in the Plan area shall only be occupied by land uses identified in this Specific Plan and shall be subject to the applicable City approval process identified in Chapter 8 (Implementation).

The permitted uses and improvements described in this Section will conform to and be guided by the development standards in Section 5.3 below.

The following uses are permitted by right in the 1450 ASP area:
• Warehouse and Distribution – a maximum of 72,000 square feet. A warehouse is a business that is primarily used for storing products as needed. Warehouse and distribution uses can include, but not be limited to, product order fulfillment, online or otherwise, and product delivery, wholesale, e-commerce, and storage uses for air freight, aerospace, food and beverage, and studio uses.
5 - 34
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN
• Self-storage – a maximum of 186,000 square feet
• Ancillary sales to the self-storage use.
• Commercial office/retail- a maximum of 10,000 square feet • Special Events as determined by the Parks and Recreation Director, which shall include events such as the following with space of up to 36,000 square feet:
• Food trucks
• Farmer’s markets
• Car shows
• Live entertainment
• Food giveaways
• Community meetings
• Health fairs
• Mobile vaccination events
• City Storage – a maximum of 200 square feet
• Any other use not specifically listed here determined by the Community Development Director to be similar to a permitted use.

Any use not listed as a permitted use, and not found to be sufficiently similar to a permitted use by the Community Development Director, is prohibited.

PROHIBITED USES
• Cold storage warehouses.
• Fulfillment center warehouses that involve sorting, typically by manual means. 5 - 35
CHAPTER 5.0: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

EXISITING LEGAL NON-CONFORMING
The 1450 ASP area currently comprises vacant residential and light industrial development.

Following approval of this Specific Plan, the existing uses shall become legal nonconforming to the provisions of the Specific Plan. Any existing uses, buildings, structures, parking areas, landscaping and signage located in the Plan area that become non-conforming at the time of adoption of the Specific Plan will be permitted to remain but shall be subject to the provisions of GMC Section 18.54.040, which prevents nonconforming uses from being changed or expanded beyond what was established when the use became nonconforming.

SPECIAL EVENTS
Special events will be held approximately two to three times per month and shall not exceed 36 times per year. The events will be limited to Saturday and Sunday events (between 7 AM and 10 PM) with expected attendance of up to 250 attendees. Clean up may take place after 10:00 PM. • The City shall not permit any attendee, City elected or appointed official or employee, contractor, vendor or any other person present at any of such special events from: (i) interfering with or disrupting the operations, use or quiet enjoyment of the Property by Developer, any of its tenants, or any principal, officer, manager, employee, invitee, vendor or contractor of Developer or any of its tenants, except for the change of truck access as described below, (ii) interfering or tampering with, damaging, impairing or altering any of the elements or features of the Final Remedial Action Plan approved by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control on July 17, 2022, or (iii) parking any vehicle in any of the Property’s parking spaces or in any other area of the Property outside of the special event area or outside of the Property’s southerly driveway outside of the truck court as depicted on Figure 7a: Site Plan and Land Use Plan - Special Events with Circulation Buffer.
• The City will notify the owner in writing at least fourteen (14) calendar days before each such event will take place describing the nature, date and duration of the event and the portion of the Special Event area on which the event will occur. The City shall be responsible for sponsoring, securing, and monitoring special events. Security and public services during special events shall be the City’s responsibility. • The City shall be provided with a storage building, at no cost, of at least 200 square feet to store items for the special events at the location shown on Figure 7a: Site Plan and Land Use Plan - Special Events with Circulation Buffer. 5 - 36
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

5.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Standards apply to all land uses, structures, and related improvements in the Specific Plan area. Where specific development standards are not mentioned in this section, the applicable provisions of the GMC shall apply. The standards of this section control the physical dimensions and location of structures, and site improvements amongst the various land use areas to implement the Specific Plan Guiding Principles and Project Objectives and establish welldesigned development projects within the Plan area that work in harmony with each other and minimize potential impacts to residential uses within the Plan area as well as adjacent sensitive uses.

MINIMUM LOT AREA
The minimum area permitted by the 1450 ASP shall be 6.33 acres. Individual lots shall be consolidated to meet the minimum lot area.

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
Buildings shall not 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 limitation, architectural features, elevator shafts mechanical equipment, stairwells, canopies, or shade structures).

BUILDING SETBACK LINE
No building or structure shall be constructed within the building setback line. All setbacks shall be free and clear to the sky relative to building or structure placement except for the following improvements:

Front: Along the Artesia Blvd. property line there shall be a minimum 48-foot setback.

Rear: Along the rear property line there shall be a 48-foot minimum setback.

Side (Eastern): Along the eastern property line there shall be a minimum 300-foot setback.

Side (Western): Along the western property line there shall be a minimum 40-foot setback.

Permitted Encroachments: Non-habitable architectural features (e.g., canopy or awning), landscaping, outdoor seating for pedestrians and similar features may encroach within required setback areas. Fire lanes, drive aisles, and the City’s storage structure, may be located in the required side and rear yard setbacks.

FLOOR AREA RATIO
Pursuant to the General Plan, non-residential land use intensity is typically measured by the amount of building floor area allowed land acre, also referred to as Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Within the Specific Plan area, the FAR for each non-residential land use shall meet the following within Table 5-1, Non-Residential Floor Area Ratio.
5 - 37
CHAPTER 5.0: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
TABLE 5-1:NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO

LAND USE MAXIMUM FAR
Integrated Commercial Industrial 1.0

5.4 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS

FACADES
A consistent architectural style shall be used for the building and its related elements (i.e., exterior lighting, canopies, trellises, etc.). Structures and walls and rooflines of structures shall contain a variety of distinct parts, architectural elements and surface treatments. There shall be variations and articulation on the façades of the building to add scale and avoid large monotonous walls.

Where the building mass cannot be broken up due to unique use constraints, i.e., warehouse space, building walls shall be articulated through the use of texture, color, material changes, shadow lines, and other façade treatments. All façades of the building shall be treated with equal architectural rigor, level of detail, and articulation.

MATERIALS
Materials shall be high quality, durable, and not readily deteriorate if exposed to the elements.

The following materials are allowed:
• Stucco, Sand Fine Finish
• Screen Metal Panels
• Vision Glass
• Spandrel Glass
Architectural features and materials shall wrap corners and provide the same level of detail as the primary façade.

COLOR
Colors shall include a base color and a minimum of one accent color. Colors shall be similar to the renderings provided within Figure 14: Color and Material Board.

If subsequent renderings are provided with materials not allowed by this Chapter or colors not approved in accordance with the approved color list by the City Council, the changes shall be approved by the City Council. Otherwise, the Community Development Director may approve such changes.
5 - 38
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

5.5 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Standards are to be used in conjunction with GMC Section 18.42.075 (Landscape regulations).

The Projects shall provide and maintain landscaping and irrigation in compliance with applicable sections of this Specific Plan.

A landscaping plan shall be required for new or expanded buildings and structures including a minimum of five percent of total paved area used for driveways and parking outside of areas with mitigation measures in place (i.e., environmental cap) which do not allow for sub-surface disturbance.

Landscape along Artesia Boulevard shall be distinct from the surrounding streets to emphasize the throughway adjacent to the sites. Landscaping along these external edges will be more intense than interior landscaping but shall preserve and enhance strategic view corridors into the project to take advantage of frontage along this major traffic corridor.

All landscaping shall be well maintained and not interfere with pedestrian movement or impede the visibility of business and signage.

5.6 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS
The following regulations establish minimum requirements and design standards for off-street parking of vehicles, trucks, and bicycles. The purpose of these regulations is to provide safe and convenient access, to ensure parking areas are properly designed, and to provide enough parking spaces to service the use, reduce traffic congestion, promote business, and enhance public safety. Compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is required pertaining to specific parking requirements for bicycle parking, designated parking for clean air vehicles, EV charging stations, and other parking requirements regulated by CALGreen.

5.7 VEHICLE PARKING
Table 5-2, Required Off-Street Parking identifies the minimum number of parking spaces for the uses listed under their respective categories.

TABLE 5-2: REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING

USE PARKING REQUIREMENT RATIO
Warehouse 1 / 1,000 SF
Leasing Office 1 / 400 SF
Office / Retail
(Mezzanine) 1 / 400 SF
Self-Storage 1.65 / 100 Units
5 - 39
CHAPTER 5.0: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING DESIGN STANDARDS
The following provides general parking and loading standards for the Specific Plan area. Table 5-3, Off Street Parking and Loading Standards establishes the design standards for off-street parking and loading. Refer to GMC Section 18.40. Off street vehicle parking for certain standards and procedures, including accessible parking space requirements and alternative parking programs. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the GMC and all applicable City requirements and standards; however, there shall be no compact parking spaces.

TABLE 5-3: OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS

OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS

CATEGORY REQUIREMENT
Markings
All parking facilities, individual stalls, drive aisles, approach lanes, and maneuvering areas shall be clearly marked to expedite traffic movement. Once a parking facility has been marked in accordance with the approved site plan, the markings shall be maintained in good condition.

Loading Activity
All loading activity including turnaround and maneuvering shall be made on-site and contained within designated areas, such as loading zone, loading space, or loading docks.

Loading activities should not block designated drive aisles/driveways, passenger vehicle areas, pedestrian paths, and emergency vehicle access.

Buildings, structures, and loading facilities shall be designed and placed on the site so that vehicles, whether rear loading or side loading, may be loaded or unloaded without extending beyond the property line.

Drive aisles shall be sufficient in length so that no queuing of trucks or delivery vehicles will occur within the public right-of-way.

OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS CONT.

CATEGORY REQUIREMENT
Safety
Pedestrian circulation in parking lot areas shall be planned to provide safety and convenience. Off-street parking areas shall incorporate walkways and striped paving in conjunction with landscaping to ensure the visibility and separation of pedestrians from vehicular paths.

Parking Lot
Screening
The view of parking areas from public streets shall be softened by means of grading berms and/or landscaping.
5 - 40
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS
Standard Parking 9-feet wide by 18-feet long
Wheel Stops 3- feet from the wall or property line.

Minimum Aisle width
for parking angle 90 degrees: 26 feet
Maximum gradient at
parking space
5% measured in any direction; 2% maximum for accessible parking spaces

DOCK-HIGH LOADING FACILITIES
Loading door loading
space
12-feet wide by 40-feet long with 14-foot minimum vertical clearance measured from finish service of loading dock, and shall be so arranged that it will not impede traffic circulation within the parking area and will not block parking stalls.

Truck maneuvering
area
Designed to accommodate the minimum practical turning radius of a 53-foot semi-trailer and tractor combination.

5.8 MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
The site, including the City’s storage building and public right of way in front of the site, shall be well maintained in an orderly manner during and following construction and timely and regular maintenance and necessary repairs shall be made to the Project’s exterior and interior and City’s storage building.

5.9 STANDARDS FOR WALLS/FENCING, OUTDOOR STORAGE, LIGHTING, SIGNAGE

CITY STORAGE

WALLS AND FENCING
Walls, fences, and gates may be used to identify separate areas and provide needed privacy and security. Where constructed, walls, fences, and gates shall appear consistent in style and material, complementing the surrounding architectural styles.

The eight-foot-high decorated masonry wall along the western side of the property abutting the residential townhome development and shall remain. Security fencing along the perimeters of the property shall consist of wrought iron or tubular steel and shall be interspersed with stone, brick, stucco, or decorative block at a minimum of every six feet and shall be no more than six-feet in height. There shall be a minimum of three feet of landscaping between the front of the fence and the back of the sidewalk area closest to the fence along Artesia Boulevard. Along Normandie Avenue there must be a minimum setback of 15 feet from the front of the fence and the back of the sidewalk area closest to the fence.

OUTDOOR STORAGE
Outdoor storage and trash receptacles shall conceal the views of materials and products from streets and nearby properties. All outdoor storage of facilities for fuel, raw materials, and products shall be concealed from view from adjacent property and public rights-of-way. No material or 5 - 41
CHAPTER 5.0: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
waste shall be deposited in such form or manner that it may be transferred off the lot by natural causes or forces. All materials or wastes which might cause fumes or dust, or which constitute a fire hazard, or which may be edible by or otherwise be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors only in closed containers.

ENCLOSURE OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
All mechanical equipment, plumbing lines, heating and cooling units, and storage tanks and ductwork (roof- or ground-mounted) shall be incorporated into the building envelope or roof in accordance with building code requirements.

LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE
A complete security and lighting plan shall be required including 2-foot candle (average) with min. 1-foot candle for all public/common areas.

All light fixtures shall be designed and located in a manner that does not allow spillover onto adjacent properties. Overly glaring and flashing lights are prohibited. Additionally, the exterior lighting fixtures shall be architecturally consistent with the design of the building, as reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. All signage shall be permitted per GMC Chapter 18.58.

CITY STORAGE
The city storage building shall be constructed of CMU blocks, built on a slab on grade foundation, and shall be provided with a steel door and LED motion detector lights on the inside. The storage building shall be designed to be compatible with the project, and shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval.

5.10 CALGREEN STANDARDS
Plan area development shall conform to the most recent CALGreen mandatory sustainability standards in effect at the time of building plan submission. Compliance with these standards results in a reduction of energy usage for any given building or complex.

This page is intentionally left blank.
6 - 43
CHAPTER 6.0: DESIGN GUIDELINES

6.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are specifically tailored to ensure the quality development envisioned for the 1450 ASP area.

6.1 ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The following design principles will ensure that development activity is integrated, sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods, provides positive imagery, and creates an inviting environment for residents and visitors, meeting the intent of the Specific Plan.

Design Principle 1: Provide for long-term high-quality development The 1450 ASP area is envisioned to continue redevelopment along Artesia Boulevard. Building materials and landscaping should be chosen for their ability to be maintained in a cost-effective manner at the same high quality as when they were originally constructed and installed. Planning and building design should consider longevity and adaptability to future conditions and trends.

Design Principle 2: Improve the aesthetic of the environment for both workers and residents of the City
The Project development shall be required to maintain landscape parkways in decorative parkways of Project areas including concealing storage yards, parking, and service areas to minimize visual impacts on the public.

Design Principle 3: Utilize landscaping to beautify Gardena’s streets and sidewalks Unifying streetscape elements along the public right-of-way should be considered including landscaping to foster the City’s streetscape.

Design Principle 4: Incorporate architectural features which will allow for the property to maintain ongoing operations.

As described in Chapter 5, the 1450 ASP shall utilize building design to consider the visual and physical relationship to adjacent uses. Long, blank walls shall be broken up with vertical and horizontal façade articulation achieved. See above for required architectural standards. 6 - 44
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

ARCHITECTRUAL STYLES AND SCALE
The Project should provide thematic elements that create a cohesive environment, including consistent and cohesive streetscape; strong relationships between the building, sidewalk, and other outdoor spaces; and comprehensive signage.

The 1450 ASP’s regulation of the building envelope will contribute to a coherent building design and promote architectural unity in the Plan area.

ARCHITECTRUAL FEATURES
Architectural features are encouraged to create visual interest. Figure 13: Architectural Features below depicts the Project including styles, scale, siding materials, color and features.

Figure 13: Architectural Features
6 - 45
CHAPTER 6.0: DESIGN GUIDELINES

SIDING MATERIALS
The Project should include enhanced materials to complement the architectural design at pedestrian level and at other key elements of the building elevation. The selection of enhanced materials shall contribute to the visual quality of the streetscape.

COLOR
Color schemes should be selected with a harmonious range of accent materials and align with the color and materials board as depicted in Figure 14: Color and Material Board.

Figure 14: Color and Material Board
6 - 46
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

6.2 ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE AND STREETSCAPE
Landscaping for any development within the 1450 ASP area must be substantially consistent with the landscape plan concepts set forth in Chapter 4, Section VIII of this Specific Plan.

Buildings and major pedestrian entrances should be oriented toward centers of activity, such as the primary street frontage.

This page is intentionally left blank.

This page is intentionally left blank.
7 - 49
CHAPTER 7.0: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

7.0 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

7.1 APPLICABLE GOALS AND POLICIES

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN
The City’s General Plan establishes the overall vision for growth and development in the community.

The General Plan Land Use Plan establishes clear and logical patterns of land use and standards for new development.

The 1450 ASP provides for the orderly and efficient development and revitalization of the Specific Plan area consistent with the City’s General Plan. The 1450 ASP is a regulatory document prepared pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code sections 65450 through 65457, which grant local government agencies the authority to prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of their general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan.

State law requires that any specific plan be consistent with the City’s General Plan. As the current Plan area is designated as Specific Plan, the 1450 ASP is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map.

RELATIONSHIP TO ZONING ORDINANCE
GMC Title 18 is the Zoning Ordinance, which provides the regulatory tool to implement the land use goals, policies, and actions established by the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance identifies specific zone in the City and prescribes development standards and regulations that apply to each zone.

The Gardena Zoning Map identifies this property as 1450 Artesia Specific Plan. Section 18.08.015 of the Gardena Municipal Code provides that the 1450 Artesia SP zone is intended for a mix of commercial and industrial uses and no development will occur until a specific plan is adopted. 7 - 50
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN
This Specific Plan fulfills the requirements of this section and will be adopted by Ordinance to implement the zone.

Where the Zoning Ordinance’s regulations, development standards, design guidelines, and/or administrative procedures are inconsistent with this Specific Plan, the Specific Plan regulations, standards, guidelines, and procedures shall supersede. However, any issue not specifically addressed in the 1450 ASP shall be subject to the standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.

SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES
The policies in this section were established specifically for the 1450 ASP and provide guidance for new development, protection of human health and the environment, and public improvements in the Plan area. These policies apply throughout the 1450 ASP area and supplement the General Plan policies outlined in the consistency analysis below. Development proposals must be consistent with the policies of both the General Plan and this 1450 ASP.

Policy 1: Appropriate Land Use Development. Accommodate the development of land uses that include redevelopment of an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant industrial and commercial uses while allowing for continued monitoring of remediated areas.

Policy 2: Quality Development. Achieve a long-term high-quality development by improving the aesthetic of the development for both workers and neighboring residents of the City with use of durable materials, pedestrian and streetscape amenities, attention to architectural detail, reduction of non-renewable resources, and limit pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

7.2 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The 1450 ASP is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT - LAND USE PLAN
LU Goal 2: Develop and preserve high quality commercial centers and clean industrial uses that benefit the City’s tax base, create jobs and provide a full range of services to the residents and businesses.

LU 2.1: Require ample landscaping and high-level maintenance in all new and existing commercial and industrial developments.

LU 2.2: Encourage the assembly of smaller commercial properties into larger centers and discourage the subdivision of larger commercial/industrial sites into smaller parcels.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Goal 2, the 1450 ASP’s objective is to redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property including nonconforming uses with economically vibrant clean industrial and commercial uses along a major development corridor within the City that will replace the former waste oil and industrial water uses that resulted in such impacts.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Policy 2.1, the 1450 ASP would require a landscaping plan for new or expanding buildings and structures in conformance with mitigation measures in place (i.e., environmental cap), which do not allow for sub-surface disturbance. Further, areas that are not 7 - 51
CHAPTER 7.0: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
slated for parking or aisleways shall be landscaped and evenly distributed throughout the parking lot. Landscape along Artesia Boulevard would be well-designed and consistent with surrounding streets to emphasize the throughway adjacent to the site. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Policy 2.2, the Project includes redevelopment with a mixed-use property comprised of a 268,000 gross-square-foot (GSF) building with associated surface parking, and landscaping and circulation improvements. The proposed development would contain a self-storage use (three levels above ground floor warehousing) totaling 186,000 GSF with 1,480 storage units, an industrial warehousing use (one level totaling 72,000 GSF plus ten loading docks), and an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF). The Project would not include the subdivision of larger commercial/industrial sites into smaller parcels and instead, assembles industrial and residential properties into a larger center. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

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

LU 3.1: Require adequate off-street parking, internal circulation and loading spaces for commercial developments.

LU 3.2: Encourage the upgrade and rehabilitation of existing commercial and industrial building facades and sites.

LU 3.4: Attract commercial and industrial uses that minimize adverse impacts on surrounding land uses and are economically beneficial to the City in terms of revenue generation and employment opportunities.

LU 3.5: Promote the development and preservation of attractive commercial and industrial development with ample landscape treatment, adequate parking and the full range of customer amenities.

LU 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.

LU 3.7: Require the mitigation or remediation of potentially hazardous conditions in the City.

LU 3.8: Require all outdoor storage to be concealed from view from the public right of ways and adjoining land uses.

LU 3.9: Require loading and unloading of materials to be conducted completely on private property and out of sight from a public street.

LU 3.10: Ensure new development provides adequate improvements, dedications, and fees to the City to fully cover the cost of the City services and facilities.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Goal 3, the 1450 ASP’s objective is to redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant industrial and commercial uses along a major development corridor at a key entrance intersection of the City. 7 - 52
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN
The Project would be required to provide attractive landscaping, which would create an attractive and well-maintained commercial, industrial, and public environment that enhance the image and vitality of the City. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this goal.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Policy 3.1, the 1450 ASP provides off-street parking and loading design standards for the Specific Plan area that are consistent with the GMC and all applicable City requirements and standards. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Policy 3.2, the 1450 ASP’s objective is to redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant industrial and commercial uses along a major development corridor within the City. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Policy 3.4, the Project would: 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; and provide the City a substantial monetary public benefit to the City’s General Fund. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this goal.

Consistency: As described above, consistent with LU Policy 3.5, the 1450 ASP’s objective is to redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant industrial and commercial uses along a major development corridor within the City. The Project would be required to provide attractive landscaping, which would create an attractive and well-maintained commercial, industrial, and public environment that enhance the image and vitality of the City. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Policy 3.6 and Policy 3.7, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined by §15161 of the CEQA Guidelines to address the potential environmental effects of the 1450 ASP and greater area within the larger SP area surrounding the Project site, including impacts to noise, air, water, seismic safety, hazards and any other applicable environmental regulations. In conjunction with the EIR, the Project will implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts resulting from project implementation to a less-thansignificant level [(SCH#2023060263)]. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR are incorporated in this Specific Plan by reference and are in Appendix A to this Specific Plan. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Policy 3.8, the 1450 ASP requires outdoor storage and trash receptacles to conceal the views of materials and products from streets and nearby properties.

All outdoor storage of facilities for fuel, raw materials, and products shall be concealed from view from adjacent property and public rights-of-way. No material or waste shall be deposited upon a subject lot in such form or manner that it may be transferred off the lot by natural causes or forces.

All materials or wastes which might cause fumes or dust, or which constitute a fire hazard, or 7 - 53
CHAPTER 7.0: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
which may be edible by or otherwise be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors only in closed containers. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Policy 3.9, the 1450 ASP requires all loading activity including turnaround and maneuvering to be made on-site and contained within designated areas, such as loading zone, loading space, or loading docks. Loading activities should not block designated drive aisles/driveways, passenger vehicle areas, pedestrian paths, and emergency vehicle access. Buildings, structures, and loading facilities shall be designed and placed on the site so that vehicles, whether rear loading or side loading, may be loaded or unloaded without extending beyond the property line. Drive aisles shall be sufficient in length so that no queuing of trucks or delivery vehicles will occur within the public right-of-way. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with LU Policy 3.10, all new developments within the City are subject to payment of development impact fees in place at time of submittal. The 1450 ASP and any development it facilitates would be required to pay any applicable fees to the City prior to building permit issuance. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN ED Goal 1: Promote a growing and diverse business community that provides jobs, goods and services for the local and regional market, and maintains a sound tax base for the City.

ED 1.4: Encourage high quality mixed-use development in underutilized commercial and industrial areas where it will improve the City’s tax base and image.

ED 1.7: Encourage diversification of businesses to support the local economy and provide a stable revenue stream.

Consistency: Consistent with ED Goal 1, the 1450 ASP’s objective is to redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant industrial and commercial uses along a major development corridor within the City. The 1450 ASP would facilitate the production of short-and long-term jobs during construction and operation phases. Additionally, the 1450 ASP would generate property and sales tax revenues for the City to enhance its services to the community and infrastructural improvements and would provide the City a substantial monetary public benefit to the City’s General Fund. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this goal.

Consistency: Consistent with ED Policy 1.4, the 1450 ASP facilitates a transition of underutilized uses into a revitalized building for warehouse, distribution, office/retail and self-storage mixed-use building. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with ED Policy 1.5, the 1450 ASP is located at the corner of Artesia Boulevard and Normandie Boulevard and would facilitate redevelopment of an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant regional-serving industrial and commercial uses along this major development corridor within the City. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with ED Policy 1.7, the 1450 ASP’s objective is to redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant industrial and 7 - 54
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN
commercial uses along a major development corridor within the City. The Project includes redevelopment of mixed-use property comprised of a 268,000 GSF building with associated surface parking, and landscaping and circulation improvements. The proposed development would contain a diverse set of businesses to support the local economy and provide a stable revenue stream, including a self-storage use (four levels totaling 186,000 GSF with 1,480 storage units), an industrial warehousing, and distribution uses (one level totaling 72,000 GSF plus ten loading docks), and an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 GSF). Additionally, the City is proposing to host various medium-size special events on an approximately 36,000-SF portion (0.8 acre) of the proposed industrial use’s parking area outside of operational working hours.

Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

ED Goal 3: Attract desirable businesses to locate in the City.

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

Consistency: Consistent with ED Goal 3, the 1450 ASP facilitates a transition of environmentally impacted property, underutilized uses and blighted areas into a revitalized building for warehouse, distribution, office/retail and self-storage mixed-use building. Further, the Project will facilitate development of appropriate uses in an area with a legacy of contamination in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this goal.

Consistent with ED policy 3.3, the 1450 ASP adopts a multidisciplinary, proactive approach, supporting the expanding business sector with newly constructed, high-quality storage solutions.

Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT - COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN
DS Goal 1: Enhance the visual environment and create a positive image of the City.

DS 1.6: Require streetscape development standards for major corridors, including landscaping to reinforce Gardena’s community image.

Consistency: Consistent with DS Goal 1, the Project will enhance the visual environment by replacing a light manufacturing parcel with current U-Haul and metal works facility, a vacant parcel with a Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) cap for contaminated sumps, and four residential parcels behind the industrial properties adjacent to the Dominguez Channel with a new modern facility for business storage solutions industrial and distribution development project. The Project will incorporate high-quality design and landscaping consistent with the standards of the 1450 ASP to further enhance the visual environment. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistent with DS Policy 1.6, the 1450 ASP contains streetscape design standards, including landscaping to foster the City’s streetscape and honor landscape setbacks that would reinforce the City’s image. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy. 7 - 55
CHAPTER 7.0: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
DS Goal 4: Achieve high quality design for commercial uses.

Consistent with DS Goal 4, the 1450 ASP contains design principles that will ensure that development activity is integrated, sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods, provides positive imagery, and creates an inviting environment for residents and visitors. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this goal.

DS Goal 5: Improve the aesthetic quality of the industrial environment for both workers and residents of the City.

DS 5.1: Industrial projects should be designed to convey visual interest and a positive image.

DS 5.2: Encourage the design of industrial buildings to consider the visual and physical relationship to adjacent uses. An industrial structure, which dominates the surrounding environment by its relative size, shall be discouraged.

DS 5.3: Industrial projects shall be required to: incorporate landscape setbacks and buffers; aesthetically treat horizontal and vertical design elements on building and perimeter walls; and conceal storage yards, parking, and service areas to minimize visual impacts on the public.

DS 5.4: Long, blank walls should be broken up with vertical and horizontal façade articulation achieved through stamping, colors, materials, modulation and landscaping.

Consistency: Consistent with DS Goal 5, the 1450 ASP facilitates a transition of underutilized and unaesthetic uses into a revitalized, aesthetic mixed-use building for warehouse, office/retail and self-storage uses. The Project will create a modern facility for business storage solution along Artesia Boulevard, which will attract businesses to locate in the City. Further, the Project will redevelop an underutilized, blighted and environmentally impacted property with economically vibrant industrial and commercial uses along a major development corridor, which will help attract businesses to the City. The Project will also facilitate development of appropriate uses in an area with a legacy of contamination in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this goal.

Consistency: Consistent with DS Policy 5.1, the Project would contain a self-storage use, an industrial warehousing use, and an office/retail use. The 1450 ASP contains development regulations and standards to which the proposed development would be required to adhere, as well as design guidelines, which would ensure the project would be designed to convey visual interest and a positive image. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with DS Policy 5.2, the 1450 ASP contains development regulations and standards and design guidelines that ensure that development activity is integrated, sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods, provides positive imagery, and creates an inviting environment for residents of and visitors to the City. Design Principle 2 states, “Improve the aesthetic of the industrial environment for both workers and residents of the City.” This Design Principle encourages industrial projects to maintain landscape parkways in decorative parkways of industrial areas including concealing storage yards, parking, and service areas to minimize visual impacts on the public. Further, this Design Principle notes that an industrial structure which dominates the 7 - 56
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN
surrounding environment by its relative size shall be discouraged. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with DS Policy 5.3, the 1450 ASP contains design guidelines that ensure that development activity is integrated, sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods, provides positive imagery, and creates an inviting environment for residents and visitors. Design Principle 3 states, “Utilize landscaping to beautify Gardena’s streets and sidewalks.” This Design Principle encourages unifying streetscape elements for major corridors, including landscaping, to foster the City’s streetscape and honoring landscape setbacks. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistency: Consistent with DS Policy 5.4, the 1450 ASP contains design guidelines that ensure that development activity is integrated, sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods, provides positive imagery, and creates an inviting environment for residents and visitors. Design Principle 4 states, “Incorporate architectural features which will allow for the property to maintain ongoing operations.” This Design Principle encourages industrial building design to consider the visual and physical relationship to adjacent uses. Further, the Design Principle notes that long, blank walls should be broken up with vertical and horizontal façade articulation achieved through stamping, colors, materials, and modulation with fencing allowing for appropriate surrounding uses to continue with ongoing operations and safety. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT
EJ Goal 1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance air quality, and reduce impacts associated with climate change.

EJ 1.3: Require the mitigation or remediation of hazardous conditions in the City. (See also Policy LU 3.7)
Consistent with EJ Policy 1.3, 1450 ASP will continue to maintain DTSC oversight of long-term onsite remediation efforts and technologies in place (environmental cap) to ensure safety for public health and the environment. Further, the Project will facilitate development of appropriate uses in an area with a legacy of contamination in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this goal.

EJ Goal 3: Promote access to healthy food and nutritional choices.

EJ 3.3: Encourage the establishment and operation of a farmer’s markets, farm stands, mobile health food markets, and Community-Supported Agriculture programs.

Consistent with Goal 3 and Policy 3.3, City-sponsored special events will be permitted as part of permitted uses for the Plan area. A total of approximately 36,000-SF portion (0.8 acre) of the proposed industrial use’s parking area will be used for special events approximately two to three times per month including food trucks farmer’s markets, and food giveaways. This will further Policy 3.3 with a specific location to establish healthy food choices within the City.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES ELEMENT -CONSERVATION PLAN
CN Goal 2: Conserve and protect groundwater supply and water resources. 7 - 57
CHAPTER 7.0: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
CN 2.2: Comply with the water conservation measures set forth by the California Department of Water Resources.

CN 2.6: Encourage and support the proper disposal of hazardous waste and waste oil.

Monitor businesses that generate hazardous waste materials to ensure compliance with approved disposal procedures.

Consistent with CN Goal 2 and its supporting policies, the project conserves and protects groundwater supply and water resources through compliance with all applicable regulations, including the water conservation measures set forth by the Department of Water Resources.

Additionally, due to the prior use of the site, an infiltration BMP is not considered feasible for the Project and will not be used since it has a high potential of transporting contamination to the groundwater. This will protect the groundwater below the Project site. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this goal.

Consistent with Policy 2.2, the Project must comply with all water conservation measures set forth by the California Department of Water Resources. Further, according to the Project’s Preliminary Hydrology and Low Impact Development (LID) Report, all common landscape irrigation shall employ water conservation principals, including, but not limited to, provisions such as water sensors and programmable irrigation times for short cycles. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistent with Policy 2.6, the Project must comply with all applicable regulations regarding the disposal of hazardous waste and waste oil during construction. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

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

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

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

Consistent with Goal 4 and Policy 4.1, the 1450 ASP facilitates warehouse, office/retail and selfstorage mixed-use development meets high standards of environmental sustainability. Development within the Specific Plan area must be designed to achieve best practices for architectural design and land development that enhance the City’s infrastructure, reduce consumption of nonrenewable resources, and limit pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistent with Policy 4.2, projects within the 1450 ASP will conform to the most recent CALGreen sustainability standards in effect at the time of building plan submission. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

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

CN 5.3: Protect and preserve cultural resources of the Gabrielino Native American Tribes found or uncovered during construction.
7 - 58
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN
Consistent with Goal 5 and its supporting policies, the project will incorporate mitigation measures to protect and preserve any cultural resources of the Gabrielino Native American Tribe, or any other Tribe, found or uncovered during construction. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

CONSERVATION PLANCOMMUNITY SAFETY ELEMENT - PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN PS Goal 1: A community that is highly prepared and equipped to handle emergency situations in order to minimize loss of life, injury, property damage, and disruption of vital services.

PS 1.7: Ensure that law enforcement, crime prevention, and fire safety concerns are considered in the review of planning and development proposals in the City.

Consistent with Goal 1 and Policy 1.7, the City has considered law enforcement, crime prevention, and fire safety concerns in its review of the 1450 ASP. The Project will comply with all applicable Fire Code and fire safety regulations. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

PS Goal 2: A City that is adequately prepared for fire emergencies.

PS 2.2: Require that all buildings and facilities within Gardena comply with local, state, and federal regulatory standards such as the California Building and Fire Codes as well as other applicable fire safety standards.

Consistent with PS Goal 2 and Policy 2.2, all projects within the 1450 ASP are required to comply with the local, state, and federal regulatory standards such as the California Building and Fire Codes as a condition of building permit approval. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

PS Goal 3: Protect the community from dangers associated with geologic instability, seismic hazards and other natural hazards.

PS 3.1: Require compliance with seismic safety standards in the California Building Code, as adopted and amended.

PS 3.2: 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.

Consistent with Policy 2.3, all projects within the 1450 ASP are required to comply with the seismic safety standards in the California Building Code. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

Consistent with Policy 2.4, a geotechnical study was prepared for the Specific Plan area and the Project is required to comply with all recommendations contained therein. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

COMMUNITY SAFETY ELEMENT - NOISE PLAN
N Goal 2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions.

N 2.4: Require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. 7 - 59
CHAPTER 7.0: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
N 2.5: Require proposed projects to be reviewed for compatibility with nearby noisesensitive land uses with the intent of reducing noise impacts.

Consistent with Goal 2, the City incorporated noise considerations into its review of the Specific Plan. Consistent with Policy 2.4 the EIR analyzed the Project’s potential for generating noise impacts on the surrounding environment both during construction and operation; mitigation measures are included to mitigate noise impacts to the extent feasible. Consistent with Policy 2.5, the Project will conduct interior noise level studies and achieve interior noise level standards as required by the Building Code. Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

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

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

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

Consistent with Policy 3.2, the Project complies with the City’s noise ordinance. Consistent with Policy 3.3, the Project complies with the City’s regulations regarding permitted construction hours.

Therefore, the 1450 ASP would be consistent with this policy.

This page is intentionally left blank.
8 - 61
CHAPTER 8.0: IMPLEMENTATION

8.0 IMPLEMENTATION

8.1 PHASING PLAN
The project proposed under the 1450 ASP is envisioned to be built in one phase. Phased occupancy of the Project is permitted if approved by the Building Official.

8.2 PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
Development in the 1450 ASP area will be implemented through City review of maps, plans, plot plans, building permits, and other permits that may be required by the City to ensure compliance with the approved Site Plan #5-21. Any modifications to the Site Plans, attached hereto as Appendix B, including new construction or modifications to approved buildings - whether built or not, shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for conformance with the General Plan, this Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance (if not superseded by this Specific Plan), and all other applicable documents.

8.3 CEQA REVIEW
For any subsequent discretionary approvals requiring further CEQA review, the City as lead agency will rely on the certified EIR, together with any necessary errata, addenda or subsequent or supplemental environmental documents to the fullest extent permitted by CEQA.

8.4 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS/COORDINATION
The developer and/or property owner shall be responsible for making transportation and infrastructure utility improvements identified as part of the 1450 ASP. All improvements shall be to the specifications of the City Community Development Department, Public Works Department, or another applicable department.
8 - 62
CITY OF GARDENA | 1450 ARTESIA SPECIFIC PLAN

8.5 FINANCING MEASURES
Implementation and financing of improvements of the 1450 ASP depend exclusively on private investment and development. The developer and/or property owner shall be responsible for financing the Project, including all improvements and mitigation measures.

8.6 ADMINISTRATION OF PLAN

FRAMEWORK
Approval of the 1450 ASP indicates acceptance by the Gardena City Council of a specific framework for the development of the Specific Plan area. That framework establishes specific standards and regulations, including permitted uses and development standards that constitute the zoning regulations for the Specific Plan area and regulate development within the Plan area.

REVIEW AUTHORITY
The Community Development Director and City Planning Commission shall administer the 1450 ASP in accordance with the GMC provisions, except to the extent superseded by the provisions of this Specific Plan.

INTERPRETATION
In case of uncertainty or ambiguity to the meaning or intent of any provision of this Specific Plan, the Community Development Director has the authority to interpret the intent of the provision in question. The Director may, at his/her discretion, refer interpretations to the Planning Commission for consideration and action. Such a referral shall be accompanied by a written analysis of issues related to the interpretation. All interpretations made by the Community Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with the appeal procedures set forth in GMC Title 18. When used in this 1450 ASP, the words “shall” and “must” are always to be construed as mandatory. The word “should,” as used in the design guidelines section of this plan, is not to be construed as mandatory but rather, as strongly recommended.

The 1450 ASP is not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any easement, covenant, or other agreement to which the City is a party.

Where the Zoning Ordinance’s regulations, development standards, design guidelines, and/or administrative procedures are inconsistent with this Specific Plan, the Specific Plan regulations, standards, guidelines, and procedures shall supersede and control. However, any issue not specifically addressed in the 1450 ASP shall be subject to the standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.

SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Specific Plan, or future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Specific Plan. 8 - 63
CHAPTER 8.0: IMPLEMENTATION

SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE
Substantial Conformance allows for administrative approval and interpretation of minor modifications to the Specific Plan text, graphics, and/or approved project design that do not change the Specific Plan’s meaning or intent or create a substantial modification of the approved Site Plan. Through this administrative review process the Community Development Director may find the project to be in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan and the Site Plan Review approval provided no significant modifications are proposed that require a Specific Plan amendment, as described in detail below.

SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Amendments to this Specific Plan shall be processed for “significant” modifications in accordance with the applicable provisions of state law provided in California Government Code sections 65450 et seq. The procedures in GMC Section 18.39.030 shall be followed for a proposed Specific Plan amendment. Each request for amendment shall specify the sections or portions of the Specific Plan that are affected by the amendment.

Any proposed “significant” modification which results in any of the following requires an amendment to the Specific Plan:

1. Any change in the permitted uses set forth in Chapter 5, Section I of this Specific Plan.

2. An increase in building height.

3. Any decrease in any ground floor side yard building setback.

4. A decrease in the amount of vehicular parking within the Specific Plan area by more than three spaces.

5. A substantial deviation, as determined by the Community Development Director, from the architecture approved in the Site Plan.

Other than the “significant” modifications listed above that require a Specific Plan Amendment, all other modifications to the project are considered “minor” and may be processed via administrative Substantial Conformance review and approval.

Any modifications to the Site Plan, including a change to materials or colors used, shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director who will determine whether the change is “significant” or “minor.” If the Director determines that the change is significant, but still within the scope of the Specific Plan, the modification shall be approved by the Planning Commission, but no Specific Plan amendment shall be required.

This page is intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX A: MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This page is intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: SITE PLAN

ARTESIA BLVD

PROJECT LOCATION

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:26:53 PM COVER SHEET G101

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design

SHEET INDEX
Sheet Number Sheet Name
G101 COVER SHEET
G102 EXISTING SITE AND CONTEXT PHOTOS
1 ALTA SURVEY
2 ALTA SURVEY
3 ALTA SURVEY
4 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
5 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
6 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
7 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
C100 PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE PLAN
C200 FIRE PLAN
C300 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
L100 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
L101 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA: 268,000 SF
SELF STORAGE ( 3 LEVELS) 186,000 SF
OFFICE/RETAIL (MEZZANINE) 10,000 SF
INDUSTRIAL (1 LEVEL) 72,000 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 72,000 SF
OCCUPANCY: S-1/B INDUSTRIAL
FULLY SPRINKLERED PER NFPA 13
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:

TYPE II-B
HEIGHT: 100' 75'
REAR: 10' 48'
SIDE: 10' 48', 336'-6"
FRONT: 10' 86'

SETBACKS
FAR: -- .94
ZONING: SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN

EXISTING PROPOSED
OVERLAY DISTRICTS: ARTESIA CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN
TOTAL SITE AREA: 284,235 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREA: 206,159 SF
PERVIOUS AREA: 78,076 SF
SITE AREA: 6.53 ACRES (284,235 SF)
6106-036-012, 6106-036-010
PARCEL NUMBER(S): 6106-036-036, 6106-036-037
6106-036-034, 6106-036-035
PROJECT ADDRESS:
1450 WEST ARTESIA BOULEVARD

PROJECT SUMMARY

VICINITY MAP
TOTAL: 124 SPACES
EV: 14 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE: 7 SPACES
STANDARD SPACES: 103 SPACES
PARKING PROVIDED:

EXISTING PARKING -

PARKING INFORMATION
A101 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
A201 LEVEL 1 - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN
A202 LEVEL 2 - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN
A203 LEVEL 3 - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN
A204 LEVEL 4 - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN
A205 LEVEL 5 - OVERALL ROOF PLAN
A401 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A402 OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A501 BUILDING SECTIONS
A901 MATERIAL BOARD
A902 PROJECT RENDERINGS

ARTESIA BLVD

NORMANDIE AVE

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:26:57 PM EXISTING SITE AND CONTEXT PHOTOS G102

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design

EXISTING SITE
EXISTING PHOTO 1
EXISTING PHOTO 2
EXISTING PHOTO 3 EXISTING PHOTO 4 EXISTING PHOTO 5

UTILITY STATEMENT SURVEYOR OF RECORD
Phone: 951-280-9960 Fax: 951-280-9746
www.calvada.com
411 Jenks Cir., Suite 205, Corona, CA 92880
Toll Free: 800-CALVADA
EST. 1989 JOB NO. 21424

REVISIONS BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK
FLOOD NOTE:

PREPARED FOR SITE INFORMATION
A.L.T.A./N.S.P.S. LAND TITLE SURVEY
1440, 1450,1452, 1462 W. ARTESIA BOULEVARD, GARDENA, CA 90248

NO SCALE

VICINITY MAP
Site

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE

SURVEYOR'S NOTES

POSSIBLE ENCROACHMENT NOTES

ITEMS CORRESPONDING TO TABLE A ITEMS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER TR NO. CCH12109327NT
SCHEDULE B ITEMS PER TR NO. CCH12109327NT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER TR NO. 09197811
SCHEDULE B ITEMS PER TR NO. 09197811
’SCHEDULE B ITEMS PER TR NO. 09197075
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER TR NO. 09197075 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER TR NO. 2676021739-48 SCHEDULE B ITEMS PER TR NO. 2676021739-48
S
D
S
S S
S
S
S
S S
S
D D
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
POR. LOT 101, MCDONALD TRACT, M.R. 15/21-22
PARCEL 2 PARCEL 1
PARCELS 1A & 2A
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 2B

MONUMENT NOTES
MON.# DESCRIPTION

CONTROL POINTS
CP# NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION

UTILITY STATEMENT SURVEYOR OF RECORD
Phone: 951-280-9960 Fax: 951-280-9746
www.calvada.com
411 Jenks Cir., Suite 205, Corona, CA 92880
Toll Free: 800-CALVADA
EST. 1989 JOB NO. 21424

REVISIONS PREPARED FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK SITE INFORMATION

NO SCALE

VICINITY MAP
Site
LEGEND

GRAPHIC SCALE
FEET
A.L.T.A./N.S.P.S. LAND TITLE SURVEY
11440, 1450,1452, 1462 W. ARTESIA BOULEVARD, GARDENA, CA 90248 S

MONUMENT NOTES
MON.# DESCRIPTION
POR. LOT 101, MCDONALD TRACT, M.R. 15/21-22
PARCEL 2 PARCEL 1
PARCELS 1A & 2A
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 2B

UTILITY STATEMENT SURVEYOR OF RECORD
Phone: 951-280-9960 Fax: 951-280-9746
www.calvada.com
411 Jenks Cir., Suite 205, Corona, CA 92880
Toll Free: 800-CALVADA
EST. 1989 JOB NO. 21424

REVISIONS PREPARED FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK SITE INFORMATION LEGEND

GRAPHIC SCALE
FEET
A.L.T.A./N.S.P.S. LAND TITLE SURVEY
11440, 1450,1452, 1462 W. ARTESIA BOULEVARD, GARDENA, CA 90248 S
S
D D
MH
MH
MH
POR. LOT 101, MCDONALD TRACT, M.R. 15/21-22
PARCELS 1A & 2A
PARCEL 2
D
S
S S
S
S
S
S S
D D
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH

UTILITY STATEMENT SURVEYOR OF RECORD
Phone: 951-280-9960 Fax: 951-280-9746
www.calvada.com
411 Jenks Cir., Suite 205, Corona, CA 92880
Toll Free: 800-CALVADA
EST. 1989 JOB NO. 21424

REVISIONS PREPARED FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK SITE INFORMATION

TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
1440, 1450,1452, 1462 W.

ARTESIA BOULEVARD,
GARDENA, CA 90248
LEGEND

GRAPHIC SCALE
FEET
SEE SHEET 4 SEE SHEET
3 SURVEY INDEX MAP
D
S S
MH
MH
S
D
S
S S
S
S
S
S S
D D
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH

UTILITY STATEMENT SURVEYOR OF RECORD
Phone: 951-280-9960 Fax: 951-280-9746
www.calvada.com
411 Jenks Cir., Suite 205, Corona, CA 92880
Toll Free: 800-CALVADA
EST. 1989 JOB NO. 21424

REVISIONS PREPARED FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK SITE INFORMATION LEGEND

GRAPHIC SCALE
FEET
SEE SHEET 5 SEE SHEET
2 TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
1440, 1450,1452, 1462
W. ARTESIA

BOULEVARD,
GARDENA, CA 90248

SURVEY INDEX MAP
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4 PARCEL 2B
S
D
S
S S
S
S
S
S S
D D
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH

UTILITY STATEMENT SURVEYOR OF RECORD
Phone: 951-280-9960 Fax: 951-280-9746
www.calvada.com
411 Jenks Cir., Suite 205, Corona, CA 92880
Toll Free: 800-CALVADA
EST. 1989 JOB NO. 21424

REVISIONS PREPARED FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK SITE INFORMATIONSEE SHEET 5 SEE SHEET 2 TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
1440, 1450,1452, 1462 W.

ARTESIA BOULEVARD,
GARDENA, CA 90248
LEGEND

GRAPHIC SCALE
FEET

SURVEY INDEX MAP
S
S
S S
S
S
MH
D
S
S S
S
S
S
S S
D D
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH

UTILITY STATEMENT SURVEYOR OF RECORD
Phone: 951-280-9960 Fax: 951-280-9746
www.calvada.com
411 Jenks Cir., Suite 205, Corona, CA 92880
Toll Free: 800-CALVADA
EST. 1989 JOB NO. 21424

REVISIONS PREPARED FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK SITE INFORMATION LEGEND

GRAPHIC SCALE

FEET SEE SHEET
4 SEE SHEET 3 TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
1440, 1450,1452, 1462 W.

ARTESIA BOULEVARD,
GARDENA, CA 90248

SURVEY INDEX MAP

S S D D
MH

EV CHARGING
ONLY

LOADING LOADING LOADING LOADING LOADING

LOADING LOADING

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING

ONLY EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

28.0'
FIRE LANE 28.0' FIRE LANE
TYP. 272.0' 8.0'
312.0'
192.4'
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.

TYP.

9.0'
TYP. 18.0' TYP. 9.0' TYP. 45.1' 18.0' TYP.

9.0'
TYP.

9.0'
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. 18.0' TYP. 11.2'

18.0'
TYP. 28.0' FIRE LANE 30.0' 6.0'
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.

TYP.

EXISTING

PROPERTY 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' THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2021 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2/13/2024 8:49:39 AM
123456
1450 W ARTESIA BlVD

ENTITLEMENT

DOCUMENTS
Revisions
No. Description Date

PRELIMINARY CIVIL

SITE PLAN
C100

SITE NOTES
LEGEND

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED 6' SECURITY FENCE

GRADE BREAK

RIDGE LINE

HANDRAILS

APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF

REMEDIATION

PROPOSED WATER LINE

PROPOSED SEWER LINE

WATER METER

BACKFLOW PREVENTER

TRANSFORMER

PROPOSED LANDSCAPING

PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY

CONCRETE

PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY

CONCRETE

PROPOSED ASPHALT CONCRETE

PROPOSED PARKING COUNT

PROPOSED SITE LIGHT

PROPOSED MANHOLE

PROPOSED 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 GUTTER
PROPOSED VALLEY GUTTER.

GARDEN WALL PER REMEDIATION PLAN (BY OTHERS).

PROPOSED SIGN.

S S
D D
MH

EV CHARGING
ONLY

LOADING LOADING LOADING LOADING LOADING

LOADING LOADING

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING

ONLY EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

ARTESIA BOULEVARD

EXISTING

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING

PROPERTY LINE

PROPOSED

INDUSTRIAL/ OFFICE/

SELF-STORAGE
FACILITY THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2021 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2/12/2024 11:34:50 AM
123456
1450 W ARTESIA BlVD

ENTITLEMENT

DOCUMENTS
Revisions
No. Description Date
LEGEND

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED 6' SECURITY FENCE

APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF

REMEDIATION
NORTH

FIRE PLAN
C200
S S
D D
MH

EV CHARGING
ONLY

LOADING LOADING LOADING LOADING LOADING

LOADING LOADING

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING

ONLY EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY

ARTESIA BOULEVARD

PROPOSED POLY-COATED

CMP CISTERN

PROPOSED

TRENCH DRAIN

PROPOSED

STORMDRAIN INLET

PROPOSED

STORMDRAIN
INLET

PROPOSED BIOCLEAN

WETLAND SYSTEM

CONNECT TO EXISTING

STORMDRAIN PIPE

PROPOSED
STORMDRAIN PIPE (TYP.)

EXISTING

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING

PROPERTY LINE
FFE=30.20

PROPOSED

STORMDRAIN INLET

PROPOSED

INDUSTRIAL/

OFFICE/

SELF-STORAGE

FACILITY

PROPOSED

TRENCH DRAIN

PROPOSED

STORMDRAIN
MANHOLE (TYP. THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2021 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2/12/2024 11:35:00 AM
123456
1450 W ARTESIA BlVD

ENTITLEMENT

DOCUMENTS
Revisions
No. Description Date

PRELIMINARY

GRADING PLAN
C300
NORTH
LEGEND

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED 6' SECURITY FENCE

GRADE BREAK

RIDGE LINE

HANDRAILS

APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF

REMEDIATION

PROPOSED LANDSCAPING

PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY

CONCRETE

PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY

CONCRETE

PROPOSED ASPHALT CONCRETE

PROPOSED PARKING COUNT

PROPOSED SITE LIGHT

PROPOSED MANHOLE

PROPOSED INLET

PROPOSED SPOT GRADE

PROPOSED SLOPE

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.

SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES
LW LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `NATCHEZ` / NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNK

PC PISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHE
SHRUBS

AA AGAVE ATTENUATA / FOXTAIL AGAVE
AP AGAVE PARRYI / PARRY`S AGAVE
AB ANIGOZANTHOS X `BIG RED` / BIG RED KANGAROO PAW
BR BOUGAINVILLEA X `ROSENKA` / ROSENKA BOUGAINVILLEA
CL CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS `LITTLE JOHN` / LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH LH LANTANA X `NEW GOLD` / NEW GOLD LANTANA

MC MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS
MA MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS `AUTUMN BLUSH` / AUTUMN BLUSH PINK MUHLY GRASS

MD MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY
OL OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA' / LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE
PF PENNISETUM X `FAIRY TAILS` / EVERGREEN FOUNTAIN GRASS PR PHORMIUM TENAX `RADIANCE` / NEW ZEALAND FLAX
PA PHORMIUM X `AMAZING RED` / AMAZING RED NEW ZEALAND FLAX SS SALVIA GREGGII `FURMANS RED` / FURMAN`S RED AUTUMN SAGE

WF WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA / COAST ROSEMARY

GROUND COVERS
RH ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `HUNTINGTON CARPET` / HUNTINGTON CARPET ROSEMARY TS TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES `STAR` / STAR JASMINE
PLANT SCHEDULE THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2021 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2/12/2024 11:35:27 AM
123456
1450 W ARTESIA BlVD

ENTITLEMENT

DOCUMENTS
Revisions
No. Description Date

LANDSCAPE NOTES

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANTING DETAILS,

PLANT LIST, GENERAL NOTES AND ALL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS.

2. PLANT LIST QUANTITIES ARE PROVIDED FOR CONVENIENCE IN THE EVENT OF QUANTITY DISCREPANCIES, THE DRAWING SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE.

ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

3. ANY SUBSTITUTION IN SIZE AND/OR PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN WRITING. ALL PLANTS WILL BE SUBJECT

TO APPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AN /OR OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE PLANTING CAN BEGIN.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AS

NECESSARY TO AVOID DAMAGE TO EXISTING UNDER GROUND NULLITIES AND/OR EXISTING ABOVE GROUND ELEMENTS. ALL CHANGES REQUIRED

SHALL BE COMPLETE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE AND SHALL BE

COORDINATED WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAR ALL COSTS OF TESTING OF SOILS, AMENDMENTS, ETC... ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK AND INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.

6. CONTRACTOR SHALL FAMILIARIZE HIM/HERSELF WITH THE LIMITS OF WORK AND EXISTING CONDITIONS AND VERIFY ALL INFORMATION. IF

DISCREPANCIES EXIST,CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE IN WRITING WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF NOTICE TO PROCEED.

7. SUBMIT PRODUCT DATA FOR FERTILIZER, MULCH, AND SOIL AMENDMENTS.

8. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLANTED INTO ROOT BALLS OF TREES AND PALM.

9. THE SITE SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH A FULLY AUTOMATIC, UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM PROVIDED 100% COVERAGE WITH 50% OVERLAP ON OVERHEAD SPRAY/ROTARY/ROTOR HEADS. THE SYSTEM WILL BE

CONTROLLED BY AN INTELLIGENT CONTROLLER THAT FACTORS

EVAPO-TRANSPIRATION RATE AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS TO AUTOMATICALLY ADJUST THE CLOCK AND SCHEDULE. THE SYSTEM WILL

ALSO FEATURE A RAIN SENSOR TO OVERRIDE THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WHEN ADEQUATE RAINFALL OCCURS.

10. ALL PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS IN THE PLANT SCHEDULE SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR

SHALL PROCURE PLANT MATERIALS AND UPSIZE AS NECESSARY TO MEET THE MOST STRINGENT SPECIFICATION.

11. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FIELD ADJUST ALL PLANT MATERIAL.

PRELIMINARY

LANDSCAPE

SCHEDULE
L101
UP

PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/

SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
BLDG FOOTPRINT - 72,000 SF
TOTAL BUILDING SF - 268,000 SF
PARKING - 124 SPACES

INDUSTRIAL
(1 LEVEL)
TOTAL - 72,000 SF

OFFICE/RETAIL
(MEZZANINE)
TOTAL - 10,000 SF

SELF STORAGE
(3 LEVELS)
TOTAL 186,000

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:20:35 PM PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN A101

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
1 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
Preliminary Site Plan
NORTH

PROJECT
TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA: 268,000 SF
SELF STORAGE ( 3 LEVELS) 186,000 SF
OFFICE/RETAIL (MEZZANINE) 10,000 SF
INDUSTRIAL (1 LEVEL) 72,000 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 72,000 SF
OCCUPANCY: S-1/B INDUSTRIAL
FULLY SPRINKLERED PER NFPA 13
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:

TYPE II-B
HEIGHT: 100' 75'
REAR: 10' 48'
SIDE: 10' 48', 336'-6"
FRONT: 10' 86'

SETBACKS
FAR: -- .94
ZONING: SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN

EXISTING PROPOSED
OVERLAY DISTRICTS: ARTESIA CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN
TOTAL SITE AREA: 284,235 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREA: 206,159 SF
PERVIOUS AREA: 78,076 SF
SITE AREA: 6.53 ACRES (284,235 SF)
6106-036-012, 6106-036-010
PARCEL NUMBER(S): 6106-036-036, 6106-036-037
6106-036-034, 6106-036-035
PROJECT ADDRESS:
1450 WEST ARTESIA BOULEVARD

PROJECT SUMMARY
TOTAL: 124 SPACES
EV: 14 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE: 7 SPACES
STANDARD SPACES: 103 SPACES
PARKING PROVIDED:

EXISTING PARKING -

PARKING INFORMATION
UP
UP
1 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
K
L
16 17 18 19 20
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
161' - 0" 61' - 10" 30' - 4" 58' - 10"
135' - 0" 21' - 5" 54' - 7" 61' - 0"
270' - 0"
310' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1 A501
2 A501
312' - 0"
TYP
10' - 0"
T
Y
P
10' - 0"
1M 2M 3M 4M 5M 6M 7M 8M 9M
F.1
E.1
D.1
C.1
B.1
A.1
10M
272' - 0"

MEZZANINE ABOVE
(10,000 SF)

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:20:36 PM LEVEL 1 - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN A201

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
UP
UP
1 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
K
L
16 17 18 19 20
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
160' - 11" 61' - 11" 30' - 4" 58' - 10"
135' - 0" 21' - 5" 52' - 4" 63' - 3"
270' - 0"
310' - 0"
1 A501
2 A501
312' - 0"
44' - 6" 89' - 6" 15' - 4" 12' - 6"
TYP
10' - 0"
T
Y
P
10' - 0"
272' - 0"
1' - 0"

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:21:02 PM LEVEL 2 - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN A202

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
UP
1 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
K
L
16 17 18 19 20
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
160' - 10 1/2" 61' - 11 1/2" 30' - 4" 58' - 10"
135' - 0" 21' - 5" 52' - 4" 63' - 3"
270' - 0"
310' - 0"
1 A501
2 A501
TYP
10' - 0"
T
Y
P
10' - 0"
312' - 0"
44' - 6" 89' - 6" 15' - 4" 12' - 6"
272' - 0"

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:21:33 PM LEVEL 3 - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN A203

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
UP
1 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
K
L
16 17 18 19 20
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
21 22 23
157' - 0" 65' - 10"
272' - 0"
222' - 10"
208' - 9" 63' - 3"
1 A501
2 A501
TYP
10' - 0"
T
Y
P
10' - 0"
149' - 5"
222' - 10"
272' - 0"

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:22:08 PM LEVEL 4 - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN A204

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
1 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
K
L
16 17 18 19 20
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
272' - 0"
222' - 9"
156' - 0" 35' - 5" 30' - 5"
1 A501
2 A501
208' - 8 1/2" 52' - 3" 11' - 0"
222' - 10"
272' - 0"

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:22:13 PM LEVEL 5 - OVERALL ROOF PLAN A205

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
Level 1
0"
Level 2
37' - 6"
Level 3
48' - 0"
Level 4
58' - 6"
Level 5
69' - 0"
TO Parapet
75' - 0"
32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 F
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" K D K
I J
N
G J
L
M
K
1 A501

PROPOSED SIGNAGE

BY OTHERS

PROPOSED SIGNAGE

BY OTHERS
37' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 6' - 0"
10M 9M 8M 7M 6M 5M 4M 3M 2M 1M
60' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 32' - 0" 32' - 0" 32' - 0" 32' - 0" 32' - 0" 32' - 0" A A I
K G
M

MEZZANINE
18' - 0"
Level 1
0"
Level 2
37' - 6"
Level 3
48' - 0"
Level 4
58' - 6"
Level 5
69' - 0"
TO Parapet
75' - 0"

BB AA Z Y X W V U T S R Q P O N M L K J I H G F E D C B A 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"

J I G C K I K C H
K
K
2 A501

PROPOSED SIGNAGE

BY OTHERS

PROPOSED SIGNAGE

BY OTHERS

PROPOSED SIGNAGE

BY OTHERS
6' - 0" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 37' - 6"
A.1 B.1 C.1 D.1 E.1 F.1
52' - 0" 52' - 0" 52' - 0" 52' - 0" 64' - 0"

D I K D I H K C

MEZZANINE
18' - 0"
J I D
CONCRETE PT-05:

SW7069
"IRON ORE"
CONCRETE PT-03:

SW7058
"MAGNETIC GREY"
CONCRETE PT-04:

SW7067
"CITYSCAPE"
STUCCO PT-01:

SW6523
"DENIM"
CONCRETE PT-02:

SW6238
"ICICLE"
A
G
H
I
J
INSULATED METAL PANEL 1:

KINGSPAN
"WEATHERED ZINC"
VISION GLASS ::

QA 1" INSULATING CLEAR
INSULATED METAL PANEL 2:

KINGSPAN
"SILVERSMITH"
MORIN PULSE 1

REGALE WHITE
K
L
M
N
STUCCO PT-02
SW6238
"ICICLE"
STUCCO PT-03
SW7006
"MAGNETIC GREY"
STUCCO PT-04
SW7006
"CITYSCAPE"
STUCCO PT-5
SW7006
"IRON ORE"
CONCRETE PT-01:

SW6523
"DENIM"
B
C
D
E
F

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:24:17 PM OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A401

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
1 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATION - PROJECT NORTH
3 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATION - PROJECT EAST
Level 1
0"
Level 2
37' - 6"
Level 3
48' - 0"
Level 4
58' - 6"
Level 5
69' - 0"
TO Parapet
75' - 0"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 10' - 0" 10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0" 0' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0" 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"1 - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' G

C J I J I
L I J
G
6' - 0" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 37' - 6"
1M 2M 3M 4M 5M 6M 7M 8M 9M 10M
- 0"32' - 0"32' - 0" 60' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' I J

I K H K D K J D H
K

MEZZANINE
18' - 0"
Level 1
0"
Level 2
37' - 6"
Level 3
48' - 0"
Level 4
58' - 6"
Level 5
69' - 0"
TO Parapet
75' - 0"

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"

N D J C G K J C K K
6' - 0" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 37' - 6"
F.1 E.1 D.1 C.1 B.1 A.1
64' - 0" 52' - 0" 52' - 0" 52' - 0" 52' - 0"

I H I H G I H

MEZZANINE
18' - 0"

PROPOSED SIGNAGE

BY OTHERS
CONCRETE PT-05:

SW7069
"IRON ORE"
CONCRETE PT-03:

SW7058
"MAGNETIC GREY"
CONCRETE PT-04:

SW7067
"CITYSCAPE"
STUCCO PT-01:

SW6523
"DENIM"
CONCRETE PT-02:

SW6238
"ICICLE"
A
G
H
I
J
INSULATED METAL PANEL 1:

KINGSPAN
"WEATHERED ZINC"
VISION GLASS ::

QA 1" INSULATING CLEAR
INSULATED METAL PANEL 2:

KINGSPAN
"SILVERSMITH"
MORIN PULSE 1

REGALE WHITE
K
L
M
N
STUCCO PT-02
SW6238
"ICICLE"
STUCCO PT-03
SW7006
"MAGNETIC GREY"
STUCCO PT-04
SW7006
"CITYSCAPE"
STUCCO PT-5
SW7006
"IRON ORE"
CONCRETE PT-01:

SW6523
"DENIM"
B
C
D
E
F

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:26:39 PM OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A402

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
1 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATION - PROJECT SOUTH
2 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATION - PROJECT WEST
Level 1
0"
Level 2
37' - 6"
Level 3
48' - 0"
Level 4
58' - 6"
Level 5
69' - 0"
TO Parapet
75' - 0"

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB

INDUSTRIAL

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE
F.1 E.1 D.1 C.1 B.1 A.1

MEZZANINE
18' - 0"

MEZZANINE
Level 1
0"
Level 2
37' - 6"
Level 3
48' - 0"
Level 4
58' - 6"
Level 5
69' - 0"
TO Parapet
75' - 0"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE

INDUSTRIAL
1M 2M 3M 4M 5M 6M 7M 8M 9M 10M

MEZZANINE
18' - 0"

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:26:46 PM BUILDING SECTIONS A501

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
1 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

NORTH/SOUTH SECTION
2 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

EAST/WEST SECTION
S-1

STUCCO - FINE SAND FINISH
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW6523
"DENIM"
S-2

STUCCO - FINE SAND FINISH
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW6238
"ICICLE"
S-4

STUCCO - FINE SAND FINISH
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7067
"CITYSCAPE"
S-5

STUCCO - FINE SAND FINISH
SHERWIN WILLIAMS 7069
"IRON ORE"
MP-2

INSULATED METAL PANEL

KINGSPAN
"WEATHERED ZINC"
GL-1

VISION GLASS
OLDCASTLE 1" INSULATING
CLEAR
GL-2

SPANDREL GLASS
VIRACON 1" VE 1-48 INSULATING
V951 "WHITE"
C-2 C-4 S-5 GL-1 S-1 S-4 GL-2 MP-1 MP-3
S-3

STUCCO - FINE SAND FINISH
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7058
"MAGNETIC GREY"
MP-1 MP-3

INSULATED METAL PANEL

KINGSPAN
"SILVERSMITH"

SCREEN METAL PANEL/MORIN
PULSE 1
"REGALE WHITE"
GL-2 S-3 MP-2
C-2
C-5

CONCRETE - PAINT
SHERWIN WILLIAMS 7069
"IRON ORE"
C-4

CONCRETE - PAINT
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7067
"CITYSCAPE"
C-3

CONCRETE - PAINT
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7058
"MAGNETIC GREY"
C-2

CONCRETE - PAINT
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW6238
"ICICLE"
C-1

CONCRETE - PAINT
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW6523
"DENIM"
C-1 C-3 C-5
C-5 S-1
C-4

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:26:46 PM MATERIAL BOARD A901

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/ or building information, and is intended merely to asist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage, materials, and other visualization tools are for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance.

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF ROZEN DESIGN

SOLUTIONS LLC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT. © 2022 ROZEN DESIGN SOLUTIONS 2/15/2024 12:26:50 PM PROJECT RENDERINGS A902

SECURE SPACE SELF STORAGE
1450 W ARTESIA BLVD, GARDENA, CA Schematic Design
PROJECT RENDERING 1 PROJECT RENDERING 2
PROJECT RENDERING 3 PROJECT RENDERING 4

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF GARDENA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR:

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #9-21; SPECIFIC PLAN #1-23; SITE PLAN REVIEW #5-21; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT #1-21
1440, 1450, 1462, and 1472 Artesia Boulevard,
(APNs: 6106-036-010, -012, -034, -035, -036, -037)

GENERAL CONDITIONS
GC 1. The applicant accepts all of the conditions of approval set forth in this document and shall sign the acknowledgment. A copy of the signed document shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any construction permit.

GC 2. Development of this site shall comply with the requirements and regulations of Title 15 (Building and Construction), Title 17 (Subdivisions) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Gardena Municipal Code, except as modified by the Specific Plan.

GC 3. The applicant shall comply with all written policies, resolutions, ordinances, and all applicable laws in effect at time of the effective date of the development agreement. The conditions of approval shall supersede all conflicting notations, specifications, and dimensions which may be shown on the project development plans. The conditions of approval include any requirements set forth in the Development Agreement, regardless of whether they are specifically set forth herein.

GC 4. The site plan layout shall be in accordance with the plans approved by the City Council as may be modified by these conditions of approval. The final completed project shall be in substantial compliance with the plans upon which the City Council based its decision, as modified by such decision.

GC 5. In accordance with GMC Section 8.20.130.A, trash pick-up and other exterior facility cleaning activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. These activities shall be prohibited during peak traffic hours.

GC 6. In accordance with GMC Section 18.42.140, all mechanical equipment, plumbing lines, heating and cooling units and storage tanks and ductwork, roof or ground mounted, shall be incorporated into the building envelope or shall be screened on all sides with solid material so that no part of the equipment is above the enclosure or screening.

GC 7. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, actions or proceedings, damages, costs (including without limitation attorneys’ fees), injuries, or liabilities against the City or its agents, officers, or employees arising out of the City’s approval 1450 Artesia Blvd Specific Plan