LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT:
All future development of within the City of Lawndale General Plan boundaries shall comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants.
When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage.
The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Should any questions arise, you may contact the Land Development Unit at (323) 890-4243.
FORESTRY DIVISION - OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, brush clearance, vegetation management, fuel modification for Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Forestry Division has no further comments regarding this project.
For any questions regarding this response, please contact Forestry Assistant, Matthew Ermine at (818) 890-5719.
HEAL TH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION:
The Health Hazardous Materials Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department has no comments or requirements for the project at this time.
Please contact HHMD Hazardous Materials Specialist Ill, Jennifer Levenson at (323) 890-4114 or [email protected] if you have any questions. ;z:;�
RONALD M. DURBIN, FORESTRY DIVISION
PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU
RMD:pg
E-4
E-5
E-6
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
October 2023 2-19 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses
Response to Comment Letter E
Ronald M. Durbin
County of Los Angeles Fire Department
September 1, 2023
E-1 This introductory paragraph states that the Draft EIR was reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health and Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The comment is introductory in nature and does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.
E-2 This comment states that the Planning Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department does not have any comments on the Project. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.
E-3 These introductory paragraphs state that all future development within the City of Lawndale General Plan boundaries must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants. The introductory paragraphs further state that when involved with subdivision in a City contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. The comment is noted.
Section 5.15, Public Services of the Draft EIR addresses fire protection and emergency services. As stated in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions that require all buildings and facilities in the City to comply with regulatory standards related to fire safety, including the Fire Code. The comment is introductory in nature and does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.
E-4 This comment repeats the introductory paragraphs referenced above, which state that all future development within the City of Lawndale General Plan boundaries must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants. The introductory paragraphs further state that when involved with subdivision in a City contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. The comment is noted. Section 5.15, Public Services of the Draft EIR addresses fire protection and emergency services. As stated in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions that require all buildings and facilities in the City to comply with regulatory standards related to fire safety, including the Fire Code. The comment is introductory in nature and does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.
E-5 This introductory paragraph states that the statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, brush clearance, vegetation management, fuel modification for Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. The comment states that the Forestry Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department does not Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
October 2023 2-20 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses
have any comments on the Project. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. The comment is noted and no further response is warranted.
E-6 This comment states that the Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department does not have any comments on the Project. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.
GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION
Historically known as The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin September 28,2023
Project Name: City of Lawndale General Plan Update
Thank you for your letter dated August 15, 2023. Regarding the project above. This is to concur that we agree with the General Plan Amendment. However, our Tribal government would like to request consultation for all future projects within this location.
Andrew Salas, Chairman
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 [email protected] [email protected] Comment Letter F
F-1
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
October 2023 2-22 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses
Response to Comment Letter F
Andrew Salas
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
September 28, 2023
F-1 The comment indicates that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation does not have any comments on the Project; however, the Tribal government would like to request consultation for all future projects within the Lawndale General Plan Planning Area. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. Section 5.18, Tribal Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR addresses tribal cultural resources. As stated in Section 5.18 of the Draft EIR, the General Plan includes Policy RM-3.5, which requires consultation with Native American tribes that may be impacted by proposed development and land use policy changes, in accordance with State, local, and Tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements. Future projects within the Planning Area would be required to consult with Tribal Organizations, consistent with State law (i.e., AB 52 and SB 18). The comment is noted and no further response is warranted. “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” STATE OF CALIFORNIA-------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 269-1124
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life
September 29, 2023
Jared Chavez
Community Development Manager
City of Lawndale
14717 Burin Avenue
Lawndale, CA 90260
RE: City of Lawndale General Plan Update
SCH # 2022120088
Vic. LA-405, LA-107. Citywide
GTS # LA-2022-04292-DEIR
Dear Jared Chavez:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced environmental document. The City of Lawndale is preparing a comprehensive update to its existing General Plan. The General Plan Update is intended to be an expression of the community’s vision for the City and Planning Area and constitutes the policy and regulatory framework by which future development projects will be reviewed and public improvements will be implemented. The Lawndale General Plan Update includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions (implementation measures), organized into Elements, as well as a revised Land Use Map. The Lawndale General Plan will include all of the Statemandated elements, and will address two optional topics: Economic Development and Community Facilities.
On page 29 of Appendix F Transportation Impact Analysis, it indicates the following:
The OPR recommended thresholds for residential and office land uses as follows:
Residential: A project exceeding a level of 15% below existing VMT per capita for the city or region may indicate a significant transportation impact.
Office: A project exceeding a level of 15% below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact.
Comment Letter G
G-1
G-2
Jared Chavez
September 29, 2023
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” On page 35 of Appendix F Transportation Impact Analysis, it indicates the following:
Project Threshold: a significant impact would occur if the project’s 2045 VMT per capita or VMT per employee exceeds 15 percent below the existing Los Angeles countywide average VM per capita, or VMT per employee, respectively.
OPR Technical Advisory states that “OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold.” A conservative approach to preparing a transportation analysis would result in providing substantial evidence to comply with CEQA. Therefore we recommend the City use lower VMT data, Lawndale 2023 Existing Conditions as a base instead of Los Angeles County 2023 Existing Conditions.
The transportation analysis should use the Lawndale 2023 Existing Conditions VMT Per Capita/VMT Per Employee as a base threshold while the City data is available. Therefore with 15% reduction, the reduced threshold should be 8.39 (9.87X85%) for VMT Per Capita and 13.82 (16.26X85%) for VMT Per Employee.
Based revised threshold, the Lawndale 2045 Project condition 9.19 VMT Per Capita and
14.78 VMT Per Employee exceeds the revised threshold above. Therefore, the transportation impact would be significant and mitigation would be required.
At this time, the project’s impacts related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable because no mitigation is proposed. We would recommend the City to consider the following measures for this General Plan and for all future projects:
1. We encourage the Lead Agency to evaluate the potential of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications in order to better manage the transportation network, as well as transit service and bicycle or pedestrian connectivity improvements. For additional TDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8). This reference is available online at:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf
2. For each new development, a post-development VMT analysis to validate and justify Project VMT and future VMT threshold setting should be prepared.
Additional mitigation measures should be implemented when the postdevelopment VMT analysis discloses any traffic significant impact. This analysis, which may include interviews with and surveys of project occupants, will provide new traffic data to help validate the City’s VMT traffic model results.
G-3
G-2
G-4
G-5
Jared Chavez
September 29, 2023
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” The collected data can include, among other things, where the trips are coming from, when the trips are taking place, what transportation mode is used, and why those transportation modes were selected. This survey data would be useful 1) to validate existing VMT threshold, 2) to assist in setting future VMT threshold, and 3) to identify suitable TDM to apply as minimization or mitigation measures for the future. These measures could be implemented in the event the post-development VMT analysis discloses any significant traffic impacts.
3. Caltrans promotes Smart Growth and recommends the City to balance housing and office developments within the City boundaries. This would be the ultimate approach to reduce VMT.
4. VMT Fee Program for all development within the City boundary in which the program has the potential to address transportation funding challenges, promote sustainability, and offer more flexible and equitable approaches to financing and managing transportation systems. Alternatively, the City may consider a new concept of VMT mitigation banks and exchanges. You may learn this new concept from the following link.
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/research-notes/task3886-rns-5-21- a11y.pdf#:~:text=A%20well%20developed%2C%20carefully%20structured%20V MT%20mitigation%20bank,pay%20for%20VMT%20reductions%20elsewhere%2 0in%20the%20region.
5. As a reminder for each new development Caltrans has published the VMT-focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), dated May 20, 2020 and the Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance, prepared in On December 18, 2020. You can review those document at the following link:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb743/2020-05-20-approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb743/2020-12-22-updated-interim-ldigr-safety-review-guidance-a11y.pdf
6. For future projects any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. Any large-size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods.
G-6
G-5
G-7
G-9
G-8
Jared Chavez
September 29, 2023
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 269-1124 and refer to GTS # LA-2022-04292-DEIR.
Sincerely,
MIYA EDMONSON
LDR/CEQA Branch Chief
email: State Clearinghouse
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
October 2023 2-27 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses
Response to Comment Letter G
Miya Edmonson
State of California Department of Transportation, District 7 September 29, 2023
G-1 This introductory paragraph summaries the proposed Project. The comment is introductory in nature and does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.
G-2 This comment summarizes the substantiation of the thresholds used in Appendix F, Transportation Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR, based on the recommend thresholds in the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory. The comment states that a conservative approach for preparing a transportation analysis would be for the development of a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold using the City, and not the County of Los Angeles as the geographic area to determine baseline conditions. The comment indicates that if the VMT analysis uses the geographic region of the City for Existing Conditions, the reduced threshold should be
8.39 VMT per capita and 13.82 VMT per employee.
The OPR Technical Advisory recommends that a lead agency may consider the average of the City or region as the geographical area to determine a threshold for residential projects. For office projects, OPR recommends the regional average. Per pages 15 and 16 of the OPR Technical Advisory, the thresholds for residential and office projects are:
• Recommended threshold for residential projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact.
Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita. Proposed development referencing a threshold based on city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the number of units specified in the SCS for that city, and should be consistent with the SCS. • Recommended threshold for office projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact.
The use of Los Angeles County as the geographical area to determine the VMT per capita (i.e. regional average) was determined to be appropriate and consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory. The City of Lawndale is part of the larger metropolitan area and the City’s size (1.9 square miles), development composition, and location (contiguous to and surrounded by urbanized cities within the County), result in high integration with surrounding communities and the larger region. A significant amount of people that live in Lawndale work outside the City and vice-versa; therefore, many trips originate or end outside the City. Additionally, the use of Los Angeles County as the geographical area to determine VMT is appropriate, since the Project aligns with regional goals. As shown in Table 5.8-5, Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS in the Draft EIR, the Project is consistent with the regional goals in the Southern California Regional Government (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies(RTP/SCS), Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
October 2023 2-28 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses
since the Project would allow for infill development in locations near existing transit routes, goods and services. The availability of public transportation and the focus on increasing density relative to the existing public transportation system, enables Project implementation to reduce VMT per service population. Therefore, the use of Los Angeles County as the geographical area to determine VMT thresholds is better aligned with regional goals in the SCAG 2020-2024 RTP/SCS to promote reductions in VMT.
The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. The comment is noted and no further response is warranted.
G-3 The comment from Caltrans states that with the recommended revised threshold the Project conditions VMT per capita and per employee would be significant and mitigation would be required. As discussed under Response G-2, the thresholds used in in Appendix F, Transportation Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR are consistent with the recommendations in OPR’s Technical Advisory. Therefore, no revisions to the thresholds would be necessary and no mitigation measures to reduce VMT beyond the reductions identified with the Project are required. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. The comment is noted and no further response is warranted.
G-4 The comment recommends that the Lead Agency evaluate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and Intelligent Transportation System applications in order to better manage the transportation network, as well as transit service, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity improvements. As discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation in the Draft EIR, the Mobility Element developed as part of the General Plan Update includes policies to support the reduction of VMT.
This includes, but is not limited to, Policy M-3.1, which requires the City to apply Complete Streets principles to all transportation improvement projects; Policy M-3.2 which directs the City to link activity centers, public facilities, and schools to transit and active transportation facilities; and Policy M-9.2 which requires TDM strategies as mitigation measures for new projects that exceed the City’s VMT impact thresholds. The Draft EIR concluded that the Project does not exceed the Project VMT threshold and is consistent with the relevant SCAG RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, the Project’s impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures to reduce VMT beyond the reductions identified with the Project are required. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. The comment is noted and no further response is warranted.
G-5 This comment states that the City should require a “post-development” VMT analysis to monitor VMT against thresholds and revisit mitigation measures for each new development, and provide new traffic data. As discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation in the Draft EIR, the Mobility Element developed as part of the General Plan Update includes policies to encourage cooperation with regional agencies, including Policy M-9.3 which encourages regional agencies such as Metro, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments to promote TDM programs that reduce single occupancy vehicle travel. The Draft EIR concluded that the Project does not exceed the Project VMT threshold and is consistent with the relevant SCAG RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, the Project’s impacts related to VMT would be less Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
October 2023 2-29 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses
than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures to reduce VMT beyond the reductions identified with the Project are required. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. The comment is noted and no further response is warranted.
G-6 This comment states that Caltrans promotes Smart Growth and recommends that the City balance housing and office developments. As discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation in the Draft EIR, the Land Use and Mobility elements developed as part of the General Plan Update includes policies to support the reduction of VMT, including increasing the balanced mix of residential and employment opportunities within the City with the proposed land uses. This includes the proposed Land Use Map, as well as Policy LU-1.1 which directs the City to provide a land use plan that promotes efficient development; and Policy LU-1.2 requires the balance of levels of employment and housing within the community. Additionally, the analysis found that implementation of the Project would result in reductions in VMT per capita and VMT per employee compared to 2023 existing conditions. The Draft EIR concluded that the Project does not exceed the Project VMT threshold and is consistent with the relevant SCAG RTP/SCS goals.
Therefore, the Project’s impacts related to VMT would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures to reduce VMT beyond the reductions identified with the Project are required. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. The comment is noted and no further response is warranted.
G-7 This comment recommends the City develop a VMT fee program for all development. The City currently collects development impact fees, including a traffic impact fee to ensure that development pay a fair share of the cost of capital facilities necessary to accommodate such development. As discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation in the Draft EIR, the Mobility Element developed as part of the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to support the reduction of VMT, including Policy M-5.3 which requires new developments to construct, when appropriate, transit facilities; Policy M-6.5 which requires new developments in the City to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities; Action M-6a which directs the City as part of development review, to review any existing gaps in active transportation that inhibit mobility; and Policy M-9.2 which requires TDM strategies as mitigation measures for new projects that exceed the City’s VMT impact thresholds. The Draft EIR concluded that the Project does not exceed the Project VMT threshold and is consistent with the relevant SCAG RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, the Project’s impacts related to VMT would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures to reduce VMT beyond the reductions identified with the Project are required. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. The comment is noted and no further response is warranted.
G-8 This comment notes that Caltrans has published the VMT-focused Transportation Impact Study Guide and the Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Safety Review Practitioners Guidance. The comment is noted and no further response is warranted.
G-9 This comment notes that future projects would be required to comply with Caltrans requirements for the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials. The comment is noted and no further response is warranted.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
October 2023 2-30 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses
This page intentionally left blank.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
LAWNDALE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
(SCH: 2022120088)
AUGUST 2023
Prepared for:
City of Lawndale
Community Development Department
14717 Burin Avenue
Lawndale, CA 90260
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
180 East Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
LAWNDALE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
(SCH: 2022120088)
AUGUST 2023
Prepared for:
City of Lawndale
Community Development Department
14717 Burin Avenue
Lawndale, CA 90260
[email protected]
310-973-3206
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
180 East Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-1 Table of Contents Chapter Page Number
1.0 Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Background.................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Project Characteristics............................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................. 1-3
1.6 Summary of Project Alternatives ............................................................................... 1-5
1.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................ 1-6
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Purpose & Type of EIR................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Lawndale General Plan Update.................................................................................. 2-3
2.3 Intended Uses of the Program EIR............................................................................. 2-4
2.4 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies ................................................................ 2-4
2.5 Organization and Scope ............................................................................................. 2-5
2.6 Environmental Review Process.................................................................................. 2-7
2.7 Incorporated by Reference ........................................................................................ 2-8
2.8 Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation ................................................... 2-9
3.0 Project Description.................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Project Background.................................................................................................... 3-5
3.4 Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................ 3-5
3.5 Project Characteristics............................................................................................... 3-6
3.6 Use of the EIR and Required Agency Approvals ...................................................... 3-15
4.0 Basis of Cumulative Analysis................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Cumulative Analysis in this EIR .................................................................................. 4-2
5.1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................. 5.1-1
5.1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................5.1-1 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-2 Table of Contents
5.1.2 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................5.1-2
5.1.3 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................5.1-4
5.1.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds....................................................................5.1-6
5.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................................5.1-7
5.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................5.1-14
5.1.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................5.1-16
5.1.8 References .........................................................................................................5.1-17
5.2 Agriculture Resources..........................................................................................................5.2-1
5.2.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................5.2-1
5.2.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................5.2-3
5.2.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds....................................................................5.2-5
5.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................................5.2-6
5.2.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................5.2-7
5.2.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts..........................................................................5.2-9
5.2.7 References ...........................................................................................................5.2-9
5.3 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................5.3-1
5.3.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................5.3-1
5.3.2 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................5.3-1
5.3.3 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................5.3-15
5.3.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..................................................................5.3-23
5.3.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................5.3-26
5.3.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................5.3-43
5.3.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................5.3-45
5.3.8 References .........................................................................................................5.3-46
5.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................................................5.4-1
5.4.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................5.4-1
5.4.2 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................5.4-2
5.4.3 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................5.4-6
5.4.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..................................................................5.4-11
5.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................5.4-12
5.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................5.4-19 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-3 Table of Contents
5.4.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................5.4-22
5.4.8 References .........................................................................................................5.4-22
5.5 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................................5.5-1
5.5.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................5.5-1
5.5.2 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................5.5-1
5.5.3 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................5.5-6
5.5.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..................................................................5.5-11
5.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................5.5-11
5.5.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................5.5-17
5.5.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................5.5-19
5.5.8 References .........................................................................................................5.5-19
5.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................ 5.6-1
5.6.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................5.6-1
5.6.2 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................5.6-1
5.6.3 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................5.6-2
5.6.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds....................................................................5.6-8
5.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................5.6-9
5.6.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................5.6-18
5.6.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................5.6-18
5.6.8 References .........................................................................................................5.6-19
5.7 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................5.7-1
5.7.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................5.7-1
5.7.2 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................5.7-1
5.7.3 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................5.7-11
5.7.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..................................................................5.7-13
5.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................5.7-14
5.7.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................5.7-25
5.7.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................5.7-30
5.7.8 References .........................................................................................................5.7-30 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-4 Table of Contents
5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................................5.8-1
5.8.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................5.8-1
5.8.2 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................5.8-1
5.8.3 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................5.8-5
5.8.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..................................................................5.8-19
5.8.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................5.8-20
5.8.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................5.8-37
5.8.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................5.8-38
5.8.8 References .........................................................................................................5.8-38
5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................5.9-1
5.9.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................5.9-1
5.9.2 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................5.9-1
5.9.3 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................5.9-6
5.9.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..................................................................5.9-13
5.9.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................5.9-14
5.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................5.9-33
5.9.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................5.9-37
5.9.8 References .........................................................................................................5.9-37
5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..........................................................................................5.10-1
5.10.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................5.10-1
5.10.2 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.10-1
5.10.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................5.10-6
5.10.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..............................................................5.10-16
5.10.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 5.10-17
5.10.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.10-35
5.10.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.10-41
5.10.8 References .....................................................................................................5.10-41
5.11 Land Use and Planning.....................................................................................................5.11-1
5.11.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.11-1
5.11.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................5.11-5
5.11.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..............................................................5.11-11 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-5 Table of Contents
5.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 5.11-11
5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.11-24
5.11.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.11-26
5.11.7 References .....................................................................................................5.11-26
5.12 Mineral Resources ...........................................................................................................5.12-1
5.12.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.12-1
5.12.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................5.12-2
5.12.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds................................................................5.12-2
5.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................5.12-3
5.12.5 Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................................5.12-3
5.12.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts......................................................................5.12-4
5.12.7 References .......................................................................................................5.12-5
5.13 Noise ..............................................................................................................................5.13-1
5.13.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................5.13-1
5.13.2 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.13-1
5.13.3 Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................5.13-14
5.13.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..............................................................5.13-19
5.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 5.13-19
5.13.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.13-32
5.13.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.13-35
5.13.8 References .....................................................................................................5.13-35
5.14 Population and Housing...................................................................................................5.14-1
5.14.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................5.14-1
5.14.2 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.14-1
5.14.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................5.14-4
5.14.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds................................................................5.14-8
5.14.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................5.14-8
5.14.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.14-13
5.14.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.14-14
5.14.8 References .....................................................................................................5.14-14 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-6 Table of Contents
5.15 Public Services..................................................................................................................5.15-1
5.15.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.15-1
5.15.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................5.15-4
5.15.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds................................................................5.15-9
5.15.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................5.15-9
5.15.5 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.15-23
5.15.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.15-27
5.15.7 References .....................................................................................................5.15-27
5.16 Parks and Recreation .......................................................................................................5.16-1
5.16.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.16-1
5.16.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................5.16-3
5.16.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds................................................................5.16-4
5.16.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................5.16-4
5.16.5 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.16-11
5.16.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.16-12
5.16.7 References .....................................................................................................5.16-13
5.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................5.17-1
5.17.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................5.17-1
5.17.2 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.17-1
5.17.3 Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................5.17-10
5.17.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..............................................................5.17-16
5.17.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 5.17-19
5.17.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.17-33
5.17.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.17-35
5.17.8 References .....................................................................................................5.17-35
5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................. 5.18-1
5.18.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................5.18-1
5.18.2 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.18-1
5.18.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................5.18-2
5.18.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds................................................................5.18-7
5.18.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................5.18-8 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-7 Table of Contents
5.18.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.18-10
5.18.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.18-11
5.18.8 References .....................................................................................................5.18-11
5.19 Utilities and Services Systems..........................................................................................5.19-1
5.19.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................5.19-1
5.19.2 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.19-1
5.19.3 Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................5.19-13
5.19.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds..............................................................5.19-25
5.19.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 5.19-26
5.19.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.19-46
5.19.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.19-50
5.19.8 References .....................................................................................................5.19-50
5.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................5.20-1
5.20.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.20-1
5.20.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................5.20-4
5.20.3 Significance Criteria and Thresholds................................................................5.20-9
5.20.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 5.20-10
5.20.5 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................5.20-17
5.20.6 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................5.20-20
5.20.7 References .....................................................................................................5.20-20
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations................................................................................................. 6.0-1
6.1 Long-Term Implications of the Proposed Project...................................................6.0-1
6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.....................................................6.0-1
6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts .......................................................................................6.0-3
6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts......................................................................6.0-6
7.0 Alternatives............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Alternatives Considered in this EIR............................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Environmental Analysis.............................................................................................. 7-4 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-8 Table of Contents
8.0 Report Preparers..................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Lead Agency ............................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Preparers of the Environmental Impact Report ........................................................ 8-1
Table Page Number
Table 1-1: General Plan Update Growth Assumptions........................................................ 1-3 Table 1-2: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................... 1-7 Table 3-1: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations..................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations.................................................. 3-9 Table 3-3: General Plan 2045 Buildout by Land Use Designation ..................................... 3-13 Table 3-4: General Plan Update Growth Assumptions...................................................... 3-15 Table 4-1: Los Angeles County Growth Projections............................................................. 4-4 Table 5.2-1: Acres of FMMP Farmland within Study Area...................................................5.2-2 Table 5.3-1: Meteorological Summary ................................................................................5.3-3 Table 5.3-2: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards...........................................5.3-9 Table 5.3-3: State and National Attainment Status in Los Angeles County.......................5.3-10 Table 5.3-4: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status.......................................................5.3-11 Table 5.3-5: Local Area Air Quality Levels..........................................................................5.3-13 Table 5.3-6: Maximum Regional Construction Emissions..................................................5.3-37 Table 5.3-7: Maximum Regional Operational Emissions (pounds/day) ............................5.3-38 Table 5.4-1: Special-Status Plants Present or Potentially Present.......................................5.4-4 Table 5.4-2: Special-Status Animals Present or Potentially Present....................................5.4-5 Table 5.5-1: Cultural Resources Recorded within the Planning Area ..................................5.5-4 Table 5.5-2: Potential Built Environment Resources Locations Visited during Reconnaissance Survey....................................................................................5.5-6 Table 5.6-1: Maximum Regional Construction Emissions (pounds/day)...........................5.6-10 Table 5.6-2: On-Road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Construction Activities – By Phase ......................................................................................5.6-11 Table 5.7-1: Richter Magnitudes and Effects ......................................................................5.7-5 Table 5.7-2: Likelihood of Having One or More Earthquakes by Size in the Next 30 Years (Starting from 2014) ........................................................................................5.7-6 Table 5.7-3: Historically Active and Active Fault Zones in the Region................................. 5.7-7 Table 5.7-4: Planning Area Soils...........................................................................................5.7-8 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-9 Table of Contents Table 5.7-5: Geologic Units and Their Paleontological Potential ......................................5.7-10 Table 5.8-1: Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)..........................................5.8-20 Table 5.8-2: Operational GHG Emissions 2045 (Metric Tons/Year)...................................5.8-21 Table 5.8-3: City of Lawndale Community-wide GHG Emissions by Sector from 2005 to 2012 ...............................................................................................................5.8-22 Table 5.8-4: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan...........................................5.8-25 Table 5.8-5: Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.........................................5.8-29 Table 5.9-1: GeoTracker Database Sites..............................................................................5.9-3 Table 5.11-1: Existing Land Use Summary ...........................................................................5.11-2 Table 5.11-2: City of Lawndale Projects Under Review.......................................................5.11-3 Table 5.12-1: Mineral Resources Classification System.......................................................5.12-1 Table 5.13-1: Decibel Addition.............................................................................................5.13-2 Table 5.13-2: Typical Noise Levels.......................................................................................5.13-3 Table 5.13-3: Perceived Changes in Noise Levels................................................................5.13-3 Table 5.13-4: Noise Reduction Afforded by Common Building Construction .....................5.13-7 Table 5.13-5: Typical Human Reaction and Effect on Buildings Due to Ground-Borne Vibration ....................................................................5.13-8 Table 5.13-6: Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary.................................................5.13-11 Table 5.13-7: Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary..................................................5.13-12 Table 5.13-8: Existing Exterior Noise Levels Along Roadways...........................................5.13-13 Table 5.13-9: FHWA Design Noise Levels...........................................................................5.13-15 Table 5.13-10: 2045 No Project Traffic Noise Levels (dBA, CNEL) .......................................5.13-21 Table 5.13-11: 2045 Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels (dBA, CNEL) .....................................5.13-22 Table 5.13-12: Change in Noise Along Roadways (dBA, CNEL @ 50’) ................................. 5.13-23 Table 5.13-13: Typical Construction Noise Levels ...............................................................5.13-26 Table 5.13-14: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment..................................5.13-30 Table 5.13-15: Guidelines Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria.........................5.13-31 Table 5.14-1: Population Projections (2022-2045)..............................................................5.14-1 Table 5.14-2: Existing Housing Supply Mix ..........................................................................5.14-2 Table 5.14-3: Labor Force Participation and Unemployment .............................................5.14-3 Table 5.14-4: Jobs to Housing Ratio.....................................................................................5.14-4 Table 5.14-5: Lawndale 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation...............................5.14-5 Table 5.14-6: General Plan Update Compared to SCAG......................................................5.14-9 Table 5.15-1: Lawndale Schools...........................................................................................5.15-3 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-10 Table of Contents Table 5.15-2: LESD/CVUHSD School Districts Student Generation Rates..........................5.15-16 Table 5.16-1: Existing Parkland and Recreational Uses in the Planning Area .....................5.16-2 Table 5.17-1: Pedestrian Facility Conditions in Lawndale ...................................................5.17-6 Table 5.17-2: LA Metro Bus Service in Lawndale................................................................. 5.17-7 Table 5.17-3: Existing Truck Routes.....................................................................................5.17-9 Table 5.17-4: Existing Conditions (2023) VMT...................................................................5.17-10 Table 5.17-5: VMT Generated by Land Uses......................................................................5.17-24 Table 5.19-1: 2020 Annual Potable Water Supplies for the GSWC Southwest Service Area by Source .......................................................................................................5.19-3 Table 5.19-2: Projected Water Supplies for the GSWC Southwest Service Area (AFY).......5.19-4 Table 5.19-3: Projected Demands for Potable Water – GSWC Southwest..........................5.19-5 Table 5.19-4: GSWC Southwest Service Reliability Assessment for Normal-, Single Dry-, and Multiple Dry-Years.........................................................................................5.19-6 Table 5.19-5: Annual Projected Buildout Flow vs. Current Treatment Capacity (MGD)1 ...5.19-8 Table 5.19-6: Solid Waste Generation Rates in City of Lawndale......................................5.19-12 Table 5.20-1: History of Fire in Lawndale and Surrounding Area........................................5.20-2 Table 7-1: Growth Projections by Alternative ..................................................................... 7-4 Table 7-2: Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Compared to the Proposed Project ................................................................................................ 7-5 Table 7-3: Alternative 2: Reduced Growth Alternative Compared to the Proposed Project............................................................................................................... 7-16 Table 7-4: Comparison of Alternatives.............................................................................. 7-26 Figure Page Number
Note: Figures are located at the end of the chapters.
Figure 3-1: Regional Location Map ..................................................................................... 3-19 Figure 3-2: General Plan Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-21 Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Map ................................................................ 3-23 Figure 3-4: Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan Map ......................................................... 3-25 Figure 3-5: General Plan Update Land Use Map................................................................. 3-27 Figure 5.4-1: Land Cover Types...........................................................................................5.4-25 Figure 5.4-2: California Natural Diversity Database: One-Mile Search...............................5.4-27 Figure 5.7-1: Regional Fault Zones......................................................................................5.7-33 Figure 5.7-2: Potential Liquefaction Susceptibility .............................................................5.7-35 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-11 Table of Contents Figure 5.7-3: Soil Survey ......................................................................................................5.7-37 Figure 5.7-4: Shrink-Swell Potential of Soils........................................................................5.7-39 Figure 5.7-5: Landslide Susceptibility..................................................................................5.7-41 Figure 5.10-1: Hydrologic Units: Subbasin ..........................................................................5.10-43 Figure 5.10-2: Hydrologic Units: Watershed.......................................................................5.10-45 Figure 5.10-3: FEMA Flood Map..........................................................................................5.10-47 Figure 5.11-1: Existing Land Use Map.................................................................................5.11-27 Figure 5.12-1: Mineral Resource Zones ................................................................................5.12-7 Figure 5.13-1: Noise Measurement Locations....................................................................5.13-37 Figure 5.13-2: Existing Roadway Noise Level Contours......................................................5.13-39 Figure 5.13-3: 2045 No Project Noise Level Contours ........................................................5.13-41 Figure 5.13-4: 2045 With Project Noise Level Contours.....................................................5.13-43 Figure 5.15-1: Public Safety Facilities..................................................................................5.16-29 Figure 5.16-1: Parks and Recreation Facilities ....................................................................5.16-15 Figure 5.17-1: Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities.........................................................5.17-37 Figure 5.17-2: Existing and Planned Transit Routes............................................................5.17-39 Figure 5.17-3: Existing Truck Routes...................................................................................5.17-41 Figure 5.19-1: Existing Water Infrastructure.......................................................................5.19-53 Figure 5.19-2: Existing Sewer Infrastructure.......................................................................5.19-55 Figure 5.19-3: Existing Stormwater and Flood Control Facilities........................................5.19-57 Appendices
Appendix A – NOP and NOP Comments
Appendix B – Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data Appendix C – Biological Resources
Appendix D – Cultural and Paleontological Resources Study Appendix E – Noise Impact Study
Appendix F – Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix G – Tribal Consultation Communications
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 TOC-12 Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-1 Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Lawndale is located in the South Bay area of Los Angeles County, approximately 10 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles, refer to Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map in Section 3.0, Project Description. The City is approximately 1.9 square miles (1,241 acres) and is bounded by the City of Hawthorne to the north and west, by unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and the City of Gardena to the east, by the City of Torrance to the south, and by the City of Redondo Beach to the south and west.
Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 405, a major north-south highway which provides access to Lawndale and the greater Los Angeles region.
The Planning Area is the geographic area for which the General Plan Update provides a framework for long-term growth and resource conservation. State law requires the Planning Area for the General Plan Update to include all territory within Lawndale’s incorporated area as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning" (California Government Code Section 65300). The General Plan Update Planning Area, as shown in Figure 3-2, General Plan Planning Area of Section 3.0, includes the entire City limits (approximately 1,241 acres) as well as the City of Lawndale’s Sphere of Influence (approximately 314 acres); the entire Planning Area is approximately 1,555 acres.
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires all counties and cities to prepare and maintain a General Plan for the long-term growth, development, and management of the land within the jurisdiction’s planning boundaries. The General Plan acts as a “constitution” for development, and is the jurisdiction’s lead legal document in relation to growth, development, and resource management issues.
Development regulations (e.g., zoning and subdivision standards) are required by law to be consistent with the General Plan.
The General Plan includes the eight elements mandated by State law, including: Circulation, Conservation, Housing, Land Use, Noise, Open Space, Environmental Justice and Safety. General Plans must also address the topics of climate change and resiliency planning, either as separate elements or as part of other required elements. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted on February 7, 2022 and is not part of this update. The City may also address other topics of interest; this General Plan includes an element related to Economic Development and Community Facilities.
The California Government Code also requires that a General Plan be comprehensive, internally consistent, and plan for the long term. This General Plan Update plans out to the year 2045.
The City of Lawndale circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project on December 6, 2022 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A scoping meeting was held on December 15, 2022 at the Harold E. Hofmann Community Center in Lawndale. The NOP public review period began on Tuesday, December 6, 2022 and ended on Thursday, January 5, 2023.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-2 Executive Summary
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives were identified for the proposed update to the General Plan:
1. Reflect the current goals and vision expressed by City residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders;
2. Address issues and concerns identified by city residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders;
3. Protect Lawndale’s existing residences, character, and sense of community;
4. Proactively plan for and accommodate local and regional growth in a responsible manner;
5. Encourage mixed-use development patterns that promote vibrant commercial and residential areas;
6. Allow for a range of high-quality housing options;
7. Attract and retain businesses and industries that provide jobs for local residents;
8. Continue to maintain and improve multimodal transportation opportunities;
9. Maintain strong fiscal sustainability and continue to provide efficient and adequate public services;
10. Address new requirements of State law; and
11. Address emerging transportation, housing, and employment trends.
1.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The City Lawndale is preparing a comprehensive update to its existing General Plan. The updated Lawndale General Plan is expected to be adopted in 2023 and will guide the City’s development, growth, and conservation through land use objectives and policy guidance. The General Plan Update is intended to be an expression of the community’s vision for the City and Planning Area, and constitutes the policy and regulatory framework by which future development projects will be reviewed and public improvements will be implemented. The City will implement the General Plan Update by requiring development, infrastructure improvements, and other projects to be consistent with its policies, and by implementing the actions included in the General Plan Update.
The Lawndale General Plan Update includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions (implementation measures), organized into Elements, as well as a revised Land Use Map (refer to Figure 3-5, General Plan Update Land Use Map in Section 3.0). The goals and policies provide guidance to the City on how to direct change, manage growth, and manage resources over the 20-year life of the General Plan. In order to ensure that the goals and policies in the General Plan are effectively implemented, a series of actions, or implementation measures have been developed, and are presented in each Element alongside the goals and policies they implement.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-3 Executive Summary The General Plan Update includes the following Elements: Land Use Element; Mobility Element (Circulation); Resource Management Element (Conservation, Open Space and Air Quality); Public Safety Element (Safety and Noise); Environmental Justice Element; Economic Development Element; and Community Facilities Element. Together, they present a consistent policy platform, as required by law.
1.4.1 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ANALYSIS
The maximum density or intensity permitted for an individual parcel is controlled by the land use designation, unless a density bonus pursuant to Lawndale Municipal Code Chapter 17.50, Density Bonus Provisions for Residential Units applies. In addition to the land use designation, development of a parcel is influenced by a variety of factors including the physical characteristics of a parcel, compatibility with nearby uses, access and infrastructure limitations, market factors, and previous developments trends.
While no specific development projects are proposed as part of the Lawndale General Plan Update, the General Plan Update will accommodate future growth in Lawndale, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses. New growth is anticipated to occur primarily within the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan area. The buildout analysis assumes a 20-year planning horizon, and 2045 is to be the full buildout year of the General Plan (the point at which all parcels in the City are developed according to their General Plan land use designation).
Table 1-1, General Plan Update Growth Assumptions, summarizes the growth anticipated by the General Plan Update based upon the buildout potential associated with the General Plan Update Land Use Map in 2045 compared to existing on-the-ground conditions by General Plan Update Land Use Designation (refer to Table 3-3, General Plan 2045 Buildout by Land Use Designation, of Section 3.0).
Table 1-1
General Plan Update Growth Assumptions
Description Housing Units Population
Non-Residential
Development
(Square Feet)
Jobs
Existing Conditions (2022) 11,463 37,948 4,542,162 6,470 2045 General Plan 15,405 47,430 5,351,026 9,208
Net Change +3,942 +9,482 +808,864 +2,738
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The City determined that a Program EIR should be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). The environmental issues identified by the City for assessment in the Program EIR are:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-4 Executive Summary • Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR provides a description of potential environmental impacts of the General Plan Update. After implementation of the General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions, most of the potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Update would be reduced to a less than significant level. However, the impacts listed below could not be feasibly mitigated and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with implementation of the General Plan Update.
Air Quality
• General Plan implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard during construction and operational activities. • General Plan implementation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and operational activities. • General Plan implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts with the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Project implementation would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would not satisfy the Greenhouse Gas reduction targets established by Federal and State law and may have a significant effect on the environment.
• Project implementation would contribute to global climate change through a cumulatively considerable contribution of greenhouse gases. The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable and significant adverse GHG emissions impact.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-5 Executive Summary
1.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, “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 selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives.” This EIR includes two alternatives as discussed below.
• Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
• Alternative 2 – Reduced Growth Alternative
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), under Alternative 1, the City would not adopt the General Plan Update. The existing Lawndale General Plan would continue to be implemented and no changes to the General Plan, including the Land Use Map, goals, policies, or actions would occur. This Alternative assumes that ultimate development of the 1992 General Plan would occur and the 1992 General Plan would continue to provide outdated information regarding several issues, including projections and policy direction that were identified in the 1990s that are not reflective of the existing socioeconomic data and anticipated development patterns. This Alternative assumes increased residential development opportunities in the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan area and Housing Opportunity Overlay land use designation areas in order to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element, would not occur. Subsequent projects, such as updating the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan and amending the Municipal Code (including the zoning map), would not occur. The existing General Plan Land Use Map is shown on Figure
3.3 in Section 3.0.
The development anticipated by the No Project Alternative would result in the following when compared to the General Plan Update:
• 2,019 fewer housing units;
• 8,778 fewer residents;
• 280,047 fewer nonresidential square feet of development; and • 491 fewer jobs.
Alternative 2: Reduced Growth Alternative
Under Alternative 2, the City would adopt the updated General Plan policy document, but at residential densities lower than those reflected in the proposed General Plan Update. This Alternative is defined by two major changes from the proposed General Plan Update:
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-6 Executive Summary
1. Reduction in the maximum density associated with the Housing Opportunity Overlay (HOO) land use designation; in Alternative 2, the maximum density for residential development in areas designated with the HOO is reduced from 100 du/ac to 33 du/ac (consistent with the maximum density proposed for the High Density Residential land use designation).
2. Reduction in the maximum density associated with residential development within the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan (HBSP) land use designation; in Alternative 2, the maximum density for residential development in the HBSP is reduced from 150 du/ac to 33 du/ac (consistent with the maximum density proposed for the High Density Residential land use designation).
Under Alternative 2, non-residential development potential and anticipated job growth would remain unchanged from the proposed General Plan Update. This alternative continues to allow for mixed-use opportunities with less residential development potential than allowed under the General Plan Update. It also reflects a maximum residential density of 33 du/ac, consistent with the maximum residential density allowed under the current General Plan. This alternative was developed to potentially reduce the severity of potential impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, as overall development of residential uses would be less than what could develop under the proposed Project.
The development anticipated by the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in the following when compared to the General Plan Update:
• 1,603 fewer housing units;
• 3,639 fewer residents;
• Nonresidential development would remain the same; and • Employment opportunities would remain the same.
1.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR focuses on the Project’s significant effects on the environment. The CEQA Guidelines defines a significant effect as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions, which exist in the area affected by the proposed project. A less than significant effect is one in which there is no long or short-term significant adverse change in environmental conditions.
Some impacts are reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of General Plan Update policies and actions, mitigation measures, and/or compliance with regulations.
The environmental impacts of the proposed Project, the impact level of significance prior to mitigation, the proposed mitigation measures to mitigate an impact, and the impact level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-7 Executive Summary Table 1-2
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.1 Aesthetics
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Land Use Policies 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 4.2,
4.3. Land Use Actions 3a, 3b, 4e. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No relevant proposed General
Plan Update goals, policies, and
actions.
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Land Use Policies 1.1, 3.3, 3.9, 4.2,
4.3. Land Use Actions 1a, 1b, 1c,
1d, 4e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Land Use Policy 3.7. Land Use
Actions 3c, 3d, 3e. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No relevant proposed General
Plan Update goals, policies, and
actions. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-8 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
5.2 Agricultural Resources
Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No relevant proposed General
Plan Update goals, policies, and
actions. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No relevant proposed General
Plan Update goals, policies, and
actions.
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No relevant proposed General
Plan Update goals, policies, and
actions. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have no impact on forest land, timber, or timber production.
No relevant proposed General
Plan Update goals, policies, and
actions.
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No relevant proposed General
Plan Update goals, policies, and
actions. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-9 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No relevant proposed General
Plan Update goals, policies, and
actions.
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No relevant proposed General
Plan Update goals, policies, and
actions. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
5.3 Air Quality
Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Land Use Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6.
Land Use Action 3b.
Mobility Policies 3.1, 3.2, 5.3, 6.1,
6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 9.2. Mobility
Actions 3a, 5a, 6a, 6b, 6c, 9b.
Resource Management Goals 4, 5.
Resource Management Policies
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8,
4.9, 4.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6,
5.7, 5.8, 5.9. Resource
Management Actions 4a, 4b, 4c,
4d, 4e, 4f, 4g, 4h, 4j, 4k, 4l, 5a, 5b,
5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5g, 5h.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
There is no feasible mitigation
available for this impact.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-10 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
There is no feasible mitigation
available for this impact.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No proposed General Plan Update
goals, policies, or actions specific
to odors. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-11 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.4 Biological Resources
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Resource Management Goal 1.
Resource Management Policies
1.1, 1.3, 1.7. 1.8, 6.3. Resource
Management Actions 1b, 1c, 1g,
1h, 6a.
Public Safety Policy 7.3.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Resource Management Policy 6.3.
Resource Management Action 6a.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Resource Management Policy 6.3.
Resource Management Action 6a.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Resource Management Goal 1.
Resource Management Policies
1.1, 1.3, 1.7. 1.8, 6.3. Resource
Management Actions 1b, 1c, 1g,
1h, 6a.
Public Safety Policy 7.3.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Resource Management Element
Policy 1.7. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-12 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no General Plan Update
goals, policies, or actions specific
to habitat conservation plans. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, a have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-13 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
5.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Resource Management Policies
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7. Resource
Management Actions 3a, 3b, 3c,
3d, 3e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Resource Management Policies
3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.7. Resource
Management Actions 3a, 3e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Resource Management Policies
3.1, 3.5. Resource Management
Action 3g.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-14 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
5.6 Energy
Would the project result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
Resource Management Goals 4, 5.
Resource Management Policies
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8,
4.9, 4.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6,
5.7, 5.8, 5.9. Resource
Management Action 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d,
4e, 4f, 4g, 4h, 4i, 4j, 4k, 4l, 5a, 5b,
5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5g, 5h.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
5.7 Geology & Soils
Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides?
Public Safety Goal 2. Public Safety
Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4. Public
Safety Actions 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil? Resource Management Policy 6.2.
Resource Management Action 6a.
Public Safety Policies 5.4, 5.6.
Public Safety Action 2d.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-15 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Public Safety Goal 2. Public Safety
Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4. Public
Safety Actions 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Tables 18-1-D of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Public Safety Goal 2. Public Safety
Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. Public Safety
Actions 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? There are no General Plan Update
goals, policies, or actions specific
to septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems.
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Resource Management Policy 3.1.
Resource Management Actions 3a,
3f.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-16 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse or be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
There are no General Plan Update
goals, policies, or actions specific
to septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems.
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Refer to the General Plan Update
goals, policies and actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-17 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Land Use policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.4.
Mobility Policies 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.2,
5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 9.2,
9.3, 9.4.
Mobility Actions 5a, 6a, 6b, 6c, 9a,
9b.
Resource Management Goals 4, 5.
Resource Management Policies
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8,
4.9, 4.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6,
5.7, 5.8, 5.9.
Resource Management Actions 4a,
4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g, 4h, 4i, 4j, 4k,
4l, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5g, 5h.
There is no feasible mitigation
available for this impact.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
There is no feasible mitigation
available for this impact.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Would the Project, combined with other related cumulative projects, generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. There is no feasible mitigation
available for this impact.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-18 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Mobility Policy 7.1.
Mobility Action 7a.
Resource Management Policy 2.3.
Public Safety Goals 1, 3.
Public Safety Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3,
3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9.
Public Safety Actions 1a, 1b, 1c,
1d, 1e, 1f, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Mobility Policy 7.1.
Mobility Action 7a.
Resource Management Policy 2.3.
Public Safety Goal 3.
Public Safety Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3,
3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9. Public
Safety Actions 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Mobility Policy 7.1. Mobility Action
7a.
Resource Management Policy 2.3.
Public Safety Goal 3. Public Safety
Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6,
3.7, 3.8, 3.9. Public Safety Actions
3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-19 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Public Safety Goal 3. Public Safety
Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.
Public Safety Actions 3a, 3b, 3c. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
There are no General Plan Update
goals, policies, or actions specific
to airports. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Public Safety Goal 1. Public Safety
Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6,
1.7, 1.8. Public Safety Actions 1a,
1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Public Safety Goal 4. Public Safety
Policies 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5.
Public Safety Actions 4a, 4b.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-20 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, combined with other related cumulative projects, result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to wildfire?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-21 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.10 Hydrology
Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Resource Management Policies
6.2, 6.4. Resource Management
Action 6a.
Community Facilities Policies 4.1,
4.2, 4.3, 4.4. Community Facilities
Actions 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Resource Management Policies
6.1, 6.2. Resource Management
Actions 6b, 6c.
Community Facilities Policies 2.1,
2.2, 2.3. Community Facilities
Actions 2a, 2c.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
• result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; • substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
• create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
• impede or redirect flood flows?
Resource Management Policies
6.2, 6.4. Resource Management
Action 6a.
Public Safety Policies 5.1, 5.3, 5.4,
5.5, 5.6. Public Safety Actions 5a,
5b, 5c.
Community Facilities Policies 4.1,
4.2, 4.3, 4.4. Community Facilities
Actions 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-22 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Resource Management Policies
6.2, 6.4. Resource Management
Action 6a.
Public Safety Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3,
5.4, 5.5, 5.6. Public Safety Actions
5a, 5b, 5c.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Resource Management Policies
6.1, 6.2, 6.4. Resource
Management Action 6a, 6b, 6c.
Community Facilities Policies 2.1,
2.2, 2.3, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4. Community
Facilities Actions 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-23 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
• result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; • substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
• create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
• impede or redirect flood flows?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
5.11 Land Use and Population
Would the project physically divide an established community? Land Use Policies 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.3.
Land Use Actions 3b, 3c, 4e. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-24 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Land Use Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 2.2,
3.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7. Land Use Actions
1e, 3b, 3c, 4e, 4f.
Mobility Policies 1.7, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1,
3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5,
5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 7.1, 7.2,
9.2, 9.3, 9.4. Mobility Actions1e,
2a, 3a, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 9a,
9b.
Resource Management Policies
1.9, 1.10, 2.4, 2.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4,
4.5, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3,
5.4, 5.5. Resource Management
Actions 1g, 1h, 2a, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d,
4e, 4f, 4g, 4h, 4i, 4j, 4k, 4l, 5a, 5b,
5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5g, 5h.
Public Safety Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3,
7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10,
7.11, 7.12, 7.13. Public Safety
Actions 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, physically divide an established community?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-25 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
There are no relevant General Plan
Update goals, policies, and
actions.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
There are no relevant General Plan
Update goals, policies, and
actions.
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
Would the project, combined with other relative cumulative projects, result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
There are no relevant General Plan
Update goals, policies, and
actions. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other relative cumulative projects, result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
There are no relevant General Plan
Update goals, policies, and
actions. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
5.13 Noise
Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Public Safety Policies 6.1, 6.2, 6.3,
6.4, 6.8, 6.9. Public Safety Actions
6c, 6d, 6e, 6f. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Public Safety Policy 6.14. Public
Safety Actions 6c, 6k. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-26 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise?
There are no relevant General Plan
Update goals, policies, and
actions. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise?
There are no relevant General Plan
Update goals, policies, and
actions. No mitigation measures are required No Impact
5.14 Population and Housing
Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure?
Land Use Goal 2. Land Use Policies
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 3.1. Land Use Actions
1e, 3c. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Land Use Goal 2. Land Use Policies
1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4. Land Use
Actions 2e, 3c, 3e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-27 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes, and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
5.15 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection and emergency services?
Land Use Policies 1.5, 2.6. Land
Use Action 1e.
Public Safety Policies 1.5, 4.1, 4.2,
4.4. Public Safety Actions 1e, 4a.
Community Facilities Goal 1.
Community Facilities Policy 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10,
1.11. Community Facilities Actions
1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: police protection? Land Use Policies 1.5, 2.6. Land
Use Action 1e.
Public Safety Policy 1.5. Public
Safety Action 1e.
Community Facilities Goal 1.
Community Facilities Policy 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10,
1.11. Community Facilities Actions
1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-28 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: schools?
Land Use Policies 1.5, 2.6. Land
Use Action 1e.
Community Facilities Goal 1.
Community Facilities Policy 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10,
1.11, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3. Community
Facilities Actions 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e,
6a.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: library facilities? Land Use Policies 1.5, 2.6. Land
Use Action 1e.
Community Facilities Goal 1.
Community Facilities Policy 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10,
1.11, 6.6. Community Facilities
Actions 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 6b.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the Project, combined with other relevant cumulative projects, result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-29 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the Project, combined with other relevant cumulative projects, result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: police protection? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the Project, combined with other relevant cumulative projects, result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: schools?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the Project, combined with other relevant cumulative projects, result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: other public facilities? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-30 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.16 Parks and Recreation
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Land Use Policy 1.5. Land Use
Action 1e.
Resource Management Policies
1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8. Resource
Management Actions 1a, 1b, 1c,
1d, 1h.
Community Facilities Goal 1.
Community Facilities Policy 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5. Community
Facilities Actions 1b, 1c, 1d.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Land Use Policies 1.5, 2.6. Land
Use Action 1e.
Resource Management Policies
1.1, 1.4, 1.5. Resource
Management Actions 1a, 1b, 1c,
1d.
Community Facilities Goal 1.
Community Facilities Policy 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5. Community
Facilities Actions 1b, 1c, 1d.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: parks?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-31 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other relevant cumulative projects, result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the Project, combined with other relevant cumulative projects, increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the Project, combined with other relevant cumulative projects, include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-32 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.17 Transportation
Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Land Use Policies 1.1, 1.2, 4.4.
Mobility Goals 1, 3, 6. Mobility
Policies 1.5, 1.7, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3,
3.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 6.1,
6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6. Mobility Actions
1a, 1b, 1e, 3a, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 6c.
Resource Management Policies
1.9, 1.10, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6. Resource
Management Actions 1g, 1h, 4g,
4h.
Economic Development Policies
4.2, 4.3. Economic Development
Action 4c.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Land Use Policies 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 4.4.
Mobility Goals 3, 6. Mobility
Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 5.1, 5.2,
5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6,
9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4. Mobility Actions
3a, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 6c, 9a, 9b.
Resource Management Policies
1.9, 1.10, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6. Resource
Management Actions 1g, 1h, 4g,
4h.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-33 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Land Use Goal 3. Land Use Policies
1.1, 3.1, 3.4. Land Use Action 3b.
Mobility Goal 3. Mobility Policies
3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6. Mobility Actions
3a, 3e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Mobility Element Goal 3. Mobility Element Policies 2.1, 2.2, 3.5.
Action 3e.
Public Safety Policy 1.6, 4.3.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, result in inadequate emergency access?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-34 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Resource Management Policies
3.1, 3.2, 3.5. Resource
Management Actions 3a, 3e, 3g.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-35 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-36 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
5.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Land Use Policy 2.6. Land Use
Action 1e.
Resource Management Policies
5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4. Resource
Management Actions 5a, 5b, 5c,
6b, 6c.
Community Facilities Goal 1.
Community Facilities Policies 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10,
1.11, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1,
5.1. Community Facilities Actions
1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2c, 3a, 4d,
4e, 5a.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Resource Management Policies
6.1, 6.2. Resource Management
Action 6b, 6c.
Community Facilities Policies 2.1,
2.2, 2.3. Community Facilities
Actions 2a, 2c.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Land Use Policy 2.6. Land Use
Action 1e.
Community Facilities Goal 1.
Community Facilities Policies 1.1,
1.3, 1.5, 1.8, 1.10, 1.11, 3.1, 3.2,
3.3. Community Facilities Actions
1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 3a.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-37 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Resource Management Policies
2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. Resource
Management Actions 2a, 2c, 2e. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Resource Management Policies
2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. Resource
Management Actions 2a, 2c, 2e.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, or have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-38 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
5.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Public Safety Goal 1. Public Safety
Policy 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 4.2, 4.3.
Public Safety Action 1a, 1b. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Public Safety Goal 4. Public Safety
Policies 1.4, 1.6, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4.
Public Safety Action 4a, 4b. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Public Safety Goal 4. Public Safety
Policies 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4.
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-39 Executive Summary Table 1-2 (continued)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact General Plan Update Goals,
Policies, and Actions Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Public Safety Goals 1, 4, 5. Public
Safety Policies 1.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.3,
5.4, 5.6. Public Safety Action 4a. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section.
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Refer to the General Plan Update
Goals, Policies, and Actions cited
above in this section. No mitigation measures are required. No Impact Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 1-40 Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-1 Introduction
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifies that before a public agency decides to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about the Project’s potential environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment. The State CEQA Guidelines are located within the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387, while the CEQA Statute is codified as Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.70.10.
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local agencies consider the potential environmental impacts of projects over which they have discretionary authority. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information concerning the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, possible ways to reduce or avoid the possible significant environmental impacts, and identify alternatives to the project. An EIR must also disclose significant impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects found not to be significant; as well as significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects.
The City of Lawndale is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for preparing this Program EIR for the General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2022120088). This Program EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City of Lawndale. The principal CEQA Guidelines sections governing content of this document are Sections 15120 through 15132 (Contents of Environmental Impact Reports), and Section 15168 (Program EIR).
The purpose of this Program EIR is to review the existing conditions, analyze potential environmental impacts, identify General Plan Update policies and programs that serve as mitigation, and identify additional mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects of the proposed City of Lawndale General Plan Update (General Plan Update). For more detailed information regarding the proposed Project, refer to Section 3.0, Project Description.
The City of Lawndale (which has the principal responsibility for processing and approving the Project) and other public (i.e., responsible and trustee) agencies that may use this Program EIR in the decision-making or permit process will consider the information in this Program EIR, along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. Environmental impacts are not always able to be mitigated to a level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable impacts. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves a project that has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated (i.e., significant unavoidable impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Final EIR and any other Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-2 Introduction
information in the public record for the project. This is termed, per Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a “statement of overriding considerations.”
This document analyzes the environmental effects of the General Plan Update to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis considers the activities associated with the Project to determine the short-term and long-term effects associated with their implementation. This Program EIR discusses both the direct and indirect impacts of this Project, as well as the cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects at a programmatic level.
This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, which states the following:
a) General. A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1. Geographically,
2. As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.
b) Advantages. Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program EIR can:
1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,
2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case- by-case analysis,
3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations,
4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and
5. Allow reduction in paperwork.
c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
1. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
2. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
3. An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program.
4. Where the subsequent activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-3 Introduction
determine whether the environmental effects of the operations were covered in the program EIR.
5. A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.
d) Use with Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations. A program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later parts of the program. The program EIR can:
1. Provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant impacts.
2. Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole.
3. Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects which had not been considered before.
2.2 LAWNDALE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
GENERAL PLAN
The Lawndale General Plan (General Plan Update or Project) is the overarching policy document that guides land use, housing, transportation, open space, public safety, community services, and other policy decisions throughout the City of Lawndale and the Sphere of Influence (collectively referred to as the Planning Area). The General Plan includes the eight elements mandated by State law, to the extent that they are relevant locally, which include: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, environmental justice, and safety elements, as specified in Government Code Section 65302. The City has chosen to combine the topics of Conservation and Open Space into one Element: Resource Management.
The topic of Noise is included in the Public Safety Element. General plans must also address the topics of climate change and resiliency planning, either as separate elements or as part of other required elements.
At the discretion of each jurisdiction, the general plan may combine these elements and may add optional elements relevant to the physical features of the jurisdiction. The City may also address other topics of interest; this General Plan includes elements related to Economic Development and Community Facilities.
The General Plan Update sets out the goals, policies, and actions in each of these areas, serves as a policy guide for how the City will make key planning decisions in the future, and guides how the City will interact with the broader Los Angeles County, surrounding cities, and other local, regional, State, and Federal agencies.
The General Plan Update contains the goals and policies that will guide future decisions within the Planning Area. It also identifies implementation programs, in the form of actions, that will ensure the goals and policies in the General Plan Update are carried out. As part of the General Plan Update, the City and the consultant team prepared several support documents that serve as the building blocks for the General Plan Update and analyze the environmental impacts associated with implementing the General Plan Update.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-4 Introduction
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT
The Existing Conditions Report discusses Lawndale’s current (2019-2023) trends and conditions; what is on the ground. It provides a detailed description of a wide range of topics within the City, such as demographic and economic conditions, land use, public facilities, and environmental resources. The Existing Conditions Report provides decision-makers, the public, and local agencies with context for making policy decisions. The Existing Conditions Report also provides information for the environmental setting and description contained within this Draft EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An EIR responds to the requirements of CEQA as set forth in Sections 15126, 15175, and 15176 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Community Development Department and City Council will use the EIR during the General Plan Update process in order to understand the potential environmental implications associated with implementing the General Plan Update. This EIR was prepared concurrently with the General Plan policy document in order to facilitate the development of a General Plan that is largely self-mitigating. In other words, as environmental impacts associated with the new General Plan Update, including the Land Use Map, were identified; policies and actions were incorporated into the General Plan Update policy document in order to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts.
2.3 INTENDED USES OF THE PROGRAM EIR
The City of Lawndale, as the lead agency, has prepared this EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from adoption of the General Plan Update and subsequent implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan Update. The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed Project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the lead agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.
This EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the General Plan Update. This EIR may also be used by other agencies within Los Angeles County.
2.4 KNOWN RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
The term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). For the purpose of CEQA, a “Trustee” agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). While no Responsible Agencies or Trustee Agencies are responsible for approvals associated with adoption of the General Plan Update, implementation of future projects within the Planning Area may require permits and approvals from such agencies, which may include the following:
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-5 Introduction
• California Air Resources Board (CARB);
• California Department of Conservation;
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
• California Department of Forestry and Fire (CALFIRE); • California Department of Toxic Substances Control;
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
• California Department of Water Resources;
• California Emergency Management Agency;
• California Energy Commission;
• California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA);
• California Office of Emergency Services;
• Golden State Water Company (GSWC) Southwest System;
• West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD);
• Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD);
• Native American Heritage Commission;
• Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD);
• Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD);
• Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department
• Los Angeles County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; • Lawndale Elementary School District;
• Centinela Valley Union High School District;
• Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); and
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
2.5 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include a description of the environmental setting, an environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures for any significant impacts, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The EIR prepared reviews environmental and planning documentation developed for the Project, environmental and planning documentation prepared for recent projects located within the Planning Area, and responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP).
This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner:
SECTION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed Project, known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and provides a concise summary matrix of the Project’s Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-6 Introduction
environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures. This chapter identifies alternatives that reduce or avoid at least one significant environmental effect of the proposed Project.
SECTION 2.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 2.0 briefly describes the proposed Project, the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, trustee, and responsible agencies, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, identifies the scope and organization of the Draft EIR, and summarizes comments received on the NOP.
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Section 3.0 provides a detailed description of the proposed Project, including the location of land uses, intended objectives, background information, the physical and technical characteristics, including the decisions subject to CEQA, subsequent projects and activities, and a list of related agency action requirements.
SECTION 4.0 BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Section 4.0 describes the approach taken and methodology for the cumulative environmental analysis.
SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Section 5.0 evaluates the impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update. This section is organized according to issue area. Each area includes a description of the environmental and regulatory setting relative to that issue; the CEQA thresholds for the specific issue area; and the environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Implementation of General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions and their ability to reduce potential impacts are described in the Impacts and Mitigation Measures subsection.
Impacts and General Plan Update goals, policies and actions are generally organized according to the topical areas. However, an impact or General Plan Update goals, policies, or actions located within the document should not restrict it from being considered under another issue topic, even though omitted from that section. Many of the impacts relating to the General Plan Update are multi-faceted. Similarly, the goals, policies, and actions may accomplish several objectives and reduce more than one impact. It is important that decision-makers be cognizant of this fact in their consideration and use of this document.
If goals, policies, and actions are altered, the affect that would have on other issues should be evaluated.
SECTION 6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Section 6.0 discusses the potential long-term implications of the proposed action and irreversible changes on the environmental that would be caused by the proposed Project, should it be implemented. The Project’s growth-inducing impacts, including the potential for economic or population growth are also discussed.
SECTION 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
Section 7.0 describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that could avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts and still feasibly attain the Project’s basic objectives.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-7 Introduction
SECTION 8.0 REPORT PREPARERS
Section 8.0 identifies all individuals involved in preparing the EIR.
APPENDICES
This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the Draft EIR, as well as technical material prepared to support the analysis.
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City of Lawndale circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the Project on December 6, 2022 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A scoping meeting was held on December 15, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. at the Harold E. Hofmann Community Center. Information regarding the scoping meeting was included in the NOP, as described above. The intent of the meeting was to share information regarding the proposed Project and the environmental review process and to receive comments regarding the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be addressed in the EIR.
No public or agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR analysis were presented or submitted during the scoping meeting. However, during the 30-day public review period for the NOP, which ended on January 5, 2023, four written comment letters were received on the NOP. A summary of the NOP comments is provided later in this chapter. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A, NOP and NOP Comment Letters.
DRAFT EIR
The Draft EIR contains a description of the Project, description of the environmental setting, identification of the Project’s direct and indirect impacts on the environment and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of Project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. This Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in this EIR. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Lawndale will file the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period.
PUBLIC NOTICE/PUBLIC REVIEW
Coinciding with the NOC, the City of Lawndale will provide a public notice of availability for the Draft EIR, and invite comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties.
Consistent with CEQA requirements, the review period for this Draft EIR is forty-five (45) days. Public Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-8 Introduction
comment on the Draft EIR will be accepted in written form. All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Jared Chavez - Community Development Manager
City of Lawndale
14717 Burin Avenue
Lawndale, CA 90260
Email: [email protected]
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to both oral and written comments received during the public review period.
CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
The City of Lawndale City Council will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," the City Council may certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA. As set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, the standards of adequacy require an EIR to provide a sufficient degree of analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project that intelligently take account of environmental consequences.
Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council may take action to approve, revise, or deny the Project. If the EIR determines that the project would result in significant adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, the City Council would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations as well as written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. If additional mitigation measures are required (beyond the General Plan Update policies and actions that reduce potentially significant impacts, as identified throughout this EIR), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The MMRP would be designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR.
2.7 INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15148, which encourages “incorporation by reference” as a means of reducing redundancy and length of environmental reports. The documents listed below, which are available for public review at the City of Lawndale, Community Development Department, at 14717 Burin Avenue, and on the City’s website:
www.lawndalecity.org, are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR. Information contained within these documents has been utilized for each section of this EIR. A brief synopsis of the scope and content of these documents is provided below.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-9 Introduction
CITY OF LAWNDALE MUNICIPAL CODE
The Lawndale Municipal Code (Municipal Code) consists of all the regulatory and penal ordinances and administrative ordinances of the City of Lawndale. The Municipal Code is one of the City’s primary tools to control land uses, in accordance with the General Plan programs and policies. The City’s Zoning regulations are incorporated as Title 17, Zoning. Zoning regulations are adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare and to provide the economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources.
Municipal Code Title 15, Buildings and Construction, adopts the 2022 California Building Standards Code, with amendments in consideration of the City’s local climactic, geological, and topographical considerations. Other relevant Municipal Code regulations include the following, among others: Title 8, Health and Safety; Title 10, Vehicles and Traffic; and Title 12, Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places; and Title 13, Public Services.
CITY OF LAWNDALE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
In cooperation with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, the City of Lawndale developed a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions within the City. The City’s CAP serves as a guide for action by setting GHG emission reduction goals and establishing strategies and policy to achieve desired outcomes over the next 20 years. The CAP is designed to identify community-wide strategies to lower GHG emissions from a range of sources within the jurisdiction, including transportation, land use, energy generation and consumption, water, and waste. The CAP advances these goals and streamlines City efforts to deploy specific initiatives and programs that target the reduction of GHG emissions, while integrating these efforts with the other priorities such as economic development, regional mobility and connectivity, and improving the local air and water quality.
2.8 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City received four comment letters on the NOP. Copies of these letters are provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR and the comments are summarized below.
• Southern California Association of Governments: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) provides SCAG Connect SoCal Goals for discussion of consistency, nonconsistency, or non-applicability, in the Draft EIR and background regarding demographic and growth forecasts. SCAG also provides mitigation measures for operational air quality impacts that the City should consider in the DEIR.
• South Coast Air Quality Management District: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommends that the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook be used as guidance when preparing the DEIR air quality and greenhouse gas analyses. It is also recommended that the Lead Agency (City of Lawndale) use the CalEEMod land use emissions software to estimate pollutant emissions from typical land use development. SCAQMD recommends that criteria pollutant emissions are quantified and compared to SCAQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds and localized significance thresholds (LSTs) to determine the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts. Any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 2-10 Introduction
phases of the Proposed Project, and all air pollutant sources related to the Proposed Project, are to be identified. It is also recommended that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment to disclose the potential health risks.
• Native American Heritage Commission: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provides information on Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 tribal consultation requirements. The NAHC recommends conducting tribal consultation early and gives recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments.
• Rick Hinojos: Mr. Hinojos requested that the Current General Plan Land Use Map be included in the project description.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-1 Project Description
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Lawndale is located in the South Bay area of Los Angeles County, approximately 10 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles, refer to Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map. The City is approximately
1.9 square miles (1,241 acres) and is bounded by the City of Hawthorne to the north and west, by unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and the City of Gardena to the east, by the City of Torrance to the south, and by the City of Redondo Beach to the south and west. Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 405, a major north-south highway which provides access to Lawndale and the greater Los Angeles region.
The Planning Area is the geographic area for which the General Plan Update provides a framework for long-term growth and resource conservation. State law requires the Planning Area for the General Plan Update to include all territory within Lawndale’s incorporated area as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning" (California Government Code Section 65300). The General Plan Update Planning Area, as shown in Figure 3-2, General Plan Planning Area, includes the entire City limits (approximately 1,241 acres) as well as the City of Lawndale’s Sphere of Influence (approximately 314 acres); the entire Planning Area is approximately 1,555 acres.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Lawndale is a city of approximately 30,882 people (Department of Finance 2023). The City was incorporated in 1959, although the community’s history dates back to the Rancho Era. The “town” of Lawndale was founded in 1905 and remained a predominantly agricultural community until major growth occurred after the conclusion of World War II. Lawndale incorporated in large part to fend off annexation attempts by adjoining cities and since that time it has essentially been a bedroom community, primarily of single-family homes. However, many older single-family homes have been replaced with duplexes and multi-family developments of three or more units resulting in the City having one of the highest population densities in Los Angeles County.
The City of Lawndale is a small but highly urbanized community that is primarily a residential community with well-established neighborhoods. Lawndale is dominated by single-family low density housing, e.g., single-family detached, duplex/double unit. Commercial activity is concentrated along the City’s major arterial roadways, particularly along Hawthorne Boulevard.
CITY OF LAWNDALE GENERAL PLAN
The City’s General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1992, the Housing Element was updated in 2022 (in accordance with State housing law). The City’s Existing General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 3-3, Existing General Plan Land Use Map) designates land uses within the Planning Area, which includes the City, but does not include its Sphere of Influence. Table 3-1, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, summarizes land uses included in the Existing General Plan (1992 General Plan).
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-2 Project Description Table 3-1
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
General Plan Designation
Within City Boundary Within Sphere of
Influence Total Planning Area
Acres
% of
Total
Acres
Acres
% of
Total
Acres
Acres
% of
Total
Acres
Single-Family Low Density 11 <1% 0 0% 11 <1%
Single-Family Medium Density 41 3% 0 0% 41 3%
Multi-Family Low Density 443 36% 0 0% 443 29%
Multi-Family Medium Density 115 9% 0 0% 115 7%
General Commercial 113 9% 0 0% 113 7%
Downtown Commercial 31 3% 0 0% 31 2%
Specialty Commercial 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Light Industrial 21 2% 0 0% 21 1%
Open Space 20 2% 0 0% 20 1%
Public Facilities 121 10% 0 0% 121 8%
Public Facilities Overlay n/a 0% 0 0% n/a 0%
Other* 0 0% 229 73% 229 15%
Transportation/Utilities Related 325 26% 85 27% 410 26% Total 1,241 100% 314 100% 1,555 100%
Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
* The SOI area is not included as part of the planning area for the current General Plan, and are included in the Los Angeles County General Plan.
Source: De Novo Planning, City of Lawndale General Plan Existing Conditions Report, 2023.
City of Lawndale General Plan Land Use Designations
Single-Family Low Density: Permits a density range of 0-8.9 dwelling units per acre. This category is intended for single-family detached units on a minimum 5,000-square foot lot. Permits single-family detached homes and ancillary uses.
Single-Family Medium Density: Permits a density of 8.9-17.6 dwelling units per acre. This category is only intended to be applied to the areas of Lawndale where the predominate use is existing single-family units on 2,500-square foot lots. Permits single-family detached homes on 2,500-square foot lots and ancillary uses.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-3 Project Description Multi-Family Low Density: Permits a density of 8.9 dwelling units per acre to 17.6 dwelling units per acre and allows two units on a minimum 5,000-square foot lot. Permits single-family detached, duplex/double unit, condominiums, townhomes, or any combination of the above and ancillary uses.
Multi-Family Medium Density: Permits a density range of 17.6 dwelling units per acre to 33 dwelling units per acre, on a minimum 5,000-square foot lot. Permits single-family detached, duplex/double unit, condominiums, townhomes, apartments, manufactured housing, or any combination of the above if deemed appropriate and compatible with surrounding land uses, and ancillary uses.
General Commercial: This designation provides the community with a wide variety of retail shops, restaurants, services, and office uses to meet the daily needs of the residents. The permitted floor area ratio, not to exceed 1.0, unless modified by the Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan.
Downtown Commercial: The purpose of this designation is to encourage urban nodes with commercial activity. This designation is applied specifically to the northerly side of the Hawthorne Boulevard and Manhattan Beach Boulevard intersection, and on the southerly side of the Marine Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard intersection (see Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan).
Specialty Commercial: This designation can apply to sites that are a minimum five (5) acres in size and are located so as to be easily accessible and visible from major transportation corridors. The uses should have a central theme and attract customers from outside the City as well as within Lawndale. Examples of suitable specialty commercial uses are a complex of stores catering to major household purchases, such as furniture, appliances, carpets, etc.; a variety of factory outlet stores; or assorted entertainment and eating establishments. The floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.3.
Light Industrial: This designation permits light manufacturing, assembly, packaging, fabrication, and processing of materials into finished products rather than the conversion of raw materials. The industrial activity shall be conducted primarily within structures and outside storage areas and assembly activity should be limited. The floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5.
Open Space: This designation includes public parks, parks that are part of school sites, public and private outdoor recreational facilities, and landscaped open space areas.
Public Facilities: This category includes public school sites; Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad rightof-way; civic center; public maintenance yards; utility easements; library; and Prairie Avenue Recreation Center uses.
Public Facilities Overlay: This overlay is intended to identify existing and potential sites that are suitable for a public park, recreational facility, or any other public facility building or use. In the area adjacent to the Lawndale Civic Center, this overlay is intended to identify areas where possible expansion of City Hall and/or future public uses can occur.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (SOI)
East of the City Limits (east of Prairie Avenue) is the Los Angeles County unincorporated community of El Camino Village, which is within the City’s Sphere of Influence. El Camino Village is primarily a densely developed, single-family residential community with commercial uses along Crenshaw Boulevard. The Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-4 Project Description area is approximately 314 acres and is entirely built-out. Although parts of El Camino Village share a Lawndale zip code (90260), the City has historically not provided services to the community.
The SOI area is not included in the planning area for the Current General Plan, and is in unincorporated Los Angeles County. Below are the applicable Los Angeles County General Plan Land Use designations, which are included in the SOI area.
Residential 9 (H9): Single family residences, 0-9 dwelling unit (du)/net acre.
Residential 18 (H18): Single family residences, two family residences, 0-18 du/net acre.
Residential 30 (H30): Single family residences, two family residences, multifamily residence, 0-30 du/net acre.
General Commercial (CG): Local-serving commercial uses, including retail, restaurants, and personal and professional services; single family and multifamily residences; and residential and commercial mixed uses, 0-50 du/net acre.
Public and Semi-Public (P): Public and semi-public facilities and community-serving uses, including public buildings and campuses, schools, hospitals, cemeteries, and fairgrounds; airports and other major transportation facilities.
Water (W): Bodies of water, such as lakes, reservoirs, natural waterways, and man-made infrastructure, such as drainage channels, floodways, and spillways. Includes active trail networks within or along drainage channels.
HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN
The Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan (HBSP) oversees the development of the Hawthorne Boulevard corridor and the north side of both Artesia Boulevard and Redondo Beach Boulevard (see Figure 3-4, Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan Map). The HBSP acts as a tool for implementing the goals and policies of the General Plan through the regulation of use, density, height, and other design standards to achieve the overall vision for the area. The Specific Plan was originally adopted in June 1999 and has undergone various amendments since its adoption. The Specific Plan includes General Commercial, Downtown Commercial, Public Facilities and Multi-Family Medium land use designations.
Hawthorne Boulevard serves as the City’s primary transportation route, corridor of economic activity, and the community focal point. It has been, and continues to be, the City’s central artery for circulation, commerce, employment, and social activity. Hawthorne Boulevard is oriented in a north-south direction, connecting the City of Lawndale with the cities of Hawthorne in the north and Torrance in the south.
CITY OF LAWNDALE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City’s Zoning Ordinance is codified as Title 17, Zoning, of the Lawndale Municipal Code. The stated purpose of Title 17 is to designate, regulate, and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for residence, commerce, trade, industry, or other purposes; to regulate and limit the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures hereafter erected or altered; to regulate and determine the size of yards and other open spaces; and to regulate and limit the density of population Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-5 Project Description and, for said purposes, to divide the city into zones of such number, shape, and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out these regulations and to provide for their enforcement, in accordance with the comprehensive general plan.
3.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires all counties and cities to prepare and maintain a General Plan for the long-term growth, development, and management of the land within the jurisdiction’s planning boundaries. The General Plan acts as a “constitution” for development, and is the jurisdiction’s lead legal document in relation to growth, development, and resource management issues.
Development regulations (e.g., zoning and subdivision standards) are required by law to be consistent with the General Plan.
The General Plan includes the eight elements mandated by State law, including: Circulation, Conservation, Housing, Land Use, Noise, Open Space, Environmental Justice and Safety. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted on February 7, 2022 and is not part of this update. The City may also address other topics of interest; this General Plan includes an element related to Economic Development and Community Facilities.
The California Government Code also requires that a General Plan be comprehensive, internally consistent, and plan for the long term. The General Plan should be clearly written, easy to administer, and available to all those concerned with the community’s development.
State planning and zoning law (California Government Code Section 65000 et seq.) establishes that zoning ordinances are required to be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plans, area plans, master plans, and other related planning documents. When amendments to the general plan are made, corresponding changes in the zoning ordinance may be required within a reasonable time to ensure consistency between the revised land use designations in the general plan (if any) and the permitted uses or development standards of the zoning ordinance (Gov. Code Section 65860, subd. [c]). Thus, the Lawndale Zoning Ordinance is effectively the principal tool for implementing the City’s General Plan, and by State law, must be consistent with the General Plan.
3.4 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The following objectives were identified for the proposed update to the General Plan:
1. Reflect the current goals and vision expressed by City residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders;
2. Address issues and concerns identified by City residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders;
3. Protect Lawndale’s existing residences, character, and sense of community;
4. Proactively plan for and accommodate local and regional growth in a responsible manner; Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-6 Project Description
5. Encourage mixed-use development patterns that promote vibrant commercial and residential areas;
6. Allow for a range of high-quality housing options;
7. Attract and retain businesses and industries that provide jobs for local residents;
8. Continue to maintain and improve multimodal transportation opportunities;
9. Maintain strong fiscal sustainability and continue to provide efficient and adequate public services;
10. Address new requirements of State law; and
11. Address emerging transportation, housing, and employment trends.
3.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The City Lawndale is preparing a comprehensive update to its existing General Plan. The updated Lawndale General Plan is expected to be adopted in 2023 and will guide the City’s development, growth, and conservation through land use objectives and policy guidance. The General Plan Update is intended to be an expression of the community’s vision for the City and Planning Area, and constitutes the policy and regulatory framework by which future development projects will be reviewed and public improvements will be implemented. The City will implement the General Plan Update by requiring development, infrastructure improvements, and other projects to be consistent with its policies, and by implementing the actions included in the General Plan Update.
The Lawndale General Plan Update includes a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions (implementation measures), organized into Elements, as well as a revised Land Use Map (refer to Figure 3-5, General Plan Update Land Use Map). The goals and policies provide guidance to the City on how to direct change, manage growth, and manage resources over the 20-year life of the General Plan. In order to ensure that the goals and policies in the General Plan are effectively implemented, a series of actions, or implementation measures have been developed, and are presented in each Element alongside the goals and policies they implement.
• A goal is a description of the general desired result that the City seeks to create through the implementation of the General Plan.
• A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making as the City works to achieve its goals.
Once adopted, policies represent statements of City regulations. The General Plan’s policies set out the standards that will be used by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council in their review of land development projects, resource protection activities, infrastructure improvements, and other City actions. Policies are on-going and require no specific action on behalf of the City.
• An action is an implementation measure, procedure, technique, or specific program to be undertaken by the City to help achieve a specified goal or implement an adopted policy. The City Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-7 Project Description must take additional steps to implement each action in the General Plan. An action is something that can and will be completed.
Additional elements that relate to the physical development of the City will also be addressed in the General Plan Update. The degree of specificity and level of detail of the discussion of each General Plan Update Element need only reflect local conditions and circumstances. The Lawndale General Plan Update will include all of the State-mandated elements, and will address two optional topics: Economic Development and Community Facilities.
The General Plan Update is being prepared to address the requirements of State law and the relevant items addressed in Government Code Section 65300 et seq. The Lawndale General Plan Update is intended to reflect the desires and vision of Lawndale residents, businesses, the Planning Commission, and City Council.
3.5.1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ELEMENTS
As part of the General Plan Update, some of the elements have been renamed and reorganized, including combining topical areas, as described and summarized below.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and intensity of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, public, and other categories of public and private land uses. The Land Use Element includes the Land Use Map, which identifies land use designations for each parcel in the Planning Area (Figure 3-5). The Land Use Element provides descriptions of land use designations and policy guidance to address the City’s preferred mix of land uses, plans to manage growth, strategies to encourage land use compatibility, conservation of existing character and quality of established neighborhoods, and direction on community character and design.
Mobility Element (Circulation)
The Mobility Element correlates closely with the Land Use Element and identifies the general locations and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and alternative transportation facilities necessary to support a multi-modal transportation system. This Element is intended to facilitate mobility of people and goods throughout Lawndale by a variety of transportation modes, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit.
Resource Management Element (Conservation, Open Space and Air Quality) The Resource Management Element focuses on the cultural, environmental, and man-made resources and the provision of open spaces. The Element combines the State-mandated Open Space, Conservation and Air Quality Elements and provides the foundation for resource conservation in the context of the City’s long-term vision for the future and land use map. The Resource Management Element also guides decision making around the community’s infrastructure systems, including water supply, wastewater, flood control, solid waste collection and disposal, and storm drainage and water quality. Other public and semi-public community facilities are also addressed in this chapter, including parks and recreation.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-8 Project Description Public Safety Element (Safety and Noise)
The Public Safety Element establishes goals, policies and actions to protect the community from risk associated with geologic, fire, and flood hazards, as well as setting standards for emergency preparedness.
The Public Safety Element supports the City’s participation in the Lawndale Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan and the Lawndale Climate Action Plan. This Element also addresses the required topics related to noise, including standards and policies to protect the community from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise levels. This Element includes strategies to reduce land use conflicts that may result in exposure to unacceptable noise levels.
Environmental Justice Element
The Environmental Justice Element establishes goals, policies, and actions to improve environmental conditions within the community, especially for sensitive population groups. Environmental Justice Communities are described by the California Communities Environmental Health Screen Tool (CalEnviroScreen) as areas (i.e., census tracts) of a city or county that have higher environmental burdens and vulnerabilities than other areas. The term “disadvantaged community” is a broad designation that includes any community disproportionally affected by environmental, health, and other burdens or lowincome areas disproportionally affected by environmental pollution and other hazards. In relation to environmental justice, disadvantaged communities are typically those communities that disproportionately face the burdens of environmental hazards. Environmental issue areas include pollution exposure (including air quality); access to public facilities, such as public improvements, public services and community amenities; access to healthy food; safe and sanitary living conditions; opportunities and access for physical activity; and improved opportunities for civic engagement. This Element includes strategies to reduce public health risks and address environmental justice concerns of those living in disadvantaged communities.
Economic Development Element
The Economic Development Element is intended to guide the City’s future policy decisions to support growing and strengthening the local economy and supporting the City’s role in the South Bay regional economy. The policies contained within the Element are intertwined with those found in other elements of the General Plan.
Community Facilities Element
The Community Facilities Element guides decision making to meet the infrastructure and public services needs of business and residents. Goals, policies, and actions address the provision of services and facilities, as well as water, wastewater and communications systems, and community safety specific to police and fire services. Health and educational resources are also discussed in this Element.
Housing Element
The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy guide for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing withing Lawndale. The Element provides an indication of the need for housing in the community in terms of affordability, availability, adequacy, and accessibility. It provides a strategy to address housing needs and identifies a series of specific housing program actions to meet community Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-9 Project Description needs at all income levels for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Planning Period (2021-2029). The City’s 2021- 2029 Housing Element was adopted on February 7, 2022 and is not part of this update.
Existing and Proposed General Plan Elements
Existing General Plan Elements General Plan Update Elements • Land Use • Land Use
• Circulation • Mobility
• Housing • Housing
• Economic Development • Resource Management
• Open Space • Public Safety
• Conservation • Environmental Justice
• Air Quality Management Plan • Economic Development
• Safety Element • Community Facilities
• Noise Element
3.5.2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The General Plan Land Use Map identifies land use designations for each parcel within the Planning Area (Figure 3-4). The Land Use Element of the General Plan Update defines various land use designations by their allowable uses and maximum and minimum development densities and intensities. Table 3-2, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations,summarizes land uses included in the General Plan Update.
Table 3-2
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
General Plan Land Use Designations
Within City Boundary Within Sphere of
Influence Total Planning Area
Acres % of
Total
Acres
Acres % of
Total
Acres
Acres
% of
Total
Acres
Low Density Residential 49 4% 202 64% 251 16%
Medium Density Residential 458 37% 0 0% 458 30%
High Density Residential 115 9% 0 0% 115 7%
Commercial 38 3% 18 6% 56 4%
Industrial 21 2% 0 0% 21 1%
Open Space 13 1% 0 0% 13 1%
Public Facilities 128 10% 10 3% 138 9%
Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan 95 8% 0 0% 95 6%
Right-of-Way 324 26% 84 27% 408 26%
Total 1,241 100% 314 100% 1,555 100%
Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-10 Project Description The following describes the proposed land use designations for the General Plan Update.
Low Density Residential (LDR); 0 – 8.9 du/ac
The Low Density Residential land use designation provides for the development of low density singlefamily dwellings at a density between 0 and 8.9 dwelling units per acre.
Medium Density Residential (MDR); 9 – 17.4 du/ac
The Medium Density Residential land use designation allows for a range of housing types including singlefamily attached and detached units and duplex, condominiums, and townhouse at a density of between 9 and 17.4 dwelling units per acre.
High Density Residential (HDR); 17.5 – 33 du/ac
The High Density Residential land use designation provides for a variety of small-lot single-family dwelling units and multi-family dwelling units including: courtyard homes, patio homes, duplex, condominiums, townhomes, apartments, and manufactured homes at a density between 17.5 and 33 dwelling units per acre.
Housing Opportunity Overlay; 20 – 100 du/ac
The Housing Opportunity Overlay is an overlay requiring a minimum residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre and allowing for a maximum density of 100 dwelling units per acre in accordance with 2021- 2029 Housing Element. For sites not utilized for Housing Opportunity Overlay uses, the density range or maximum floor-area- ratio shall be as allowed in the primary land use designation.
Commercial (C)
The Commercial land use designation provides a variety of retail and service-oriented business activities, restaurants, services and office uses to meet the daily needs of the residents. There is no minimum or maximum building intensity.
Industrial (I)
The Industrial designation permits light manufacturing, assembly, packaging, fabrication and processing of materials into finishing products rather than the conversion of raw materials. Industrial activity shall be conducted primarily within structures and outside storage areas and assembly activity should be limited.
There is no minimum or maximum building intensity.
Open Space (OS)
The Open Space designation includes public parks, parks that are part of school sites, public and private outdoor recreational facilities, and landscaped open space areas.
Public Facilities (PF)
The Public Facilities designation provides for publicly owned properties and facilities including, schools, fire stations, police stations, community centers, utility substations, water facilities, administrative offices and City government office complexes. Other uses that are determined to be compatible with primary uses may also be allowed. There is no minimum or maximum building intensity.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-11 Project Description Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan (HBSP)
The Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan (HBSP) provides detailed policies, standards, and criteria for the area’s development. Land uses within the Specific Plan area are detailed in the Specific Plan document.
The Specific Plan serves as zoning for the Specific Plan area. The maximum densities and intensities of development are detailed in the Specific Plan.
3.5.3 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ANALYSIS
The maximum density or intensity permitted for an individual parcel is controlled by the land use designation, unless a density bonus pursuant to Lawndale Municipal Code Chapter 17.50, Density Bonus Provisions for Residential Units applies. In addition to the land use designation, development of a parcel is influenced by a variety of factors including the physical characteristics of a parcel, compatibility with nearby uses, access and infrastructure limitations, market factors, and previous developments trends.
While no specific development projects are proposed as part of the Lawndale General Plan Update, the General Plan Update will accommodate future growth in Lawndale, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses. New growth is anticipated to occur primarily within the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan area. The buildout analysis assumes a 20-year planning horizon, and 2045 is to be the full buildout year of the General Plan (the point at which all parcels in the City are developed according to their General Plan land use designation).
Table 3-3, General Plan 2045 Buildout by Land Use Designation, provides a statistical summary of the buildout potential associated with the General Plan Update Land Use Map compared to existing on-theground conditions by General Plan Update Land Use Designation. As shown in Table 3-3, buildout of the General Plan could yield a total of up to 15,405 housing units, a population of 47,430 people, approximately 5.35 million square feet of non-residential building square footage, and 9,208 jobs within the Planning Area. As shown in Table 3-4, this represents development growth over existing conditions of up to approximately 3,942 new housing units, 9,482 people, 808,864 square feet of new non-residential building square footage and 2,738 jobs.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-12 Project Description This page intentionally left blank.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-13 Project Description Table 3-3
General Plan 2045 Buildout by Land Use Designation
General Plan
Land Use
Designations
Existing Conditions Proposed General Plan Update (2045) Net Change Units Pop. NRSF Jobs Units Pop. NRSF Jobs Units Pop. NRSF Jobs LDR 575 2,090 0 0 420 1,537 0 0 -155 -553 0 0
MDR 5,522 19,255 126,644 199 5,534 18,404 0 0 12 -851 -126,644 -199 HDR 3,229 9,190 50,934 80 3,464 9,418 0 0 235 228 -50,934 -80 C 120 365 487,809 768 311 706 836,681 1,673 191 341 348,872 905 I 55 184 336,957 531 0 0 459,130 612 -55 -184 122,173 81 OS 0 0 0 0 27 62 0 0 27 62 0 0
PF 0 0 1,124,243 1,125 0 0 1,124,243 1,124 0 0 0 -1
HBSP 391 1,125 2,174,447 3,424 3,931 11,017 2,484,823 4,970 3,540 9,892 310,376 1,546 City Total 9,892 32,209 4,301,034 6,127 13,688 41,144 4,904,877 8,379 3,796 8,935 603,843 2,252 LDR 1,569 5,734 0 0 1,717 6,286 0 0 148 552 0 0
C 2 5 177,631 280 0 0 382,651 765 -2 -5 205,020 485
PF 0 0 63,498 63 0 0 63,498 63 0 0 0 0
SOI Total 1,571 5,740 241,129 343 1,717 6,286 446,149 829 146 546 205,020 486 Grand Total 11,463 37,948 4,542,162 6,470 15,405 47,430 5,351,026 9,208 3,942 9,482 808,864 2,738 Notes:
SOI: Sphere of Influence
Units: Housing Units
Pop.: Population
NRSF: Non-residential square footage
Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-14 Project Description This page intentionally left blank.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-15 Project Description For each environmental issue addressed in Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, the analysis of the General Plan Update is based on various assumptions regarding existing and future conditions in Lawndale. Unless otherwise stated, the assumptions are as specified in Table 3-4, General Plan Update Growth Assumptions, which are based on the General Plan 2045 Buildout shown in Table 3-3.
Table 3-4
General Plan Update Growth Assumptions
Description Housing Units Population
Non-Residential
Development
(Square Feet)
Jobs
Existing Conditions (2022) 11,463 37,948 4,542,162 6,470 2045 General Plan 15,405 47,430 5,351,026 9,208
Net Change +3,942 +9,482 +808,864 +2,738
3.6 USE OF THE EIR AND REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS
This EIR may be used for the following direct and indirect approvals and permits associated with adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update.
3.6.1 CITY OF LAWNDLAE
The City of Lawndale is the lead agency for the proposed Project. The City of Lawndale General Plan Update will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and to the City Council for comment, review, and consideration for adoption. The City Council has the sole discretionary authority to approve and adopt the General Plan Update. In order to approve the proposed Project, the City Council would consider the following actions:
• Certification of the General Plan EIR;
• Adoption of required CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the above action, if required;
• Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and • Approval of the General Plan Update.
3.6.2 SUBSEQUENT USES OF THE EIR
The policy framework set forth in the proposed General Plan Update would not result in the construction of any new development nor entitlement of any new project. All new development within the Planning Area would continue to be subject to the City’s development review and approval processes (with Los Angeles County responsible for the unincorporated SOI area). Elected and appointed officials and City staff will review subsequent project applications for consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-16 Project Description Ordinance, and will prepare appropriate environmental documentation to comply with CEQA and other applicable environmental requirements.
Pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR is a Program EIR. The goals, policies, actions, land use designations, and other substantive components of the General Plan constitute the “program” evaluated in this Program EIR. This EIR provides a review of environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. When considering approval of subsequent activities under the proposed General Plan Update, the City of Lawndale would utilize this EIR as the basis in determining potential environmental effects and the appropriate level of environmental review, if any, of a subsequent activity. Projects or activities successive to this EIR may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Approval and funding of major projects and capital improvements; • Future Specific Plan, Planned Unit Development, or Master Plan approvals, including the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan;
• Revisions to the Lawndale Municipal Code (Title 8 – Health and Safety, Title 16 – Subdivisions, and Title 17 – Zoning) Update
• Development plan approvals, such as tentative subdivision maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits;
• Development Agreements;
• Property rezoning consistent with the General Plan;
• Permit issuances and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects; and • Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the General Plan.
3.6.3 OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY APPROVALS
Subsequent projects and other actions to support implementation of the General Plan Update would require actions, including permits and approvals, by other public agencies that may include, but are not necessarily limited to:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) approval of potential future streambed alteration agreements, pursuant to Fish and Game Code. Approval of any future potential take of State-listed wildlife and plant species covered under the California Endangered Species Act. • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) approval of projects and encroachment permits for projects affecting State highway facilities. • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approval for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System compliance, including permits and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan approval and monitoring.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-17 Project Description • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) approvals involving any future potential take of Federally listed wildlife and plant species and their habitats, pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-18 Project Description This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF LAWNDALE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LEGEND
City of Lawndale
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
County Boundary
Sources: California State Geoportal.
Date: November 18, 2022.
Figure 3-1.
Regional Location Map
Los Angeles C ounty Orange Coun ty
Santa Monica
Beverly
Hills
West
Hollywood
El Segundo
Hawthorne
Culver City
Pasadena South
Pasadena
Alhambra
Monterey Park
Temple
City
Huntington
Park Bell
Bell
Gardens
Lynwood
Redondo
Beach
Lawndale
Torrance
Palos
Verdes
Estates
Lomita
Rolling
Hills Estates
Rolling Hills
Rancho Palos
Verdes
Gardena
Carson
Signal Hill
Lakewood
Artesia
Cerritos
Norwalk
Bellflower
Santa Fe
Springs
Paramount
South Gate Downey
Commerce
Montebello
Pico
Rivera
Los
Alamitos
Cypress
Inglewood
San
Gabriel
Vernon
Long Beach
Compton
Whittier
Los Angeles
Manhattan
Beach
Hermosa
Beach
Seal Beach
405
710
105
405
10 10
110
110
405
110 5
105
605
605
101
19 107
91 19
2 22
2 170
1 90
213
90 72
47 42
42 27
1 1
1 42
90 1
60 213
SAN
GABRIEL R
LOS ANGELES R
0 2 4
Miles
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a n
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-20 Project Description This page intentionally left blank.
LEGEND
City of Lawndale
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Adjacent Incorporated Area
Sources: City of Lawndale; Los Angeles County.
Date: June 22, 2023.
CITY OF LAWNDALE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure 3-2.
General Plan
Planning Area
Dominguez Channel
Crenshaw Blvd
Prairie Ave
W Rosecrans Ave
Hawthorne Blvd
Prairie Ave
Inglewood Ave
Manhattan Beach Blvd
Rosecrans Ave
Redondo Beach Blvd
Yukon Ave
Marine Ave
Condon Ave
147th St
171st St
Ainsworth Ave
Jefferson Ave
W 168th St
S La C ien e g a Blvd
M cB a i n A ve
Cranbrook Ave
S Doty Ave
Gerkin Ave
S Shoup Ave
W 170th St
Bodger Ave
Kornblum A ve
Carnegie Ln
Vanderbilt Ln
W 140th St
165th St
144th St
W 162nd St Ramona Ave
163rd St
Prairie Ave
170th St
Doty Ave
Johnston Ave
Dow Ave
Kingsdale Ave
Mansel Ave
153rd St
S Lemoli Ave
156th St
Cerise Ave
W 152nd St
Robinson St
Perkins Ln
Felton Ln
W 145th St
Mackay Ln
Freeman Ave
Osage Ave
May Ave
W 157th St
Burin Ave
Grevillea Ave
Firmona Ave
W 154th St
Gates Ave
Graham Ave
Curtis Ave
Voorhees Ave
Ruhland Ave
Nelson Ave
144th Pl
173 rd S t
175th Pl
W 171st St
S Eriel Ave
W 163rd St
168th St
164th St
167th St
W 173rd St 173rd Pl
W 166th St
W 142nd St
141st St
W 147th St
W 149th St
W 161st St
W 160th St
154th St
14 8 th S t
Lemoli Ave
166th St
Eastwood Ave
Chadron Ave
162nd St Beland Blvd
W 159th St
Yukon Ave
160th St
Larch Ave
172nd St
Fo nth ill A ve
153rd Pl
W 146th St
161st St
Avis Ave
139th St
169th St
159th St
W 156th St
W 139th St
142nd St
S Ermanita Ave
S Faysmith Ave
1 4 7 th P l Roselle Ave
Cordary Ave
S Florwood Ave
W 153rd St
W 154th St
175th St
Pinckard Ave
Gibson Ln
405
Artesia Blvd
Mathews Ave
H a w t h o r n e
R e d o n d o B e a c h
G a r d e n a
To r ra n c e
0 500 1,000
Feet
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-22 Project Description This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF LAWNDALE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LEGEND
City of Lawndale
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Adjacent Incorporated Area
General Plan Land Use
Residential Single Family Low
Residential Single Family
Medium
Residential Multiple Family
Low
Residential Multiple Family
Medium
Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Industrial
Open Space
Public Facilities/Schools
Sources: City of Lawndale; Los Angeles County.
Date: June 22, 2023.
Figure 3-3.
Existing General Plan
Land Use Map
Dominguez Channel
Crenshaw Blvd
Prairie Ave
W Rosecrans Ave
Hawthorne Blvd
Prairie Ave
Inglewood Ave
Manhattan Beach Blvd
Rosecrans Ave
Redondo Beach Blvd
Yukon Ave
Marine Ave
Condon Ave
147th St
171st St
Ainsworth Ave
Jefferson Ave
W 168th St
S La C ien e g a Blvd
M cB a i n A ve
Cranbrook Ave
S Doty Ave
Gerkin Ave
S Shoup Ave
W 170th St
Bodger Ave
Kornblum A ve
Carnegie Ln
Vanderbilt Ln
W 140th St
165th St
144th St
W 162nd St Ramona Ave
163rd St
Prairie Ave
170th St
Doty Ave
Johnston Ave
Dow Ave
Kingsdale Ave
Mansel Ave
153rd St
S Lemoli Ave
156th St
Cerise Ave
W 152nd St
Robinson St
Perkins Ln
Felton Ln
W 145th St
Mackay Ln
Freeman Ave
Osage Ave
May Ave
W 157th St
Burin Ave
Grevillea Ave
Firmona Ave
W 154th St
Gates Ave
Graham Ave
Curtis Ave
Voorhees Ave
Ruhland Ave
Nelson Ave
144th Pl
173 rd S t
175th Pl
W 171st St
S Eriel Ave
W 163rd St
168th St
164th St
167th St
W 173rd St 173rd Pl
W 166th St
W 142nd St
141st St
W 147th St
W 149th St
W 161st St
W 160th St
154th St
14 8 th S t
Lemoli Ave
166th St
Eastwood Ave
Chadron Ave
162nd St Beland Blvd
W 159th St
Yukon Ave
160th St
Larch Ave
172nd St
Fo nth ill A ve
153rd Pl
W 146th St
161st St
Avis Ave
139th St
169th St
159th St
W 156th St
W 139th St
142nd St
S Ermanita Ave
S Faysmith Ave
1 4 7 th P l Roselle Ave
Cordary Ave
S Florwood Ave
W 153rd St
W 154th St
175th St
Pinckard Ave
Gibson Ln
405
Artesia Blvd
Mathews Ave
H a w t h o r n e
R e d o n d o B e a c h
G a r d e n a
To r ra n c e
0 500 1,000
Feet
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-24 Project Description This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF LAWNDALE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LEGEND
City of Lawndale
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Adjacent Incorporated Area
Hawthorne Boulevard
Specific Plan Boundary
Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Public Facilities/Schools
Residential Multiple Family
Medium
Sources: City of Lawndale; Los Angeles County.
Date: June 22, 2023.
Figure 3-4.
Hawthorne Boulevard
Specific Plan Map
Dominguez Channel
Crenshaw Blvd
Prairie Ave
W Rosecrans Ave
Hawthorne Blvd
Prairie Ave
Inglewood Ave
Manhattan Beach Blvd
Rosecrans Ave
Redondo Beach Blvd
Yukon Ave
Marine Ave
Condon Ave
147th St
171st St
Ainsworth Ave
Jefferson Ave
W 168th St
S La C ien e g a Blvd
M cB a i n A ve
Cranbrook Ave
S Doty Ave
Gerkin Ave
S Shoup Ave
W 170th St
Bodger Ave
Kornblum A ve
Carnegie Ln
Vanderbilt Ln
W 140th St
165th St
144th St
W 162nd St Ramona Ave
163rd St
Prairie Ave
170th St
Doty Ave
Johnston Ave
Dow Ave
Kingsdale Ave
Mansel Ave
153rd St
S Lemoli Ave
156th St
Cerise Ave
W 152nd St
Robinson St
Perkins Ln
Felton Ln
W 145th St
Mackay Ln
Freeman Ave
Osage Ave
May Ave
W 157th St
Burin Ave
Grevillea Ave
Firmona Ave
W 154th St
Gates Ave
Graham Ave
Curtis Ave
Voorhees Ave
Ruhland Ave
Nelson Ave
144th Pl
173 rd S t
175th Pl
W 171st St
S Eriel Ave
W 163rd St
168th St
164th St
167th St
W 173rd St 173rd Pl
W 166th St
W 142nd St
141st St
W 147th St
W 149th St
W 161st St
W 160th St
154th St
14 8 th S t
Lemoli Ave
166th St
Eastwood Ave
Chadron Ave
162nd St Beland Blvd
W 159th St
Yukon Ave
160th St
Larch Ave
172nd St
Fo nth ill A ve
153rd Pl
W 146th St
161st St
Avis Ave
139th St
169th St
159th St
W 156th St
W 139th St
142nd St
S Ermanita Ave
S Faysmith Ave
1 4 7 th P l Roselle Ave
Cordary Ave
S Florwood Ave
W 153rd St
W 154th St
175th St
Pinckard Ave
Gibson Ln
405
Artesia Blvd
Mathews Ave
H a w t h o r n e
R e d o n d o B e a c h
G a r d e n a
To r ra n c e
0 500 1,000
Feet
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-26 Project Description This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF LAWNDALE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LEGEND
City of Lawndale
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Assessor Parcel Boundary
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)
High Density Residential (HDR)
Housing Opportunity Overlay
(HOO)
Commercial (C)
Industrial (I)
Open Space (OS)
Public Facilities (PF)
Hawthorne Boulevard Specific
Plan (HBSP)
Sources: City of Lawndale; Los Angeles County.
Date: June 22, 2023.
Figure 3-5.
General Plan Update
Land Use Map
Dominguez Channel
Crenshaw Blvd
Prairie Ave
W Rosecrans Ave
Hawthorne Blvd
Prairie Ave
Inglewood Ave
Manhattan Beach Blvd
Rosecrans Ave
Redondo Beach Blvd
Yukon Ave
Marine Ave
Condon Ave
147th St
171st St
Ainsworth Ave
Jefferson Ave
W 168th St
S La C ien e g a Blvd
M cB a i n A ve
Cranbrook Ave
S Doty Ave
Gerkin Ave
S Shoup Ave
W 170th St
Bodger Ave
Kornblum A ve
Carnegie Ln
Vanderbilt Ln
W 140th St
165th St
144th St
W 162nd St Ramona Ave
163rd St
Prairie Ave
170th St
Doty Ave
Johnston Ave
Dow Ave
Kingsdale Ave
Mansel Ave
153rd St
S Lemoli Ave
156th St
Cerise Ave
W 152nd St
Robinson St
Perkins Ln
Felton Ln
W 145th St
Mackay Ln
Freeman Ave
Osage Ave
May Ave
W 157th St
Burin Ave
Grevillea Ave
Firmona Ave
W 154th St
Gates Ave
Graham Ave
Curtis Ave
Voorhees Ave
Ruhland Ave
Nelson Ave
144th Pl
173 rd S t
175th Pl
W 171st St
S Eriel Ave
W 163rd St
168th St
164th St
167th St
W 173rd St 173rd Pl
W 166th St
W 142nd St
141st St
W 147th St
W 149th St
W 161st St
W 160th St
154th St
14 8 th S t
Lemoli Ave
166th St
Eastwood Ave
Chadron Ave
162nd St Beland Blvd
W 159th St
Yukon Ave
160th St
Larch Ave
172nd St
Fo nth ill A ve
153rd Pl
W 146th St
161st St
Avis Ave
139th St
169th St
159th St
W 156th St
W 139th St
142nd St
S Ermanita Ave
S Faysmith Ave
1 4 7 th P l Roselle Ave
Cordary Ave
S Florwood Ave
W 153rd St
W 154th St
175th St
Pinckard Ave
Gibson Ln
405
Artesia Blvd
Mathews Ave
0 500 1,000
Feet
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 3-28 Project Description This page intentionally left blank.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 4-1 Basis of Cumulative Analysis
4.0 BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from reasonably foreseeable growth, including the Lawndale General Plan Update (Project).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “…two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” The following elements are necessary in an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts, as noted in Sections 15130(b) through 15130(e) of the CEQA Guidelines:
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts:
(1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or,
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program.
Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
(2) When utilizing a list, as suggested in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), factors to consider when determining whether to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource being examined, the location of the project and its type.
Location may be important, for example, when water quality impacts are at issue since projects outside the watershed would probably not contribute to a cumulative effect.
Project type may be important, for example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of traffic.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 4-2 Basis of Cumulative Analysis (3) Lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used.
(4) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and
(5) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to any significant cumulative effects.
(c) With some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-byproject basis. (d) Previously approved land use documents such as general plans, specific plans, and regional transportation plans may be used in cumulative impact analysis. A pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts contained in one or more previously certified EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions for tiering and program EIRs. No further cumulative impacts analysis is required when a project is consistent with a general, specific, master or comparable programmatic plan where the lead agency determines that the regional or areawide cumulative impacts of the proposed project have already been adequately addressed, as defined in section 15152(f), in a certified EIR for that plan.
(e) If a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan, zoning action, or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or action, then an EIR for such a project should not further analyze that cumulative impact, as provided in Section 15183(j).
4.2 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS IN THIS EIR
A cumulative impact is an impact created by the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR and other reasonably foreseeable projects or actions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires an EIR to discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” Used in this context, cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.
Cumulative impacts may be discussed in terms of impacts resulting from the General Plan Update, in combination with impacts anticipated for future development (including approved and planned development within the Planning Area and surrounding affected area), and impacts associated with growth within the greater region. Where the incremental effect of a project is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not consider that effect significant but must briefly describe its basis for concluding that the effect is not cumulatively considerable. The geographic area for each impact varies, depending on the nature of the impact, whether it is regional, such as air quality or greenhouse gas emissions, or local, such as noise or aesthetics.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 4-3 Basis of Cumulative Analysis Quantification can pose as a challenge for cumulative impacts, as it requires speculative estimates of impacts including, but not limited to the following: the geographic diversity of impacts (impacts of future development may affect different areas); variations in time of impacts; and data for buildout projections may change following subsequent approvals. However, every attempt has been made herein to make sound qualitative judgments of the combined effects of, and relationship between, land uses and potential environmental impacts.
This EIR assesses the overall environmental effects of the General Plan Update at a program level of detail.
This EIR evaluates the overall (cumulative) effects of development in accordance with the community development types, land use assumptions, and all goals and policies contained in the General Plan Update.
The environmental analyses in Sections 5.1 through 5.20 of this EIR consider Project impacts in combination with regional impacts, where applicable, that could be expected as other cities within the greater Los Angeles region approach 2045.
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(1)(b), this section of the EIR describes the environmental effects of the General Plan Update in combination with the effects of regional growth, as forecasted in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council on September 3, 2020. It is important to note that the SCAG projections, which are compiled using a number of sources including adopted plans, historical trends, and interviews with local jurisdictions, tend to be more accurate on a regional level than on a local or city level. It is likely that through a combination of market changes, catalytic projects, updated land use direction in the General Plan Update, and other factors, Lawndale could capture either more or less of expected regional growth than forecasted by SCAG.
Table 4.1, Los Angeles County Growth Projections, summarizes household, population, and employment growth forecasts for the County. The Project considers growth patternsfor the year 2045, consistent with the SCAG forecasts. Using a consistent buildout year (2045) allows for better growth projection comparisons. As shown in Table 4-1, SCAG forecasts Los Angeles County’s population will grow to 11,674,000 persons by 2045, an increase of approximately 19 percent over the existing 2022 population estimate of 9,834,503 persons. The number of households in the Los Angeles County region is projected to increase from approximately 3,446,205 households in 2022 to 4,119,000 households in 2045.
Employment numbers are forecasted to increase from approximately 4,739,900 jobs in 2022 to 5,382,000 jobs in 2045 within the County. Section 5.14, Population and Housing, further elaborates on projected growth assumptions within the Planning Area as well as within Los Angeles County.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 4-4 Basis of Cumulative Analysis Table 4-1
Los Angeles County Growth Projections
Description Population Households Jobs
(Employment)
Existing Conditions (2022)
1 9,834,503 3,446,205* 4,739,900
SCAG 2045 Forecasts2 11,674,000 4,119,000 5,382,000
2045 SCAG: Existing Conditions Difference +1,839,497 +672,795 +642,100 2045 SCAG: Existing Conditions % Difference +18.7% +19.5% +13.5% Notes:
*Assumes a vacancy rate of 5.2%
Source:
1: California Department of Finance, Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State.
January 1, 2023 and California Employment Development Department, Los Angeles County Profile, 2022. 2: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Connect SoCal, Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast, Table 13 (County Forecast of Population, Households, and Employment), September 2020.
As indicated in Section 3.0, Project Description, the City is forecast to have approximately 15,405 housing units by 2045 buildout, which would result in an approximate population of 47,430 persons. Therefore, the General Plan Update would facilitate the addition of 3,942 housing units through 2045 and would result in a population growth of approximately 9,482 persons in the City.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-1 Aesthetics
5.1 AESTHETICS
5.1.1 PURPOSE
This section identifies the existing aesthetic and light/glare conditions withing the Planning Area and provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update.
Because of its inherent subjectivity, difficulties arise in the evaluation of visual quality and the degree of impact that may result from visual change. Additionally, there are limited objectives or quantitative standards to analyze visual quality and individuals respond differently to changes in the visual environment. What may be considered an adverse visual condition to one person may represent an improved visual condition to another.
CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY
When viewing the same landscape, people may have different responses to that landscape and any proposed visual changes, based upon their values, familiarity, concern, or expectations for that landscape and its scenic quality. Since each person’s attachment to and value for a particular landscape is unique, visual changes to that landscape inherently affect viewers differently. However, generalizations can be made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is affected by the viewing distances at which it is seen, such as close-up or far away. The visual sensitivity of a landscape also is affected by the travel speed at which a person is viewing the landscape (high speeds on a highway, low speeds on a hiking trail, or stationary at a residence).
The same feature of a project can be perceived differently by people depending on the distance between the observer and the viewed object. When a viewer is closer to a viewed object in the landscape, more detail can be seen, and there is greater potential influence of the object on visual quality because of its form or scale (relative size of the object in relation to the viewer). When the same object is viewed at background distances, details may be imperceptible but overall forms of terrain and vegetation are evident, and the horizon and skyline are dominant. In the middle-ground, some detail is evident (e.g., the foreground), and landscape elements are seen in context with landforms and vegetation patterns (e.g., the background).
The following terms and concepts are used in this EIR section:
• Scenic vista. An area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a Federal, State, or local agency.
• Scenic highway. Any stretch of public roadway that is designated as a scenic corridor by a Federal, State, or local agency.
• Sensitive receptors. Viewer responses to visual settings are inferred from a variety of factors, including distance, viewing angle, types of viewers, number of viewers, duration of view, and viewer activities. The viewer type and associated viewer sensitivity are distinguished among project viewers in recreational, residential, commercial, military, and industrial areas. Viewer Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-2 Aesthetics
activities can range from a circumstance that encourages a viewer to observe the surroundings more closely (such as recreational activities) to one that discourages close observation (such as commuting in heavy traffic). Viewers in recreational areas are considered to have high sensitivity to visual resources. Residential viewers generally have moderate sensitivity but extended viewing periods. Viewers in commercial, military, and industrial areas are considered to have low sensitivity.
• Viewshed. The viewshed for a project is defined as the surrounding geographic area from which the project is likely to be seen, based on topography, atmospheric conditions, land use patterns, and roadway orientations.
• Visual character typically consists of the landforms, vegetation, water features, and cultural modifications that impart an overall visual impression of an area’s landscape. Scenic areas typically include open space, landscaped corridors, and viewsheds. Visual character is influenced by many different landscape attributes including color contrasts, landform prominence, repetition of geometric forms, and uniqueness of textures among other characteristics. • Light and Glare. Lighting effects are associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors passing through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, building illumination, security lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape lighting, and signage). Light introduction can be a nuisance. Uses such as residences and hotels are considered light sensitive, since occupants have expectations of privacy during evening hours and may be subject to disturbance by bright light sources. Light spill is typically defined as the presence of unwanted light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated. With respect to lighting, the degree of illumination may vary widely depending on the amount of light generated, height of the light source, presence of barriers or obstructions, type of light source, and weather conditions.
Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light on highly polished surfaces such as window glass or reflective materials and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of light-colored surfaces. Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially objectionable sensation as observed by a person as they look directly into the light source of a luminaire. Daytime glare generation is common in urban areas and is typically associated with buildings with exterior facades largely or entirely comprised of highly reflective glass. Glare can also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by the reflection of artificial light sources such as automobile headlights. Glare generation is typically related to either moving vehicles or sun angles, although glare resulting from reflected sunlight can occur regularly at certain times of the year. Glare-sensitive uses include residences, hotels, transportation corridors, and aircraft landing corridors.
5.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Lawndale is located in a highly urbanized area within the South Bay region of southwestern Los Angeles County. The City’s topography is relatively flat with an elevation averaging 59 feet above sea level. There are some high points in the southwestern quadrant of the City that reach 100 feet above sea level. Distant mountain ranges, including the Palos Verdes Hills located approximately six miles to the south, the Santa Monica Mountains approximately 20 miles to the north, and the San Gabriel Mountains Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-3 Aesthetics
approximately 25 miles to the northeast, contribute to the Planning Area’s regional identity, while the City itself is primarily developed with limited natural or scenic resources.
The Planning Area’s visual character stems largely from its urban form. Streets in the Planning Area are generally oriented in a north-south and east-west grid pattern. The City is bisected by both Interstate 405 (I-405), which runs northwest-southeast through the bottom half of the City, and Hawthorne Boulevard (SR-107), which runs north-south through the center of the City. Other major corridors and arterials generally define the Planning Area’s edges. The Planning Area is built out and primarily comprised of established residential neighborhoods. Commercial and light industrial development is generally located along the Planning Area’s corridors, particularly Hawthorne Boulevard. The Planning Area is located within an urban setting and surrounded by residential, commercial, and light industrial uses in adjacent jurisdictions, including the cities of Hawthorne, Redondo Beach, Torrance, and other unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.
SCENIC VISTAS
Scenic views within the Planning Area include long-range views of the Palos Verdes Hills, Santa Monica Mountains, and San Gabriel Mountains. The County of Los Angeles General Plan Conservation and Natural Resources Element identifies scenic resources within the County to include hillsides, scenic viewsheds, and ridgelines, including the Santa Monica Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains (Los Angeles County 2015). As the Planning Area is located a great distance away from these scenic resources, views are highly dependent on atmospheric conditions. Additionally, views of these scenic resources are intermittent from within the Planning Area due to existing development within the Planning Area and surrounding area.
Long-range views are primarily provided along the north-south corridors and at elevated locations within the Planning Area, including in the southwestern quadrant of the City, the I-405, and from multi-story buildings. Other features that contribute to the visual character within the Planning Area include public parks, the density and distribution of existing development, and the architecture of the built environment.
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
There are no Eligible or Designated State Scenic Highways within the Planning Area. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Highway 2 that extends through the San Gabriel Mountains, beginning just north of Route 210 and the City of La Cañada Flintridge (Caltrans 2023). The portion of State Highway 2 that is officially designated as a State Scenic Highway is located approximately 25 miles northeast of the Project site. Due to this distance, the Planning Area is not within the viewshed of this State Scenic Highway. The nearest eligible State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Highway 1, just northwest of the intersection at Venice Boulevard, in the Venice Beach neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles. The portion of State Highway 1 that is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway is located approximately nine miles northwest of the Planning Area.
LIGHT & GLARE
Sensitive light and glare receptors in and around the Planning Area are generally represented by residential uses. During the day, sunlight reflecting from structures is a primary source of glare, while nighttime light and glare can be divided into both stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources of nighttime light include structure illumination, interior lighting, decorative landscape lighting, and Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-4 Aesthetics
streetlights. The principal mobile source of nighttime light and glare is vehicle headlamp illumination. This ambient light environment can be accentuated during periods of low clouds or fog.
The variety of urban land uses in the Planning Area are the main source of daytime and nighttime light and glare. They are typified by single- and multi-family residences, commercial structures, and streetlights. These areas and their associated human activities (inclusive of vehicular traffic) characterize the existing light and glare environment present during daytime and nighttime hours in the Planning Area.
Areas along Hawthorne Boulevard and other major corridors in the Planning Area generally have more sources of glare due to increased vehicle traffic and reflective surfaces associated with increased density and building intensity in these areas.
Within the Planning Area, existing light sources generally include buildings, recreational facilities (i.e., sports fields), and nighttime safety lighting along roadways and parking lots. Interior light emanating from a structure; exterior light sources (i.e., security lighting); or, lighting to illuminate features for safety or decorative purposes may be visible within the existing landscape.
Sunlight reflecting off a reflective surface can result in glare effects and unsafe visual conditions that may interfere with the vision of motorists operating vehicles in the area or that may otherwise generally degrade scenic views. Few structures within the Planning Area exhibit highly reflective materials (i.e., taller buildings with extensive glazing), and therefore, potential glare effects are not considered to be of major concern under existing conditions.
5.1.3 REGULATORY SETTING
STATE
California Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways Program The California Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways Program was created in 1963 to preserve and protect highway corridors located in areas of outstanding natural beauty from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of the adjacent lands. Caltrans maintains its State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways Program, through which segments of the State highway system are designated as being of particular scenic value or interest. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. Interstates, State highways, byways, and parkways are eligible for designation or for recognition as eligible for designation. The Program is governed by the regulations found in the California Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq.
California Streets and Highway Code Section 261 requires local government agencies to take the following actions to protect the scenic appearance of the scenic corridor:
• Regulate land use and density of development;
• Provide detailed land and site planning;
• Prohibit offsite outdoor advertising and control of on-site outdoor advertising; Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-5 Aesthetics
• Pay careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping; and • Scrutinize the design and appearance of structures and equipment.
California Streets and Highway Code Section 263 allows the California State Legislature the authority to identify highways as eligible for designation as a scenic highway. The government with jurisdiction over land abutting a highway considered to be scenic is required to adopt a “scenic corridor protection program” that restricts development, outdoor advertising, and earthmoving activities along the affected segment or corridor (“Corridor Protection Program”). Caltrans must also indicate that the highway segment meets established criteria for the roadway or segment to be designated as scenic.
California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code serves as the basis for the design and construction of buildings in California. In addition to safety, sustainability, new technology and reliability, the California Building Standards Code addresses light pollution and glare hazards through the establishment of maximum allowable backlight, up light, and glare (BUG) ratings.
LOCAL
City of Lawndale Municipal Code
Title 17 of the City of Lawndale Municipal Code contains the City’s Zoning Code, and provides specific development standards that influence the City’s scenic views, visual character, and restrict lighting. The Zoning Code implements the General Plan goals and policies by classifying and regulating the specific uses of land and structures within the City. The Zoning Code identifies standards that include, but are not limited to: minimum lot size and lot coverage requirements; maximum building height; minimum building setbacks; automobile storage requirements; open space and landscaping requirements; and lighting requirements.
Chapter 17.28, Special Use Permit, regulates the issuance of Special Use Permits (SUP). Land uses that require a SUP generally have a unique and distinct impact on the area in which they are located or are capable of impacts to adjacent properties unless given special review and conditions. SUPs may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. Before granting a SUP, the approving body must find that the proposed project meets the conditions set forth in Section 17.28.014, Prerequisite Conditions, including, but not limited to, the presence of site features required to adjust the proposed use with the land and uses in the neighborhood, and consistency with the General Plan. In addition, all SUPs must meet the standard conditions set forth in Section 17.28.105, Standard Conditions, including, but not limited to, the provision of adequate exterior lighting for parking areas, provided such lighting does not disturb surrounding residential or commercial areas.
Chapter 17.30, Design Review, establishes a design review evaluation procedure that is intended to support orderly development by ensuring that proposed residential structures meet all aspects of the Zoning Code, are harmonious with the surrounding area within residential zones, and do not pose a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the City and its citizens. The design review procedure is decided upon by either the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, depending on the type of development and is decided according to design criteria established in Section 17.30.040, Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-6 Aesthetics
Design Criteria, which includes, but is not limited to: building height, bulk and other design features; site layout, orientation and location of structures; illumination and landscaping; respect for natural terrain and landscape; and substantial compliance with adopted design guidelines.
Section 17.36.220, Temporary Storage of Construction Materials, provides aesthetic-related standards for worksites and construction staging areas, including that such areas are kept clear of trash, dirt, and debris; are adequately screened; and that, following completion of construction, the property is restored to the same or an improved condition to that which existed prior to the contractor’s use for the temporary office and/or storage of materials and equipment.
Section 17.72.071, Improvement of Parking Areas, requires that projects abutting a residential zone or residential project must direct lighting to illuminate parking areas away from adjoining residential premises and adequately shield headlight glare.
Sections 17.48.203, Construction Standards Regulating Apartment Houses, and 17.48.273, Construction Standards Regulating Apartment Houses, provides standards applicable to apartments within the R-3 and R-4 zones, respectively. Said standards include a provision that lighting used to illuminate the premises be directed away from adjacent properties.
Section 17.60.020, P Parking Zone—Conditions and Development Standards, provides that lighting to illuminate parking areas be so arranged as to reflect the light away from any residential zone.
Section 17.76.140, Commercial and Industrial Zones, contains provisions to restrict lighting and illumination of all signs in commercial and industrial zones, and to legal, nonresidential uses in residential zones. In these zones, signs with internal or external illumination are allowed, subject to a maximum of forty watts; however, flashing, moving or sequential operation is prohibited. Additionally, all exterior lighting fixtures must be directed onto the subject property with no direct glare visible from adjoining residentially zoned and/or developed properties. The maximum allowable illumination at the subject property line is one-half foot candle.
City of Lawndale Residential Development Standards and Design Guidelines Adopted in 2019, the City of Lawndale Residential Development Standards and Design Guidelines contains both residential development standards and design guidelines intended to improve the quality of life throughout the City's residential neighborhoods; ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding developments; and assists the public in understanding and implementing principles of design.
5.1.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to aesthetics and light/glare. The issues presented in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (refer to Impact Statement AES-1); • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway (refer to Impact Statement AES-2); Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-7 Aesthetics
• In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and/or in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality (refer to Impact Statement AES-3); and/or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (refer to Impact Statement AES-4).
5.1.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
AES-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact Analysis: Scenic views within the Planning Area include long-range views of the Palos Verdes Hills, Santa Monica Mountains, and San Gabriel Mountains. Due to the Planning Area’s relatively flat topography and distance from these scenic resources, views are highly dependent on atmospheric conditions. Additionally, views of these scenic resources are intermittent from within the Planning Area due to existing development within and surrounding the area. Long-range views are primarily provided along the north-south corridors and at elevated locations within the Planning Area.
Implementation of the Project would result in new development and intensification of existing urban uses along major corridors, including Hawthorne Boulevard. While the Project does not include any specific development proposals, the Project could facilitate future development projects at higher densities and intensities than currently exist. The City’s Zoning Code would regulate development within the City, including building heights, setbacks, massing, and design and architectural regulations. Pursuant to Chapter 17.30, Design Review, future residential development projects would be reviewed for conformance with the City’s established design criteria. Each future development project would be subject to the City’s development standards, site plan and/or design review process to ensure conformance with the General Plan Update and the City’s established development standards. Future development within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) that is under the County’s land use control would be subject to the County’s entitlement requirements, regulations, and review processes.
The General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions are intended to ensure that new development and intensification of existing urban uses within the Planning Area would not result in substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista. Proposed Land Use Element Policy LU-3.1 requires that the compatibility of new development with surrounding uses and the ability of new development to enhance the character of the surrounding area be considered during the development review process. Policy LU-3.3 requires land use compatibility through adherence to the policies, standards, and regulations in the Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and other regulations or administrative procedures that manage the form and relationship of projects and uses. Policy LU-3.3 requires that the scale and massing of new development provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk that are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjacent lower density neighborhoods. Policy LU-4.2 directs the development and enforcement of development standards and objective design guidelines that provide clear direction for achieving quality community design in new development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City’s desired aesthetic. Policy LU-4.3 requires that new development use site planning techniques (e.g., the placement of proposed structures, building materials, landscaping, access ways) that consider the physical characteristics of its site and surrounding land uses. Action LU-3a directs the City to prepare and adopt Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-8 Aesthetics
Objective Design Standards applicable to all new multi-family residential and mixed-use development.
Action LU-3b ensures all projects are reviewed and processed per CEQA Guidelines. Action LU-4e implements the City’s existing development standards, or where not in place, creates new standards (either through an update to the Zoning Code or update to the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan or other regulating tool) to regulate new construction and revisions to existing buildings. In particular, new development standards would be created for higher density stand-alone residential projects and mixeduse projects to ensure that quality infill developments can be created within the areas identified for focused growth.
Although the potential for new residential development at higher densities could occur within the Planning Area, scenic vistas and resources do not readily occur within the Planning Area and long-range views are limited due to the existing topography and urbanized nature of the area. Thus, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions:
LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-3.1: Surrounding Uses. Consider as part of the development review process the compatibility of new development with surrounding uses and the ability of new development to enhance the character of the surrounding area.
Policy LU-3.3: Code Compliance. Require land use compatibility through adherence to the policies, standards, and regulations in the Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and other regulations or administrative procedures that manage the form and relationship of projects and uses.
Policy LU-3.5: Scale and Massing. Require that the scale and massing of new development provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk that are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjacent lower density neighborhoods.
Action LU-3a: Prepare and adopt Objective Design Standards applicable to all new multi-family residential and mixed-use development.
Action LU-3b: Ensure all projects are reviewed and processed per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Policy LU-4.2: Standards and Guidelines. Develop and enforce development standards and objective design guidelines that provide clear direction for achieving quality community design in new development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City’s desired aesthetic.
Policy LU-4.3: Site Planning. Require that new development use site planning techniques (e.g., the placement of proposed structures, building materials, landscaping, access ways) that consider the physical characteristics of its site and surrounding land uses, maximize access to sunlight and natural airflow between buildings, and optimize energy efficiency.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-9 Aesthetics
Action LU-4e: Continue to implement the City’s existing development standards, or create new standards, if appropriate, to regulate new construction and revisions to existing buildings.
New development standards shall be created for higher density stand-alone residential projects and mixed-use projects to promote quality infill development.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
AES-2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact Analysis: As discussed above, there are no Eligible or Designated State Scenic Highways within the Planning Area. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Highway 2 that extends through the San Gabriel Mountains, beginning just north of Route 210 and the City of La Cañada Flintridge. The portion of State Highway 2 that is officially designated as a State Scenic Highway is located approximately 25 miles northeast of the Project site. Due to this distance, the Planning Area is not within the viewshed of this State Scenic Highway. The nearest eligible State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Highway 1, just northwest of the intersection at Venice Boulevard, in the Venice Beach neighborhood of the city of Los Angeles. The portion of State Highway 1 that is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway is located approximately nine miles northwest of the Planning Area. Due to the distance and relatively flat intervening topography, the Planning Area is not within the viewshed of State Highway 1.
As there are no officially designated or eligible scenic highways located within the viewshed of the Planning Area, implementation of the General Plan Update would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. No impact would occur in this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no relevant proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: No Impact.
AES-3: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact Analysis:
Public Resources Code Section 21071 defines an “Urbanized area” as:
(a) An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
(1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-10 Aesthetics
(2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.
According to the California Department of Finance, the City has a current (2023) population of 30,882.
The adjacent City of Torrance has a population of 143,057. Combined, the cities have a population of 173,939, which exceeds 100,000 persons; thus, the City qualifies as being within an “Urbanized Area.” Therefore, a significant impact would occur if a future development project associated with implementation of the Project conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
VISUAL CHARACTER – SHORT TERM
Construction activities for future development accommodated through implementation of the General Plan Update could temporarily degrade the visual character and quality of the respective development site and/or its immediate surrounding. Visible features associated with construction activities would include exposed building pads and staging areas for grading, excavation, and construction equipment. In addition, temporary structures could be located on the respective development site during various stages of construction, within materials storage areas, or associated with construction debris piles on site.
Exposed trenches, roadway bedding, spoils/debris piles, and steel plates would be visible during construction of street and utility infrastructure improvements. These materials could temporarily degrade the existing visual character and quality of the respective development sites and surrounding areas.
All construction activities related to the General Plan Update would be temporary in nature and all construction equipment would ultimately be removed from individual project sites following completion of construction activities. Therefore, changes to local visual character and quality associated with construction of future development would be temporary, and impacts would be less than significant.
VISUAL CHARACTER – LONG TERM
The General Plan Update would support additional development beyond existing conditions. This development could increase residential densities and non-residential land use intensities in specific areas and could impact the City’s visual character over the long-term. In general, the General Plan Update Land Use Element proposes an increase in building density and intensity areas along major corridors, including Hawthorne Boulevard, in accordance with State and regional housing and climate change goals. For instance, as shown in Table 3-3, General Plan 2045 Buildout by Land Use Designation, the majority of new residential development (3,540 units) is anticipated to occur within the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan (HBSP) area. The HBSP would govern land uses within the HBSP area, including maximum densities and intensities of development, as well as development standardsspecific to the HBSP area. The proposed Land Use Element also includes the Housing Opportunity Overlay, which allows for a maximum density of 100 dwelling units per acre on sites outside of the HBSP area, in accordance with 2021-2029 Housing Element. The Project is also expected to result in an increase of 808,864 square feet of new non-residential building square footage, the majority of which is anticipated to occur within the proposed Commercial (C) land use designation and HBSP area. Refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, for a description of land use designations proposed under the General Plan Update. As shown in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-5, as part of the General Plan Update, an increase in densities and intensities is proposed generally along Hawthorne Boulevard and Redondo Beach Boulevard.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-11 Aesthetics
The General Plan Update incorporates consistent and compatible development intensities that would maintain and enhance the overall visual character/quality of the Planning Area. Specifically, the Land Use Element includes policies and actions, maps, and diagrams to control and direct the general distribution, location, and extent of land uses within the Planning Area. For example, Policy LU-1.1 requires the provision of an appropriate land use plan that promotes efficient development; fosters and enhances community livability and public health; sustains economic vitality; promotes efficient development and multiple transportation options; reduces pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the expenditure of energy and other resources; and ensures compatibility between uses consistent with the land use designations identified in the Land Use Element and Land Use Map. Policy LU-4.2 directs the City to develop and enforce development standards and objective design guidelines that provide clear direction for achieving quality community design in new development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City’s desired aesthetic. Action LU-1a directs the City to create consistency between the City’s Zoning Code and Zoning Map as appropriate to ensure consistency with the Land Use Element and designations shown on the Land Use Map. Action LU-1b ensures the City updates the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan as appropriate to ensure consistency with the Land Use Element, designations shown on the Land Use Map, and the City’s adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. Action LU-1c directs the City to review the Zoning Code and update as appropriate to reflect Land Use goals, policies, and implementation actions included in the General Plan Update. Action LU-4e directs the implementation the City’s existing development standards, or where not in place, creates new standards to regulate new construction and revisions to existing buildings. Guiding future growth and development based on the General Plan Update would ensure future development complements and protects the quality of the existing environment.
All future development would also be subject to conformance with applicable requirements in the Lawndale Municipal Code. The City’s Zoning Code (Title 17) would regulate maximum building height, building setbacks, parking and garage/carport placement, landscaping and screening requirements, and other development characteristics in place in each zoning district to protect the City’s long-term visual character. Pursuant to Chapter 17.30, Design Review, future residential development projects would be subject to project-specific design review to ensure compatibility with the site surrounding area, and consistency with design standards and guidelines (refer to Impact AES-2). Future development within the SOI that is under the County’s land use control would be subject to the County’s entitlement requirements, regulations, and review processes. Additionally, applicable future land use and development review applications would undergo environmental review on a project-by-project basis prior to consideration by the decision-making authority. If necessary, mitigation would be recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The implementation of policies and actions contained in the General Plan Update and compliance with the Lawndale Municipal Code would ensure that new development in the Planning Area would be designed to enhance the visual quality of the area and be visually compatible with existing development and open space resources. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would notsubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-12 Aesthetics
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions:
LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-1.1: Sustainable Land Use Pattern. Provide an appropriate land use plan that promotes efficient development; fosters and enhances community livability and public health; sustains economic vitality; promotes efficient development and multiple transportation options; reduces pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the expenditure of energy and other resources; and ensures compatibility between uses consistent with the land use designations identified in this Element and Land Use Map (LU-1).
Action LU-1a: Create consistency between the City’s Zoning Code and Zoning Map and General Plan.
Action LU-1b: Update the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan as appropriate to ensure consistency with this Land Use Element, designations shown on Figure LU-1, and the City’s adopted 2021- 2029 Housing Element.
Action LU-1c: Review the Zoning Code and update as appropriate to reflect Land Use goals, policies, and implementation actions included in this Plan.
Action LU-1d: As part of development review process, ensure that residential and non-residential developments fall within the minimum and maximum density requirements and/or allowed floor-area-ratios stipulated on the Land Use Map and included within the Land Use Descriptions. Projects shall also be reviewed for consistency with the development standards and density requirements established by any applicable Specific Plan governing the area in question.
Policy LU-3.3: Code Compliance. Require land use compatibility through adherence to the policies, standards, and regulations in the Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and other regulations or administrative procedures that manage the form and relationship of projects and uses.
Policy LU-3.9 Interagency Cooperation. Establish and maintain an ongoing liaison with Caltrans, LA Metro, utility companies, adjacent cities, and other major government and private agencies to help minimize the traffic, noise, and visual impacts of their facilities and operations.
Policy LU-4.2: Standards and Guidelines. Develop and enforce development standards and objective design guidelines that provide clear direction for achieving quality community design in new development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City’s desired aesthetic.
Policy LU-4.3: Site Planning. Require that new development use site planning techniques (e.g., the placement of proposed structures, building materials, landscaping, access ways) that consider the physical characteristics of its site and surrounding land uses, maximize access to sunlight and natural airflow between buildings, and optimize energy efficiency.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-13 Aesthetics
Action LU-4e Continue to implement the City’s existing development standards, or create new standards if appropriate, to regulate new construction and revisions to existing buildings.
New standards shall be created for higher density stand-alone residential projects and mixed-use projects to promote quality infill developments.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
AES-4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Analysis: Future development accommodated through implementation of the General Plan Update could introduce new sources of light or glare with the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views. Light and glare impacts could result from new light sources such as street lighting, interior and exterior building lighting (including for safety purposes), vehicle headlights, illuminated signage, and new glare sources such as reflective building materials, roofing materials, and windows. These new sources of light and glare would be most visible from development along adjacent roadways, and to receptors such as residents and traveling motorists.
All lighting installed in future development projects as a result of the implementation of the General Plan Update would be subject to conformance with applicable Zoning Code requirements and guided by the General Plan Update Land Use Element, which includes policies and actions to reduce potential light and glare impacts. Land Use Element Policy LU-3.7 requires new uses to provide buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur, such as decorative walls, setbacks and landscaping, restricted vehicular access, parking enclosures, and lighting control. Action LU-3c directs the City to evaluate development proposals for land use and transportation network compatibility with existing surrounding or abutting development and neighborhoods. Action LU-3d requires that the City review the Zoning Code, and amend it if necessary to create standards addressing appropriate treatments to buffer nonresidential uses from residential and other sensitive uses. Action LU-3e requires as part of the development review process, the analysis of land use compatibility to require adequate buffers and/or architectural enhancements that protect sensitive receptors from intrusion of development activities that may cause unwanted nuisances and health risks. In addition, pursuant to Section 17.72.071, Improvement of Parking Areas, projects abutting a residential zone or residential project must direct lighting to illuminate parking areas away from adjoining residential premises and adequately shield headlight glare.
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would notresult in adverse light and glare impacts.
Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-14 Aesthetics
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions:
LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-3.7: Development Buffers. Require new uses to provide buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur, such as decorative walls, setbacks and landscaping, restricted vehicular access, parking enclosures, and lighting control.
Action LU-3c: Through the development review process, evaluate development proposals for land use and transportation network compatibility with existing surrounding or abutting development and neighborhoods.
Action LU-3d: Review the Zoning Code, and amend it if necessary, to create standards addressing appropriate treatments to buffer nonresidential uses from residential and other sensitive uses.
Action LU-3e: Analyze land use compatibility through the development review process to require adequate buffers and/or architectural enhancements that protect sensitive receptors from intrusion of development activities that may cause unwanted nuisances and health risks.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analysis, identifies projected growth within the Planning Area with the potential to interact with the proposed Project to the extent that a significant cumulative effect may occur. The cumulative projects’ setting for aesthetics is the City.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Impact Analysis: The Planning Area does not contain any scenic vistas or scenic resources; long-range views of the Palos Verdes Hills, Santa Monica Mountains, and San Gabriel Mountains are limited and primarily provided along major north-south corridors due to the existing development within the City and surrounding area. The Planning Area, and the surrounding areas, are developed and within an urbanized area. Development and/or redevelopment of the Planning Area would be subject to the regulations and requirements of the City’s Zoning Code, including building heights, setbacks, massing, and design and architectural regulations, while projects in the SOI would be subject to the County’s standards and requirements. Future development projects in the City would be subject to the City’s development standards, site plan and/or design review process to ensure conformance with City’s established development standards. Although the potential for new development at higher densities/intensities could occur with implementation of the Project, scenic vistas and resources do not readily occur within the City and long-range views are limited due to the existing topography and urbanized nature of the area. Further, future projects implemented under the General Plan Update would be required to be consistent with the Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-15 Aesthetics
General Plan Update policies and actions and adopted regulations pertaining to aesthetics. With implementation of the adopted policies and regulations described above, the proposed General Plan Update would not considerably contribute to permanent changes in visual character, such as obstruction of scenic views. The polices and actions included within the General Plan Update and compliance with the Zoning Code would reduce the cumulative effect of the General Plan Update on visual character to a lessthan-significant level. Thus, the Project’s incremental effects involving the potential for substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista would not be cumulatively considerable.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Impact Analysis: As there are no officially designated or eligible scenic highways located within the viewshed of the Planning Area, future development and cumulative development associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. Thus, the Project’s incremental effects involving the potential for substantial damage to scenic resources within a State scenic highway would not be cumulatively considerable.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no relevant proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: No Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact Analysis: Future development and cumulative development are located within the Planning Area and are therefore within an “Urbanized Area.” As discussed above, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in new development and intensification of existing urban uses along major corridors.
While the Project does not include any specific development proposals, the Project could facilitate future development projects within these areas at higher densities and intensities than currently exist.
Development within the City is subject to the Lawndale Zoning Code, which provides for project-specific design review of future development proposals, which would ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions, and the Zoning Code. Individual development projects are reviewed subject to the specific zoning district and development being proposed. Further, future projects implemented under the General Plan Update would be required to be consistent with the General Plan Update policies and actions and adopted regulations pertaining to scenic quality. The Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-16 Aesthetics
proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Thus, the Project’s incremental effects involving potential conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would not be cumulatively considerable.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Analysis: Future development associated with the General Plan Update and development in the surrounding communities could introduce new sources of light or glare with the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views. All lighting installed in future development projects would be subject to conformance with the General Plan Update and applicable Zoning Code requirements. Additionally, pursuant to Chapter 17.30, Design Review, future residential development projects would be reviewed for conformance with the City’s established design criteria, including project illumination. Further, future projects implemented under the General Plan Update would be required to be consistent with the General Plan Update policies and actions and adopted regulations pertaining to aesthetics. With implementation of the adopted policies and regulations described above, the proposed General Plan Update would not considerably contribute to permanent changes in visual character, such as increased lighting resulting in a substantial degradation. The polices and actions included within the General Plan Update and compliance with the Zoning Code would reduce the cumulative effect of the General Plan Update on lighting and glare to a less-than-significant level. Thus, through compliance with the City’s established regulatory requirements, the Project’s incremental effects involving the potential to create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would not be cumulative considerable.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.1.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Aesthetics impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant and no significant unavoidable aesthetics impacts would occur as a result of the General Plan Update.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-17 Aesthetics
5.1.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Finance (DOF), Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, and Counties, and the State, January 2021-2023, May 2023.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa, accessed March 14, 2023.
Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan, October 2015.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.1-18 Aesthetics
This page intentionally left blank.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-1 Agriculture Resources
5.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
This section identifies the existing agricultural conditions within the Planning Area and provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update.
5.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection, identifies important farmland throughout the State through its Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP is non-regulatory and was developed to inventory land and provide categorical definitions of important farmlands; and, provide consistent and impartial data to decision makers for use in assessing present status, reviewing trends, and planning for the future of California’s agricultural land resources. The program does not necessarily reflect local General Plan actions, urban needs, changing economic conditions, proximity to market, and other factors, which may be taken into consideration when government considers agricultural land use policies.
Agriculture land, in the form of designated Important Farmlands as defined by the California DOC, makes up zero percent (no acres) of the City’s total acreage (DOC 2023a). There are no lands within the Planning Area that are designated for agricultural use on the existing or proposed Lawndale General Plan Land Use Maps (see Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-5).
IMPORTANT FARMLANDS
The DOC, as part of its FMMP, periodically prepares Important Farmland Maps, which are a hybrid of resource quality (soils) and land use information intended to document the suitability of land for agricultural production. The Los Angeles County Important Farmland Map identifies five agriculturerelated categories and three non-agricultural categories:
Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland has the most favorable combination of physical and chemical features, enabling it to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. This land possesses the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. In order to qualify for this classification, the land must have produced irrigated crops at some point during the two update cycles prior to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapping. The Planning Area does not contain any Prime Farmland.
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland; however, it possesses minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes and/or less ability to store moisture. In order to qualify for this classification, the land must have produced irrigated crops at some point during the two update cycles prior to NRCS mapping. The Planning Area does not contain any Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-2 Agriculture Resources Unique Farmland
Unique Farmland is of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops.
Unique Farmland includes areas that do not meet the above stated criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, but that have been used for the production of specific high economic value crops during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to current farming methods. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards, as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been farmed at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
The Planning Area does not contain any land designated as Unique Farmland.
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Local Importance is vital to the local agricultural economy, as determined by the County Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee. The County defines Farmland of Local Importance as land with the same characteristics as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, with the exception of irrigation. The Planning Area does not contain any land classified as Farmland of Local Importance.
Grazing Land
Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres. The Planning Area does not contain grazing land.
Urban and Built-Up Land
Urban and Built-Up Land consists of land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to one and a half acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. The entirety of the Planning Area is considered Urban and Built-Up land. Additionally, nearly all of the surrounding area is also considered Urban and Built-Up land.
Other Land
Other Land consists of land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include lowdensity rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and non-agricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. The Planning Area does not contain land designated as Other Land.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-3 Agriculture Resources Water
Water consists of perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres. The Planning Area does not contain any bodies of water recognized by the FMMP.
FARMLAND PRESERVATION
The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was adopted in 1965 to encourage the preservation of the State's agricultural lands and to prevent their premature conversion to urban uses. The Williamson Act is described in greater detail in Section 5.2.2, Regulatory Setting.
There are no lands within the Planning Area that are currently under a Williamson Act contract.
FORESTRY RESOURCES
Forest land is defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), and includes "land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” Timber land is defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526, and means “land, other than land owned by the Federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis.
There are no forest lands or timber lands located within the Planning Area.
5.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize Federal programs' contribution to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses by ensuring that Federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. The NRCS provides technical assistance to Federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes, and nonprofit organizations that desire to develop farmland protection programs and policies. The NRCS summarizes FPPA implementation in an annual report to Congress.
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program
The NRCS administers the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), a voluntary program aimed at keeping productive farmland in agricultural uses. Under the FRPP, the NRCS provides matching funds to state, local, or tribal government entities and nonprofit organizations with existing farmland protection programs to purchase conservation easements. According to the 1996 Farm Bill, the goal of the program is to protect between 170,000 and 340,000 acres of farmland per year. Participating landowners agree Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-4 Agriculture Resources not to convert the land to non-agricultural use and retain all rights to use the property for agriculture. A conservation plan must be developed for all lands enrolled based upon the standards contained in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide. A minimum of 30 years is required for conservation easements and priority is given to applications with perpetual easements. The NRCS provides up to 50 percent of the fair market value of the easement being conserved. To qualify for a conservation easement, farm or ranch land must meet several criteria. The land must be:
● Prime, Unique, or other productive soil, as defined by NRCS based on factors such as water moisture regimes, available water capacity, developed irrigation water supply, soil temperature range, acid-alkali balance, water table, soil sodium content, potential for flooding, erodibility, permeability rate, rock fragment content, and soil rooting depth; ● Included in a pending offer to be managed by a nonprofit organization, state, tribal, or local farmland protection program;
● Privately owned;
● Placed under a conservation plan;
● Large enough to sustain agricultural production;
● Accessible to markets for the crop that the land produces; and ● Surrounded by parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural production.
STATE
California Department of Conservation (DOC)
The California DOC administers and supports a number of programs, including the Williamson Act, the California Farmland Conservancy Program, the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP), and the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). These programs are designed to preserve agricultural land and provide data on conversion of agricultural land to urban use. The DOC has authority for the approval of agreements entered into under the WAEEP. Key DOC tools available for land conservation planning are conservation grants, tax incentives to keep land in agriculture or open space, and farmland mapping and monitoring.
California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, better known as the Williamson Act (California Administrative Code Section 51200 et seq.), creates an arrangement whereby private landowner’s contract with local governments to voluntarily restrict land to agricultural or related open space uses. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes, at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value, which saves landowners from 20 percent to 75 percent in property tax liability each year. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the State via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971 (California Government Code Section 16140- 16154). Initially signed for a minimum 10-year period, the contracts are automatically renewed each year for a successive minimum 10-year period unless a notice of non-renewal is filed, or a contract cancellation is approved by the local government.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-5 Agriculture Resources Farmland Security Zone
A Farmland Security Zone is an area created within an agricultural preserve by a board of supervisors (board) or city council (council) upon request by a landowner or group of landowners. An agricultural preserve defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of the board or council having jurisdiction.
Agricultural preserves must generally be at least 100 acres in size. Farmland Security Zone contracts offer landowners greater property tax reduction. Land restricted by a Farmland Security Zone contract is valued for property assessment purposes at 65 percent of its Williamson Act valuation or 65 percent of its Proposition 13 valuation, whichever is lower.
Forest Practice Rules
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) implements the laws that regulate timber harvesting on privately-owned lands. These laws are contained in the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 which established a set of rules known as the Forest Practice Rules to be applied to forest management related activities (i.e., timber harvests, timberland conversions, fire hazard removal, etc.). They are intended to ensure that timber harvesting is conducted in a manner that will preserve and protect fish, wildlife, forests, and streams. Under the Forest Practice Act, a Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) is submitted to CAL FIRE by the landowner outlining what timber is proposed to be harvested, harvesting method, and the steps that will be taken to prevent damage to the environment. If the landowner intends to convert timberland to non-timberland uses, such as a winery or vineyard, a Timberland Conversion Permit is required in addition to the THP. It is CAL FIRE's intent that a THP will not be approved which fails to adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives from the range of measures set out or provided for in the Forest Practice Rules, which would substantially lessen or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from timber harvest activities. THPs are required to be prepared by Registered Professional Foresters who are licensed to prepare these plans. For projects involving Timberland Conversion Permits, CAL FIRE acts as lead agency under CEQA, and the county or city acts as a responsible agency.
5.2.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to agricultural and forestry resources. The issues presented in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would:
● Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use (refer to Impact Statement AG-1); ● Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract (refer to Impact Statement AG-2);
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-6 Agriculture Resources ● Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)); ● Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; and/or ● Involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use (refer to Impact Statement AG-3).
There are no forest lands or timber lands located within the Planning Area. There are also no parcels that are currently zoned as forest land, timber, or timber production. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have no impact on forest land, timber, or timber production and these impacts will not be discussed further.
5.2.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
AG-1: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? Impact Analysis: The Planning Area is located within an urbanized area and is generally developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. As described above, the FMMP classifies the Planning Area as Urban and Built-Up Land. The Planning Area does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance pursuant to the FMMP. Additionally, there are no existing lands within the Planning Area that are designated for agricultural use on the existing or proposed Lawndale Land Use Map. Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur in this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no relevant proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: No Impact.
AG-2: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Impact Analysis: Although the General Plan Update does not include any zone changes at this time, a future zoning update is anticipated to bring zoning into compliance with the General Plan Update.
However, since the City does not have any zoning districts exclusive to agriculture uses, the General Plan Update, and subsequent zoning code update, would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
The Planning Area is located within an urbanized area and is generally developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. The Planning Area does not contain land under agricultural production, nor are any parcels within the Planning Area under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would not Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-7 Agriculture Resources conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contact. No impact would occur in this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no relevant proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: No Impact.
AG-3: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Impact Analysis: There are no forest lands within the Planning Area, nor are there suitable environmental conditions for forest land to be developed; therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
The Planning Area is located within an urbanized area and is generally developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. As described above, the Planning Area does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance pursuant to the FMMP; there are no existing lands within the Planning Area that are designated for agricultural use on the existing or proposed Lawndale Land Use Map; and the Planning Area does not contain land under agricultural production. Thus, the General Plan Update would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur in this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no relevant proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: No Impact.
5.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analysis, establishes growth and development within Los Angeles County as anticipated by SCAG as having the potential to interact with the proposed Project to the extent that a significant cumulative effect may occur. The cumulative projects’ setting for agricultural resources would be the Los Angeles region.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Impact Analysis: The Planning Area is located within an urbanized area and is generally developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. As described above, the FMMP classifies the Planning Area as Urban and Built-Up Land. The Planning Area does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-8 Agriculture Resources Farmland of Statewide Importance pursuant to the FMMP. Additionally, there are no existing lands within the Planning Area that are designated for agricultural use on the existing or proposed Lawndale Land Use Map and the Planning Area does not contain land under agricultural production. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact involving the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use and as a result would not contribute to a potential cumulative impact in this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no relevant proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: No Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Impact Analysis: The Planning Area, along with the cumulative project sites, is located within an urbanized area and is generally developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. The Planning Area does not contain land under agricultural production, nor are any parcels within the Planning Area under a Williamson Act contract. Because the City does not have any zoning districts exclusive to agriculture uses, the General Plan Update, and subsequent zoning code update, would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact involving a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract, and as a result would not contribute to a potential cumulative impact in this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no relevant proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: No Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Impact Analysis: The Planning Area, along with the cumulative project sites, is located within an urbanized area and is generally developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. There are no forest lands within the Planning Area, nor are there suitable environmental conditions for forest land to be developed; therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Planning Area does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance pursuant to the FMMP; there are no existing lands within the Planning Area that are designated for agricultural use on the existing or proposed Lawndale Land Use Map; and the Planning Area does not contain land under agricultural production. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact involving the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and as a result would not contribute to a potential cumulative impact in this regard.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-9 Agriculture Resources Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no relevant proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: No Impact.
5.2.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Agricultural impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant. No significant unavoidable agricultural impacts would occur as a result of the General Plan Update.
5.2.7 REFERENCES
Department of Conservation (DOC), California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed March 6, 2023a.
Department of Conservation (DOC), Important Farmland Categories, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx, accessed March 6, 2023b.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.2-10 Agriculture Resources This page intentionally left blank.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-1 Air Quality
5.3 AIR QUALITY
5.3.1 PURPOSE
This section identifies the existing air quality conditions within the Planning Area and provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update.
This section is primarily based upon the air quality emissions analysis and modeling prepared by De Novo Planning Group, and included as Appendix B, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data.
One comment was received during the NOP comment period regarding air quality. The comment was received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD provides recommendations on the analysis of potential air quality impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan Update.
5.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State into 15 air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Planning Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600-square mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SCAB includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, as well as all of Orange County, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area of Riverside County.
The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the Basin is a function of the area’s natural physical characteristics (weather and topography), as well as man-made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors, such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography, all affect the accumulation and dispersion of air pollutants throughout the Basin.
LOCAL CLIMATE AND METEROLOGY
The topography and climate of southern California combine to make the SCAB an area highly favorable for forming air pollution. A warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. Within the atmosphere, the warm upper layer forms a cap over the cooler surface layer, which traps the pollutants near the ground. Light winds can further limit ventilation. The region also experiences periods of hot, dry winds from the desert, known as Santa Ana winds. If the Santa Ana winds are strong, they can surpass the sea breeze, which blows from the ocean to the land, and carry the suspended dust and pollutants out to the ocean. If the winds are weak, they are opposed by the sea breeze and cause stagnation, resulting in high pollution events.
The annual average temperature varies little throughout much of the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas, such as where the Project site is located, show less variability in annual minimum and maximum Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-2 Air Quality
temperatures compared to inland areas. The majority of the annual rainfall in the basin occurs between November and April. Summer rainfall is minimal and is generally limited to scattered thunderstorms in the coastal regions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the basin along the coastal westerly side of the mountains. Year-to-year patterns in rainfall are unpredictable because of fluctuations in the weather.
Temperature inversions limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. Among the most common temperature inversions in the basin are radiation inversions, which form on clear winter nights when cold air off mountains sink to the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants near the source. Other types of temperature inversions that affect the basin include marine, subsidence, and high-pressure inversions.
Summers are often periods of hazy visibility and occasionally unhealthful air. Strong temperature inversions may occur that limit the vertical depth through which air pollution can be dispersed. Air pollutants concentrate because they cannot rise through the inversion layer and disperse. These inversions are more common and persistent during the summer months. Over time, sunlight produces photochemical reactions within this inversion layer that creates ozone, a particularly harmful air pollutant.
Occasionally, strong thermal convections occur which allows the air pollutants to rise high enough to pass over the mountains and ultimately dilute the smog cloudtrap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source.
In the winter, light nocturnal winds result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the mountains toward the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms a type of inversion known as a radiation inversion. Such winds are characterized by stagnation and poor local mixing and trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air pollution “hot spots” in heavily developed coastal areas of the basin, there is not enough traffic to cause any winter air pollution problems.
The temperature and precipitation levels for the Los Angeles International Airport, the closest station with data, are in Table 5.3-1, Metrological Summary. Table 5.3-1 shows that August is typically the warmest month and January is typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the Planning Area varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid-latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-3 Air Quality
Table 5.3-1
Meteorological Summary
Month
Temperature (˚F) Average Precipitation
Average High Average Low (inches)
January 65.2 47.5 2.65
February 65.3 48.9 2.67
March 65.3 50.5 1.85
April 67.4 53.0 0.77
May 69.1 56.4 0.17
June 71.9 59.7 0.05
July 75.1 62.9 0.02
August 76.3 63.8 0.07
September 76.0 62.6 0.16
October 73.6 58.5 0.39
November 70.2 52.3 1.40
December 65.9 47.9 1.82
Annual Average 70.1 55.3 12.02
Source: Western Regional Climate Center, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5114, accessed on May 1, 2023.
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by State and Federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants.
ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant O3 is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants.
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-4 Air Quality
disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide.
Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the “good” O3 layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOX are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight.
High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.
While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOX are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOX) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels.
Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and Federal PM2.5 Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-5 Air Quality
standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards.
On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates the Basin as a nonattainment area for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging. On July 8, 2016, EPA made a finding that the South Coast has attained the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards based on 2011-2013 data.
However, the Basin remains in nonattainment as the EPA has not determined that California has met the Federal Clean Air Act requirements for redesignating the Basin nonattainment area to attainment.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide is often used interchangeably with SOX. Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints.
Exceptions to the VOC designation include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The terms VOC and reactive organic gases (ROG), discussed below, are often used interchangeably.
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOCs, ROGs are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or longterm (chronic) or carcinogenic (i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness).
TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-6 Air Quality
painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes approximately 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines.
Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) is a term used in the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and includes a variety of pollutants generated or emitted by industrial production activities. Identified as TACs under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), ten pollutants have been singled out through ambient air quality data as being the most substantial health risks in California. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, brain and nervous system damage, and respiratory disorders.
TACs do not have ambient air quality standards because no safe levels of TACs can be determined.
Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by calculating the health risks associated with a given exposure. The requirements of the Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 2588) apply to facilities that use, produce, or emit toxic chemicals. Facilities subject to the toxic emission inventory requirements of AB 2588 must prepare, submit, and periodically update their toxic emission inventory plans and reports.
Toxic contaminants often result from fugitive emissions during fuel storage and transfer activities, and from leaking valves and pipes. For example, the electronics industry, including semiconductor manufacturing, uses highly toxic chlorinated solvents in semiconductor production processes.
Automobile exhaust also contains toxic air pollutants such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene.
Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road diesel-fueled engines contribute approximately 24 percent of the Statewide total, with an additional 71 percent attributed to other mobile sources, such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources contribute approximately five percent of total DPM in the State. It should be noted that CARB has developed several plans and programs to reduce diesel emissions such as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP), and the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System (DOORS). PERP and DOORS allow owners or operators of portable engines and certain other types of equipment to register their equipment in order to operate them in the State without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts.
Diesel exhaust and many individual substances contained in it (e.g., arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that can lead to cancer. Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC evaluated by OEHHA. CARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles.
In its comprehensive assessment of diesel exhaust, OEHHA analyzed more than 30 studies of people who worked around diesel equipment, including truck drivers, railroad workers, and equipment operators. The studies showed these workers were more likely to develop lung cancer than workers who were not exposed to diesel emissions. These studies provide strong evidence that long-term occupational exposure to diesel exhaust increases the risk of lung cancer. Using information from OEHHA’s assessment, CARB estimates that diesel particle levels measured in California’s air in 2000 could cause 540 “excess” cancers in a population of one million people over a 70-year lifetime. Other researchers and scientific Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-7 Air Quality
organizations, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have calculated cancer risks from diesel exhaust similar to those developed by OEHHA and CARB.
Exposure to diesel exhaust can also have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and can cause coughing, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.
Diesel engines are a major source of fine particulate pollution. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because children’s lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children. In California, diesel exhaust particles have been identified as a carcinogen.
ODORS
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).
With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another.
It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.
Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.
When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-8 Air Quality
threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.
Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
Because the proposed Project is a planning document that does not include exact locations, sizes, or land use type for any individual projects that would occur within the City under the General Plan Update, there are no specific sensitive locations identified with respect to the proposed Project. As a conservative estimate of impacts, sensitive receptors are anticipated to be located directly adjacent to new development.
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Both the EPA and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards represent safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.
The Federal and State ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 5.3-2, Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for important pollutants. The Federal and State ambient standards were developed independently, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the Federal and State standards differ in some cases. In general, the California standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The EPA signed a final rule for the Federal ozone eight-hour standard of 0.070 ppm on October 1, 2015, and was effective as of December 28, 2015 (equivalent to the State ambient air quality eight-hour standard for ozone).
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-9 Air Quality
Table 5.3-2
Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standard State Standard Ozone 1-Hour
8-Hour
--
0.070 ppm
0.09 ppm
0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour
1-Hour
9.0 ppm
35.0 ppm
9.0 ppm
20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual
1-Hour
0.053 ppm
0.100 ppm
0.03 ppm
0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual
24-Hour
1-Hour
0.03 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.075 ppm
--
0.04 ppm
0.25 ppm
PM10
Annual
24-Hour
--
150 ug/m3
20 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
PM2.5
Annual
24-Hour
12 ug/m3
35 ug/m3
12 ug/m3
--
Lead 30-Day Avg.
3-Month Avg.
--
0.15 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
--
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2023a.
Notes: ppm = parts per million, ug/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter.
Attainment Status
In accordance with the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.
Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The EPA designates areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For sulfur dioxide, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-10 Air Quality
Los Angeles County has a State designation Attainment or Unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Los Angeles County has a national designation of either Unclassified or Attainment for all criteria pollutants except for Ozone and PM2.5. Table 5.3-3, State and National Attainment Status in Los Angeles County. Table 5.3-3 presents the state and national attainment status for Los Angeles County.
Table 5.3-3
State and National Attainment Status in Los Angeles County Criteria Pollutants State Designations National Designations Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfates Attainment
Lead Attainment Nonattainment
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2023b.
Separately, Table 5.3-4, South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status, lists the attainment status for the criteria pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-11 Air Quality
Table 5.3-4
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant Standard1
Averaging
Time Designation2 Attainment Deadline Date3
1-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
1979 1-
Hour
(0.12 ppm)
Nonattainment (Extreme) 2/6/2023 (not attained)4
CAAQS
1-Hour
(0.09 ppm) Nonattainment N/A
8-Hour
Ozone5
NAAQS
1997 8-
Hour
(0.08 ppm)
Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024
NAAQS
2008 8-
Hour
(0.075 ppm)
Nonattainment (Extreme) 7/20/2032
NAAQS
2015 8-
Hour
(0.070 ppm)
Nonattainment (Extreme) 8/3/2038
CAAQS
8-Hour
(0.070 ppm) Nonattainment Beyond 2032
CO
NAAQS
1-Hour
(35 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained)
CAAQS
8-Hour
(9 ppm) Attainment 6/11/2007 (attained)
NO2
6 NAAQS
1-Hour
(0.1 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained)
NAAQS
Annual
(0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained) CAAQS
1-hour
(0.18 ppm)
Annual
(0.030 ppm)
Attainment --
SO2
7 NAAQS
1-Hour (75
ppb)
Designations Pending
(expect Uncl./Attainment) N/A (attained)
NAAQS
24-Hour
(0.14 ppm)
Annual
(0.03 ppm)
Unclassifiable/Attainment 3/19/1979 (attained)
PM10
NAAQS
1987 24-
Hour
(150 µg/m3)
Attainment (Maintenance)8 7/26/2013 (attained)
CAAQS
24-Hour (50
µg/m3)
Annual (20
µg/m3)
Nonattainment N/A
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-12 Air Quality
Table 5.3-4 (continued)
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant Standard1
Averaging
Time Designation2 Attainment Deadline Date3
PM2.59
NAAQS
2006 24-
Hour
(35 µg/m3)
Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2019
NAAQS
1997
Annual
(15.0
µg/m3)
Attainment 8/24/2016
NAAQS
2021
Annual
(12.0
µg/m3)
Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2025
CAAQS
Annual
(12.0
µg/m3)
Nonattainment N/A
Lead NAAQS
3-Months
Rolling
(0.15
µg/m3)
Nonattainment
(Partial)10 12/31/2015
Hydrogen
Sulfide
(H2S)
CAAQS
1-Hour
(0.03
ppm/42
µg/m3)
Attainment --
Sulfates CAAQS
24-Hour
(25 µg/m3) Attainment --
Vinyl
Chloride CAAQS
24-Hour
(0.01
ppm/26
µg/m3)
Attainment --
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin, September 2018.
Notes:
1 NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards, CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards 2 EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable.
3 A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for attainment demonstration.
4 1-hour O3 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005 ; however, the Basin has not attained this standard based on 2008-2010 data and is still subject to anti-backsliding requirements. 5 1997 8-hour O3 standard (0.08 ppm) was reduced (0.075 ppm), effective May 27, 2008; the revoked 1997 O3 standard is still subject to anti-backsliding requirements.
6 New NO2 1-hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations January 20, 2012; annual NO2 standard retained.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-13 Air Quality
7 The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard. Area designations are still pending, with Basin expected to be designated Unclassifiable /Attainment. 8 Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; 24-hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; SCAQMD request for attainment redesignation and PM10 maintenance plan was approved by EPA on June 26, 2013, effective July 26, 2013.
9 Attainment deadline for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS (designation effective December 14, 2009) is December 31, 2019 (end of the 10th calendar year after effective date of designations for Serious nonattainment areas). Annual PM2.5 standard was revised on January 15, 2013, effective March 18, 2013, from 15 to 12 µg/m3. Designations effective April 15, 2015, so Serious area attainment deadline is December 31, 2025. 10 Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only for near-source monitors. Expect redesignation to attainment based on current monitoring data.
Los Angeles County Monitoring
SCAQMD is divided into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The City of Lawndale is in the Southwest Los Angeles County (Area 3). The nearest air monitoring station is the LAX Hastings Station, located at 7201 W. Westchester Parkway, approximately five miles northwest of the Planning Area. Table 5.3-5, Local Air Quality Levels, presents the monitored pollutant levels within the vicinity.
The monitoring data presented in Table 5.3-5 shows that ozone and particulate matter (PM10) are the air pollutants of primary concern in the Planning Area, which are detailed below.
Table 5.3-5
Local Area Air Quality Levels
Pollutant (Standard) Year
2019 2020 20211
Ozone:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.082 0.117 0.059
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 0 1 0
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.067 0.074 0.049
Days > NAAQS (0.07 ppm) 0 2 0
Days > CAAQS (0.07 ppm) 0 2 0
Carbon Monoxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 1.8 1.6 1.7
Days > NAAQS (20 ppm) 0 0 0
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 1.3 1.3 1.3
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.057 0.060 0.063
Days > NAAQS (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.008 0.006 0.008
Days > CAAQS (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Inhalable Particulates (PM10):
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 62 43 33
Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 0
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-14 Air Quality
Table 5.3-5 (continued)
Local Area Air Quality Levels
Pollutant (Standard) Year
2019 2020 20211
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 2 (3%) 0 0
Annual Average (ug/m3) 19.2 22.5 17.7
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) No Yes No
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5):2
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) -- -- --
Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) -- -- --
Annual Average (ug/m3) -- -- --
Annual > NAAQS (15 ug/m3) -- -- --
Annual > CAAQS (12 ug/m3) -- -- --
CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Historical Air Quality Data by Year, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/airquality/historical-air-quality-data/historical-data-by-year, accessed March 3, 2023.
Notes:
1. Incomplete data due to site closure in September 2021.
2. Pollutant not monitored.
Ozone
During the 2019 to 2021 monitoring period, the State 1-hour concentration standard for ozone was exceeded for one day in 2020 at the LAX Hastings Station. The Federal and State 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded for two days in 2020 over the past three years at the LAX Hastings Station.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. The Southwest Los Angeles County LAX Hastings Station did not record an exceedance of the State or Federal 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards for the last three years.
Nitrogen Dioxide
The LAX Hastings Station did not record an exceedance of the State or Federal NO2 standards for the last three years.
Sulfur Dioxide
The LAX Hastings Station did not record an exceedance of the State SO2 standards for the last three years.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-15 Air Quality
Particulate Matter
During the 2019 to 2021 monitoring period, the State 24-hour concentration standard for PM10 was exceeded for two days (3 percent of sampled days) in 2019 at the LAX Hastings Station. Over the same time period, the Federal 24-hour and annual standards for PM10 have not been exceeded at the LAX Hastings.
PM2.5 was not monitored at the LAX Hastings Station during the 2019 to 2021 monitoring period.
According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths during exercise.
5.3.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions.
The EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established:
primary standards, which protect public health (with an adequate margin of safety, including for sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory diseases), and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as visibility reduction.
NAAQS standards define clean air and represent the maximum amount of pollution that can be present in outdoor air without any harmful effects on people and the environment. Existing violations of the ozone and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards indicate that certain individuals exposed to these pollutants may experience certain health effects, including increased incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments.
NAAQS standards have been designed to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge and are reviewed every five years by a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), consisting of seven members appointed by the EPA administrator. Reviewing NAAQS is a lengthy undertaking and includes the following major phases: Planning, Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), Risk/Exposure Assessment Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-16 Air Quality
(REA), Policy Assessment (PA), and Rulemaking. The process starts with a comprehensive review of the relevant scientific literature. The literature is summarized and conclusions are presented in the ISA. Based on the ISA, EPA staff perform a risk and exposure assessment, which is summarized in the REA document.
The third document, the PA, integrates the findings and conclusions of the ISA and REA into a policy context, and provides lines of reasoning that could be used to support retention or revision of the existing NAAQS, as well as several alternative standards that could be supported by the review findings. Each of these three documents is released for public comment and public peer review by the CASAC. Members of CASAC are appointed by the EPA Administrator for their expertise in one or more of the subject areas covered in the ISA. The committee’s role is to peer review the NAAQS documents, ensure that they reflect the thinking of the scientific community, and advise the Administrator on the technical and scientific aspects of standard setting. Each document goes through two to three drafts before CASAC deems it to be final.
Although there is some variability among the health effects of the NAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. NAAQS standards were last revised for each of the six criteria pollutants as listed below, with detail on what aspects of NAAQS changed during the most recent update:
• Ozone: On October 1, 2015, the EPA lowered the national eight-hour standard from 0.075 ppm to
0.070 ppm, providing for a more stringent standard consistent with the current California state standard.
• CO: In 2011, the primary standards were retained from the original 1971 level, without revision.
The secondary standards were revoked in 1985.
• NO2: The national NO2 standard was most recently revised in 2010 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for adverse effects in asthmatics at lower NO2 concentrations than the existing national standard. • SO2: On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb.
• PM: the national annual average PM2.5 standard was most recently revised in 2012 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for increased risk of premature mortality at lower PM2.5 concentrations than the existing standard. • Lead: The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. In 2016, the primary and secondary standards were retained.
The law recognizes the importance for each state to locally carry out the requirements of the FCAA, as special consideration of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. are needed to have full comprehension of the local pollution control problems. As a result, the EPA requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that explains how each state will implement the FCAA within their jurisdiction. A SIP is a collection of rules and regulations that a particular state will implement to control Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-17 Air Quality
air quality within their jurisdiction. The CARB is the state agency that is responsible for preparing and implementing the California SIP.
Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity requirements were added to the FCAA in the 1990 amendments, and the EPA adopted implementing regulations in 1997. See §176 of the FCAA (42 U.S.C. §7506) and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A. Transportation conformity serves much the same purpose as general conformity: it ensures that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved by the United States Department of Transportation or that are recipients of funds under the Federal Transit Act or from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), conform to the SIP as approved or promulgated by EPA.
Currently, transportation conformity applies in nonattainment areas and maintenance areas (maintenance areas are those areas that were in nonattainment that have been redesignated to attainment, under the FCCA). Under transportation conformity, a determination of conformity with the applicable SIP must be made by the agency responsible for the project, such as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Council of Governments, or a Federal agency. The agency making the determination is also responsible for all the requirements relating to public participation. Generally, a project will be considered in conformance if it is in the transportation improvement plan and the transportation improvement plan is incorporated in the SIP. If an action is covered under transportation conformity, it does not need to be separately evaluated under general conformity.
Transportation Control Measures
One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the consideration of potential control measures as a part of making progress towards clean air goals. While most SIP control measures are aimed at reducing emissions from stationary sources, some are typically also created to address mobile or transportation sources. These are known as transportation control measures (TCMs). TCM strategies are designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and trips, or vehicle idling and associated air pollution. These goals are achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use.
Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as adding bicycle and carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit.
STATE
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state’s air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. CARB is the agency responsible for administering the CCAA. The CARB established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) [§39606(b)], which are similar to the Federal standards.
California Air Quality Standards
Although NAAQS are determined by the EPA, states have the ability to set standards that are more stringent than the Federal standards. As such, California established more stringent ambient air quality Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-18 Air Quality
standards. Federal and State ambient air quality standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulates (PM10) and lead. In addition, California has created standards for pollutants that are not covered by Federal standards. Although there is some variability among the health effects of the CAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. The existing State and Federal primary standards for major pollutants are shown in Table 5.3-2.
Air quality standard setting in California commences with a critical review of all relevant peer reviewed scientific literature. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) uses the review of health literature to develop a recommendation for the standard. The recommendation can be for no change, or can recommend a new standard. The review, including the OEHHA recommendation, is summarized in a document called the draft Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), which is released for comment by the public, and also for public peer review by the Air Quality Advisory Committee (AQAC). AQAC members are appointed by the President of the University of California for their expertise in the range of subjects covered in the ISOR, including health, exposure, air quality monitoring, atmospheric chemistry and physics, and effects on plants, trees, materials, and ecosystems. The Committee provides written comments on the draft ISOR. The CARB staff next revises the ISOR based on comments from AQAC and the public. The revised ISOR is then released for a 45-day public comment period prior to consideration by the Board at a regularly scheduled Board hearing.
In June of 2002, CARB adopted revisions to the PM10 standard and established a new PM2.5 annual standard. The new standards became effective in June 2003. Subsequently, staff reviewed the published scientific literature on ground-level ozone and nitrogen dioxide and CARB adopted revisions to the standards for these two pollutants. Revised standards for ozone and nitrogen dioxide went into effect on May 17, 2006 and March 20, 2008, respectively. These revisions reflect the most recent changes to the CAAQS.
CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
The State of California is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the state. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, CARB’s motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, the CARB has adopted regulations which required auto manufacturers to phase in less polluting vehicles.
CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective addresses the importance of considering health risk issues when siting sensitive land uses, including residential development, in the vicinity of intensive air pollutant emission sources including freeways or high-traffic roads, distribution centers, ports, petroleum refineries, chrome plating operations, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities. The CARB Handbook draws upon studies evaluating the health effects of traffic traveling on major interstate highways in metropolitan California centers within Los Angeles (Interstate [I] 405 and I710), the San Francisco Bay, and San Diego areas. The recommendations identified by CARB, including Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-19 Air Quality
siting residential uses a minimum distance of 500 feet from freeways or other high-traffic roadways, are consistent with those adopted by the State of California for location of new schools. Specifically, the CARB Handbook recommends, “Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.” Tanner Air Toxics Act
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for the CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the CARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize emissions.
The AB 2588 requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare a toxic-emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). In February 2000, CARB adopted a new public-transit bus-fleet rule and emission standards for new urban buses.
These rules and standards provide for (1) more stringent emission standards for some new urban bus engines, beginning with 2002 model year engines; (2) zero-emission bus demonstration and purchase requirements applicable to transit agencies; and (3) reporting requirements under which transit agencies must demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule. Other recent milestones include the low-sulfur diesel-fuel requirement, and tighter emission standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks (2007) and off-road diesel equipment (2011) nationwide.
LOCAL
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
SCAQMD shares responsibility with CARB for ensuring that all State and Federal ambient air quality standards are achieved and maintained over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles. This area includes all of Orange County and Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County.
SCAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they do not (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any air quality standard; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any air quality standard; or (3) delay the timely attainment of any air quality standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones of any Federal attainment plan.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-20 Air Quality
SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. SCAQMD maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout SCAB. In coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), SCAQMD is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for SCAB. An AQMP is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the national and/or California ambient air quality standards.
In 2003, an AQMP was prepared by SCAQMD to bring SCAB, as well as portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under the SCAQMD jurisdiction, into compliance with the 1-hour ozone and PM10 national standards. The 2003 AQMP also replaced the 1997 attainment demonstration for the Federal CO standard and provided a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future. It also updated the maintenance plan for the Federal NO2 standard, which SCAB has met since 1992.
A subsequent AQMP for the Basin was adopted by the SCAQMD on June 1, 2007. The goal of the 2007 AQMP was to lead SCAB into compliance with the national 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. The 2007 AQMP outlined a detailed strategy for meeting the national health-based standards for PM2.5 by 2015 and 8-hour ozone by 2024 while accounting for and accommodating future expected growth. The 2007 AQMP incorporated significant new emissions inventories, ambient measurements, scientific data, control strategies, and air quality modeling. Most of the reductions were to be from mobile sources, which are currently responsible for about 75 percent of all smog and particulate-forming emissions.
SCAQMD approved the 2012 AQMP on December 7, 2012. The 2012 AQMP incorporated the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The 2012 AQMP outlines a comprehensive control strategy that meets the requirement for expeditious progress toward attainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 Federal ambient air quality standard with all feasible control measures and demonstrates attainment of the standard by 2014. The 2012 AQMP also updates the 8-hour ozone control plan with new emission reduction commitments from a set of new control measures that implement the 2007 AQMP’s Section 182 (e)(5) commitments. The goal of the Final 2012 AQMP is to lead the Basin into compliance with the national 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards.
SCAQMD approved the Final 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP includes transportation control measures developed by SCAG from the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, as well as the integrated strategies and measures needed to meet the NAAQS. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates attainment of the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the latest 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards.
SCAQMD approved the Final 2022 AQMP on December 2, 2022. The Final 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs to reduce air pollution and meet the Federal ozone standard established by the EPA in 2015. It includes a variety of additional actions and strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emission emissions technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOX technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other Clean Air Act measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-21 Air Quality
SCAQMD has also prepared the 2010 Clean Communities Plan (Formerly the Air Toxics Control Plan), the Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, the Vision for Air: A Framework for Air Quality and Climate Plan.
SCAQMD is responsible for limiting the amount of emissions that can be generated throughout the basin by various stationary, area, and mobile sources. Specific rules and regulations have been adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board that (1) limit the emissions that can be generated by various uses and activities; and (2) identify specific pollution reduction measures, which must be implemented in association with various uses and activities. These rules regulate the emissions of not only the Federal and state criteria pollutants, but also TACs and acutely hazardous materials. The rules are also subject to ongoing refinement by SCAQMD.
Among the SCAQMD rules that may be applicable to future development projects within the City are Rule 401 (Visible Emissions), Rule 402 (Nuisance), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 1138 (Control of Emissions from Restaurant Operations), Rule 1146.2 (Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers and Process Heaters), and Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities). Rule 401 restricts the emissions of air contaminants that significantly reduce air opacity. Rule 402 restricts discharges that cause nuisance to the public. Rule 403 requires the use of stringent best available control measures (BACMs) to minimize PM10 emissions during grading and construction activities. Rule 1113 requires reductions in the VOC content of coatings.
Rule 1138 specifies PM and VOC emissions and odor control requirements for some kinds of commercial cooking operations. Rule 1146.2 restricts the NOX emissions from natural gas-fired water heaters, boilers, and process heaters as defined by this rule. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 requires the owner or operator of any demolition or renovation activity to have an asbestos survey performed prior to demolition and to provide notification to the SCAQMD prior to commencing demolition activities.
SCAQMD’s CEQA guidelines are voluntary initiatives recommended for consideration by local planning agencies. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) published by SCAQMD provides local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air quality impacts. SCAQMD is currently updating some of the information and methods in the Handbook, such as the screening tables for determining the air quality significance of a project and the on-road mobile source emission factors. While this process is underway, SCAQMD recommends using other approved models to calculate emissions from land use projects, such as CalEEMod.
SCAQMD’s Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning considers impacts on air quality sensitive receptors from TAC-emitting facilities. SCAQMD’s siting distance recommendations are the same as those provided by CARB (e.g., a 500-foot siting distance for air quality sensitive receptors proposed in proximity to freeways and high-traffic roads, and the same siting criteria for distribution centers and dry-cleaning facilities).
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region in which the City is located. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and fully adopted Connect SoCal (2020 Regional Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-22 Air Quality
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy)., which is an update to the previous 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
The 2020RTP/SCS considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality-of-life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. The 2020RTP/SCS describes how the region can attain the GHG emission-reduction targets set by CARB by achieving a 19 percent reduction by 2035 compared to the 2005 level. Although the focus of the 2020 RTP/SCS is on GHG emission-reduction, compliance with and implementation of 2020 RTP/SCS policies and strategies would also have co-benefits of reducing per capita criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions associated with reduced per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Improved air quality with implementation of the 2020 RTP/SCS policies would decrease reactive organic gases (ROG) (similar to VOCs), CO, NOX, and PM2.5.
SCAG’s 2020RTP/SCS builds on the land use policies that were incorporated into the 2016 RTP/SCS, and provides specific strategies for successful implementation. These strategies include implementing the Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) – Housing and Sustainable Development (HSD) which will both accelerate housing production as well as enable implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy of Connect SoCal; encouraging use of active transportation, or human powered transportation such as bicycles, tricycles, wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs/scooters, skates, and skateboards; and supporting alternative fueled vehicles. The 2020 RTP/SCS overall land use pattern reinforces the trend of focusing new housing and employment in infill areas well served by transit.
In addition, the 2020 RTP/SCS includes goals and strategies to promote active transportation and improve transportation demand management (TDM). The 2020 RTP/SCS strategies support local planning and projects that serve short trips, increase access to transit, expand understanding and consideration of public health in the development of local plans and projects, and support improvements in sidewalk quality, local bike networks, and neighborhood mobility areas. The 2020 RTP/SCS proposes to better align active transportation investments with land use and transportation strategies, increase competitiveness of local agencies for Federal and State funding, and to expand the potential for all people to use active transportation.
Los Angeles County General Plan
The Los Angeles County General Plan 2035 provides a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and implementing programs to guide the County’s growth. The County’s General Plan includes Chapter 8, Air Quality Element, which summarizes air quality issues and outlines the goals and policies in the General Plan to improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions.
City of Lawndale Climate Action Plan
The City of Lawndale, in cooperation with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, has developed a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions within the City. The CAP identifies community-wide strategies to lower GHG emissions from a range of sources within the jurisdiction, including transportation, land use, energy generation and consumption, water, and waste. Chapters 6 and 7 focus on land use and transportation strategies to improve air quality by reducing transportation-related emissions.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-23 Air Quality
5.3.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with air quality if it will:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (refer to Impact Statement AQ-1);
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (refer to Impact Statement AQ-2);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations(refer to Impact Statement AQ3); and/or • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people (refer to Impact Statement AQ-4).
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
A brief discussion of the methodology and assumptions used to estimate proposed Project’s air pollutant emissions is provided below. For further detail on air emissions modeling parameters and assumptions, and other related calculations; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data.
Construction
Construction of the growth anticipated by implementation of the General Plan Update would have the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, such as excavators, cranes, and forklifts, and through vehicle trips generated from workers and haul trucks traveling to and from project sites. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and various soil-handling activities. Construction emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are included in this analysis. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day-to-day, depending on the intensity and specific type of construction activity. The maximum daily regional emissions are predicted values for the worst-case day and do not represent the emissions that would actually occur during every day of construction.
The proposed General Plan Update is a planning-level document, and, as such, there are no specific projects, project construction dates, or specific construction plans identified. Therefore, quantification of emissions associated with buildout cannot be specifically determined at this time. However, the type and size of total anticipated growth is known. Construction emissions are based on the type and amount of off-road construction equipment and the scope of future development that could be allowed under the General Plan Update. Therefore, since CalEEMod provides default construction scenarios based on size and land use type, a reasonable worst case annual construction scenario was analyzed to provide an idea of daily emissions that could occur due to construction under the proposed Project.1 Due to the urbanized 1 Note that CalEEMod estimates daily emissions based on the size and type of the development, the number of days that would be needed to complete the activity (CalEEMod default), and the amount of equipment that would be needed to accomplish construction (CalEEMod default).
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-24 Air Quality
and built-out nature of the City, the relatively flat topography, and that future growth would primarily occur and infill and redevelopment, soil grading activities are anticipated to balance on-site. Buildout of the General Plan Update (based on the land use assumptions provided by the proposed Project) expected to occur by 2045 were modeled in CalEEMod.2
Construction was estimated to begin in October of 2023 and continue throughout 2045. Emission calculations assumed construction in 2023 as a conservative peak emissions year. In a year later, construction emissions would be less because cleaner construction equipment and vehicle fleet mix are expected as a result of State regulations that require cleaner construction equipment to be phased-in for heavy-duty equipment. Thus, construction emissions occurring in later years would be less than the impacts disclosed herein.
Construction activities were modeled to include site preparation, excavation/grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. CalEEMod defaults were used to determine construction equipment based on the type of construction. Modeling assumed the land uses contained in Table 3-4 of Section 3.0, Project Description.
Daily regional criteria air pollutant emissions for the different phases of construction were forecast based on construction activities, on-road and off-road mobile sources, and fugitive dust emission factors associated with the specific construction activity. Off-road mobile source emissions would result from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, and cranes. These off-road mobile sources emit VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5. The emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (v.2022.1) software, an emissions inventory software program recommended by SCAQMD. CalEEMod is based on outputs from the OFFROAD model and Emission Factor (EMFAC) model, which are emissions estimation models developed by CARB and used to calculate emissions from construction activities, heavy-duty offroad equipment, and on-road vehicles. Activities parameters, such as number of equipment and equipment usage hours were included.
Fugitive dust emissions (using PM10 as a surrogate) during construction activities were estimated in CalEEMod, which are based on the methods described in the EPA AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. During the application of architectural coatings, evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings result in VOC emissions. CalEEMod was used to calculate VOC emissions based on the building surface area and the default VOC content provided by the air district or CARB’s statewide limits.
On-road mobile sources during construction also have the potential to generate temporary criteria air pollutant emissions through worker vehicles and haul trucks traveling to and from project sites during construction. Mobile source emissions were calculated using trips and VMT data in the Transportation Impact Assessment developed for the proposed Project (Kittelson & Associates 2023). CalEEMod default trip lengths were used.
2 For the sake of a conservative analysis, the modeling for both project construction and operational phases account for total development that is projected to exist in the Planning Area at 2045 buildout, which includes both current development and all development that would occur in the Planning Area in year 2045. This acts as a proxy for the ‘worst-case scenario’ for the purposes of CEQA analysis.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-25 Air Quality
Operational
Operation of development contemplated by the General Plan Update would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from vehicle trips throughout the City, energy sources, such as natural gas combustion, and area sources, such as operation of landscaping equipment and use of consumer products, including solvents used in non-industrial applications which emit VOCs during their product use, such as cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics, and toiletries. Operational impacts were assessed for the General Plan Update buildout year of 2045, inclusive of all development within Lawndale projected to exist at that time. Daily maximum criteria air pollutant emissions were compared with the SCAQMD operational thresholds to determine the operational impacts of the General Plan Update.
The operational area emissions from the future development accommodated by the General Plan Update were estimated using the CalEEMod software. Area source emissions are based on hearth emissions, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and consumer product usage rates provided in CalEEMod.
CalEEMod default values were used for area source emissions except that wood stoves and wood fireplaces were removed from the emissions calculations as they are not permitted within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction.
Intersection Hot Spots
Operation of the future development accommodated under the General Plan Update has the potential to generate traffic congestion and increase delay times at intersections within the Planning Area. The pollutant of primary concern when assessing the General Plan Update’s impacts at local intersections is carbon monoxide because an elevated concentration of CO tends to accumulate near areas of heavy traffic congestion and where average vehicle speeds are low. Tailpipe emissions are of concern when assessing localized impacts of CO along paved roads.
An adverse concentration of CO, known as a “hotspot,” would occur if there was an exceedance of the NAAQS or CAAQS. SCAQMD does not currently have guidance for conducting intersection hot spot analysis. However, Caltrans has guidance for evaluating CO hot spots in their Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol). Detailed guidance discussing which modeling programs to use, calculating emission rates, receiver placement, calculating 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations, and utilizing background concentrations are provided in the Caltrans’ CO Protocol.
The potential for future development accommodated by the General Plan Update to cause or contribute to CO hotspots is evaluated by comparing Project intersections’ volume data from the Transportation Impact Assessment (Kittelson & Associates 2023) with prior studies conducted by SCAQMD in support of their AQMPs and considering existing background CO concentrations.
Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts (Construction and Operation) Construction and operational activities have the potential to result in health risk impacts (cancer, or other acute or chronic conditions) related to TACs exposure from airborne emissions, specifically the emissions of DPM. Health risk from TACs exposure is a cumulative localized impact-based exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to specific construction activities as well as on location to the construction and operational activities that emit TACs. To determine the magnitude of health risks associated with TACs Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-26 Air Quality
exposure, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is required. HRAs include dispersion modeling of TACs and in order to determine the specific numerical cancer and non-cancer (acute and chronic) risks associated with the TACs on nearby individual receptors (including residences and workers). In order to accurately model the magnitude of TAC exposure on individual receptors, the following information is required:
• Type of TACs emitted during construction and operational activities (e.g. diesel particulate matter, benzene, acrolein, aniline, etc.) (note: there are 187 hazardous air pollutants currently regulated by the EPA that are considered TACs);
• TACs source location(s) and configuration (note: this is typically provided by the project applicant for the operational phase via a site plan and detail on the specific project type, and for the construction phase via construction plans);
• TAC emissions rate(s);
• TAC release height(s); and
• The precise location of nearby residential and workplace receptors.
This information is incorporated into dispersion modeling software (such as AERMOD), which is used in conjunction with facility health risk assessment software (such as the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program, otherwise known as HARP-2). The results of such analysis provide a numerical estimate of maximum health risks, which are incorporated into the HRA (with detailed methodology and a list of assumptions provided). However, since the General Plan Update is a long-range planning document and therefore does not provide sufficient detail on specific development projects that would potentially occur as part of implementation of the General Plan Update (such as providing detailed information on the type, location, and sizing of potential sources of TACs such as warehouses, gasoline/diesel refueling stations, light industrial facilities, etc.), there is insufficient information available at this level of analysis to conduct a reasonable or scientifically valid analysis of TACs. Specific development projects in Lawndale that have the potential to generate potentially significant risks associated with the release of TACs are required to undergo an analysis of their potential health risks associated with TACs, based upon the specific details of each individual project.
Overall, because there are no specific development projects identified or approved under the General Plan Update, the location of the development projects, and the exact nature of the development are unknown, determining health risk as this time is speculative. Therefore, the analysis of TAC health risk is discussed qualitatively in this analysis.
5.3.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
AQ-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact Analysis: The following analysis addresses the General Plan Update’s consistency with applicable plans and policies that govern air quality. In particular, the analysis addresses consistency with the SCAQMD’s AQMP, which is an air quality plan that includes strategies for achieving attainment of applicable ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-27 Air Quality
As discussed above, SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to lead the Air Basin into compliance with several criteria air pollutant standards and other Federal requirements, while taking into account construction and operational emissions associated with population and economic growth projections provided by SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS. SCAQMD recommends that, when determining whether a project is consistent with the relevant AQMPs, the lead agency should assess whether the project would directly obstruct implementation of the plans by impeding SCAQMD’s efforts to achieve attainment with respect to any criteria air pollutant for which it is currently not in attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS (e.g., ozone, PM10, and PM2.5) and whether it is consistent with the demographic and economic assumptions (typically land use related, such as employment and population/residential units) upon which the plan is based. SCAQMD guidance indicates that projects whose growth is included in the projections used in the formulation of the AQMP are considered to be consistent with the plan and would not interfere with its attainment.
SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational emissions are designed for the analysis of individual projects and not for long-term planning documents, such as the General Plan Update, which would be implemented over a 20-year period. Emissions are dependent on the exact size, nature, and location of an individual land use type, combined with reductions in localized impacts from the removal of existing land use types, as applicable (i.e. conversion of light industrial uses). Emissions associated with the operation of individual projects, could exceed project-specific thresholds established by SCAQMD.
CEQA requires that general plans be evaluated for consistency with the AQMP. Because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans, only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, or individual projects under the general plan need to undergo a consistency review. Projects considered consistent with the local general plan are consistent with the air quality-related regional plan.
Indicators of consistency include:
• Control Strategies: Whether implementation of a project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; would cause or contribute to new violations; or would delay the timely attainment of AAQS or interim emissions reductions within the AQMP. • Growth Projections: Whether implementation of the project would exceed growth assumptions within the AQMP, which in part, bases its strategy on growth forecasts from local general plans.
CONSTRUCTION
Control Strategies
The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5 under the CAAQS and NAAQS, and nonattainment for PM10 under the CAAQS. Future development accommodated by the General Plan Update involves long-term growth associated with buildout of the City of Lawndale. Therefore, the emissions of criteria pollutants associated with future developments under the General Plan Update could exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. Future development of individual projects under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with CARB’s requirements to minimize short-term emissions from on-road and off-road diesel equipment, including the ATCM to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at any given time, and with SCAQMD’s regulations such as Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust and Rule 1113 for controlling VOC emissions from architectural Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-28 Air Quality
coatings. Furthermore, as applicable to the type of growth, individual projects under the proposed General Plan Update would comply with fleet rules to reduce on-road truck emissions (i.e., 13 CCR, Section 2025 (CARB Truck and Bus regulation)). Compliance with these measures and requirements would be consistent with and meet or exceed the AQMP requirements for control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Therefore, the construction anticipated by the proposed would be consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator.
Growth Projections
Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in an increase in short-term employment compared to existing conditions. Future development accommodated by the General Plan Update would involve construction, but implementation of the General Plan Update would not necessarily create new construction jobs, since construction-related jobs generated by future development would likely be filled by employees within the construction industry within the City of Lawndale and the greater Los Angeles County region. Construction industry jobs generally have no regular place of business, as construction workers commute to job sites throughout a given region, which may change several times a year.
Moreover, these jobs would be temporary in nature. Therefore, the construction jobs generated by future development accommodated by the General Plan Update would not conflict with the long-term employment or population projections upon which the AQMPs are based.
OPERATION
Control Strategies
Future development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with CARB motor vehicle standards, SCAQMD regulations for stationary sources and architectural coatings, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and, to the extent applicable, the 2020 RTP/SCS.
As discussed above, the 2022 AQMP includes land use and transportation strategies from the 2020 RTP/SCS that are intended to reduce VMT and resulting regional mobile source emissions. The applicable land use strategies include: planning for growth around livable corridors; providing more options for short trips/neighborhood mobility areas; supporting zero emission vehicles and expanding vehicle charging stations; and supporting local sustainability planning. The applicable transportation strategies include:
managing through the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and the Transportation System Management (TSM) Plan including advanced ramp metering, and expansion and integration of the traffic synchronization network; promoting active transportation. The majority of the transportation strategies are to be implemented by cities, counties, and other regional agencies such as SCAG and SCAQMD, although some can be furthered by individual development projects.
The location, design, and land uses of the growth anticipated by the General Plan Update would implement land use and transportation strategies related to reducing vehicle trips for residents and employees of the City by increasing commercial and residential density near public transit. The land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan (Figure 3-4 in Section 3.0) provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at infill locations primarily within the Hawthorne Boulevard Specific Plan area. The availability of public transportation and the focus on increasing density relative to the existing public transportation, enables implementation of the General Plan Update to potentially reduce vehicle trips, VMT, and Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-29 Air Quality
associated transportation-related emissions per capita, compared to the existing conditions. Therefore, the General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with air quality. The proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator.
Growth Projections
The emissions inventory for SCAB is formed, in part, by existing city and county general plans. The AQMP is based on population, employment and VMT forecasts by SCAG. A project might be in conflict with the AQMP if the development is greater than that anticipated in the local general plan and SCAG’s growth projections. Future development in the City of Lawndale that is consistent with the General Plan Update could increase vehicle trips and VMT that would result in emissions of ozone precursors and particulate matter. Individual projects under the General Plan Update would be required to undergo subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and would be required to demonstrate compliance with the AQMP. Individual projects would also be required to demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations governing air quality.
The City of Lawndale continues to coordinate with SCAQMD and SCAG to ensure Citywide growth projections, land use planning efforts, and local development patterns are accounted for in the regional planning and air quality planning processes. Additionally, the General Plan Update includes goals, policies and actions to further minimize potential impacts to air quality in support of the AQMP. The proposed Resource Management Element includes Goal RM-4 of the General Plan Update Resources Management Element addresses potential air quality impacts by improving air quality in Lawndale and the region through reductions in air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Also, Policy LU-1.1 of the General Plan Update Land Use Element promotes a land use pattern that would reduce pollution and air quality impacts. Therefore, the operation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions:
LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-1.1: Sustainable Land Use Pattern. Provide an appropriate land use plan that promotes efficient development; fosters and enhances community livability and public health; sustains economic vitality; promotes efficient development and multiple transportation options; reduces pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the expenditure of energy and other resources; and ensures compatibility between uses consistent with the land use designations identified in this Element and Land Use Map (LU-1).
Policy LU-1.2 Balance Jobs and Housing. Balance levels of employment and housing within the community to provide more opportunities for Lawndale residents to work locally, reduce commute times, and improve air quality.
Policy LU-1.4: Commercial Corridors. Encourage development of well-maintained, functional, and appropriate commercial, retail, and employment opportunities in stand-alone and mixeduse formats, particularly along Hawthorne Boulevard, major arterials, and at major intersections where there is maximum visibility and access.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-30 Air Quality
Policy LU-1.6: Uses to Meet Daily Needs. Encourage uses that meet daily needs, such as grocery stores, local-serving restaurants, and other businesses and activities, within walking distance of residences to reduce the frequency and length of vehicle trips.
Action LU-3b: Ensure all projects are reviewed and processed per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
MOBILITY ELEMENT
Policy M-3.1: Complete Streets for Roadway Projects. Apply Complete Streets principles to all transportation improvements projects (e.g. safety, intelligent transportation systems, roads and intersections widening, transit facilities).
Policy M-3.2: Multimodal Connectivity. Link activity centers, employment centers, public facilities, and schools to transit and active transportation facilities, wherever feasible.
Action M-3a When planning roadway facilities, incorporate the concept of complete streets. Complete streets include design elements for all modes that use streets, including autos, transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Complete streets shall be developed in a context-sensitive manner. For example, it may be more appropriate to provide a Class I bike path instead of bike lanes along a major arterial.
Policy M-5.3: Transit Facilities. Require new developments to construct, when appropriate, transit facilities, including bus turn-outs, lighted bus shelters, and route information signage.
Action M-5a Continue on-going coordination with transit authorities toward the expansion of transit facilities.
Policy M-6.1: Bicycle Master Plan. Implement the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan within City limits to provide active transportation facilities that can serve as an alternative to automobiles, including the Plan’s facility recommendations as shown in Figure M-2.
Policy M-6.2: Local Travel Network. Coordinate with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments to promote local micromobility modes by implementing the Local Travel Network plan and supporting efforts to integrate the network with adjacent cities, as shown in Figure M-3.
Policy M-6.3: Hawthorne Boulevard Sidewalks. Allow for modified sidewalk standards and encourage enhanced pedestrian amenities along Hawthorne Boulevard to reflect the corridors unique character and land use vision.
Policy M-6.4: Sidewalk and Bikeway Gaps. Create a connected and complete active transportation network by identifying and eliminating gaps in sidewalks and bikeways.
Policy M-6.5: Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities at New Developments. Require new residential and nonresidential developments in the City to provide safe and attractive bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as secure bicycle parking, pedestrian-scale lighting, street furniture, landscaping, and other improvements.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-31 Air Quality
Policy M-6.6: Effects of New Technologies on Active Transportation. Monitor the development of mobility new technologies and the potential effects on designing a transportation network that accommodates all modes and users.
Action M-6a: As part of development review and specific plans, review any existing gaps in active transportation infrastructure that inhibit mobility.
Action M-6b: Implement of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan when roadways are being rehabilitated or resurfaces, as funding allows.
Action M-6c: Review and update the City’s Municipal Code, as necessary, to consider bicycle and pedestrian access as part of the site plan review for new development projects.
Policy M-9.2: Transportation Demand Management. Require transportation demand management (TDM) strategies as mitigation measures for new projects that exceed the City's thresholds Vehicle Miles Traveled impact thresholds.
Action M-9b Require developments that are approved based on TDM plans to incorporate monitoring and enforcement of TDM targets as part of those plans.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-4: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Improved air quality in Lawndale and the region through reductions in air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Policy RM-4.1: Regional Cooperation. Support regional efforts, including those organized through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) to implement the regional Air Quality Management Plan.
Policy RM-4.2: Measurement and Enforcement. Coordinate with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to support their ability to properly measure air quality at emission sources and enforce the standards of the Clean Air Act.
Policy RM-4.3: GHG Emissions. Align the City’s local GHG reduction targets with the statewide GHG reduction targets of Assembly Bill 32, and align the City’s GHG reduction goal with the statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.
Policy RM-4.4: Transportation Options. Promote alternative modes of transportation to reduce vehicular emissions and improve air quality. (See Mobility Element) Policy RM-4.5: Walkability. Encourage pedestrian-scale development and pedestrian-friendly design features to reduce vehicle emissions. (See Mobility Element) Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-32 Air Quality
Policy RM-4.6: Land Use Planning. Encourage and incentivize higher density and mixed-use development opportunities within designated areas of the City to lessen the impacts of traffic congestion on local air quality. (See Land Use Element) Policy RM-4.7: Sensitive Receptors. Insulate sensitive receptors from areas of heightened air quality pollution by utilizing land use planning to buffer and protect residential areas.
Policy RM-4.8: Mitigation. Require the implementation of relevant mitigation measures for all future development upon identification of potential air quality impacts.
Policy RM-4.9: GHG Reduction. Consider and adopt new local policies and programs that will help to provide energy efficient alternatives to fossil fuel use and reduce consumption in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the local measures identified in the City of Lawndale Climate Action Plan.
Policy RM-4.10: Mitigation. Public Engagement. Promote regional air quality programs in order to inform the public on regional air quality concerns and encourage the engagement of all residents in future planning decisions related to air quality.
Action RM-4a: Implement the local GHG reduction measures identified in the City of Lawndale Climate Action Plan (CAP), participate in future updates of the SBCCOG Climate Action Plan, and perform on-going monitoring and reporting of GHG reduction impacts. Develop a Climate Action Team to support and guide the City’s efforts to conserve energy and reduce emissions. Work with the SBCCOG and/or other local, Regional, State, and Federal agencies or utility to obtain funding necessary to implement, monitor, and report the CAP measures.
Action RM-4b: As applicable, review new industrial and commercial development projects during the CEQA process for potential air quality impacts to residences and other sensitive receptors.
Ensure that mitigation measures and best management practices are implemented to reduce significant emissions of criteria pollutants.
Action RM-4c: Review development, infrastructure, and planning projects for consistency with SCAQMD requirements during the CEQA review process. Require project applicants to prepare air quality analyses to address SCAQMD and General Plan requirements, as appropriate, which include analysis and identification of:
1. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.
2. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.
3. Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.
4. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-33 Air Quality
Action RM-4d: Work with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Southern California Association of Governments, the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, and the California Air Resource Board to implement programs aimed at improving regional air quality.
Action RM-4e: Continue to review development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the Lawndale Municipal Code.
Action RM-4f: Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to facilitate the use of low or zeroemission vehicles such as electric vehicle charging facilities at key City facilities as operations necessitate and/or as funding becomes available.
Action RM-4g: Evaluate and consider multi-modal transportation benefits to all City employees, such as free or low-cost monthly public transportation (bus) passes. Encourage employer participation in similar programs. Encourage new transit/shuttle services and use.
Action RM-4h: Establish programs that encourage community car-sharing and carpooling.
Action RM-4i: Support the establishment and expansion of a regional network of electric vehicle charging stations and encourage the expanded use of electric vehicles.
Action RM-4j: Encourage multi-family residential and non-residential development to increase the use of higher-albedo materials for surfaces including roofs, parking areas, driveways, roads, and sidewalks. Encourage developments with parking lot areas to shade these areas with vegetation or solar panels when appropriate. Support various programs to plant and maintain trees, which can also contribute to a reduction of urban heat islands.
Action RM-4k: Future development projects will be required to demonstrate consistency with SCAQMD construction emission thresholds. Where emissions from individual projects exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the following actions should be incorporated as necessary to minimize impacts. These measures do not exclude the use of other, equally effective mitigation measures as determined by a project specific Air Quality Assessment. • Require all off-road diesel equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) used for this Project to meet EPA Tier 4 final off-road emission standards or equivalent. Such equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices including a California Air Resources Board Certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) or equivalent. The DPF reduces diesel particulate matter and NOX emissions during construction activities.
• Require a minimum of 50 percent of construction debris be diverted for recycling. • Require building materials to contain a minimum 10 percent recycled content. • Require materials such as paints, primers, sealants, coatings, and glues to have a low volatile organic compound concentration compared to conventional products. If low Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-34 Air Quality
VOC materials are not available, architectural coating phasing should be extended sufficiently to reduce the daily emissions of VOCs.
Action RM-4l: Future development projects will be required to demonstrate consistency with SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds. For projects where operational emissions exceed regulatory thresholds, the following measures may be used to reduce impacts.
Note the following measures are not all inclusive and developers have the option to add or substitute measures that are equally or more appropriate for the scope of the project. • Develop a project specific TDM program for residents and/or employees that provides opportunities for carpool/vanpools.
• Provide onsite solar/renewable energy in excess of regulatory requirements. • Require that owners/tenants of non-residential or multi-family residential developments use architectural coatings that are 10 grams per liter or less when repainting/repairing properties.
• Require drip irrigation and irrigation sensor units that prevent watering during rain storms.
• Ensure all parking areas are wired for capability of future EV charging and include EV charging stations that exceed regulatory requirements.
Goal RM-5: Energy Resources. A community that safely manages its energy resources.
Policy RM-5.1: Compliance with State Legislation. Comply with all State requirements regarding the generation of power and encourage energy providers to investigate the use or expansion of renewable sources of energy.
Policy RM-5.2: Green Building Standards Code. Ensure that new construction and major redevelopment complies with the most current version of the California Green Building Standards Code.
Policy RM-5.3: Renewable Energy. Promote the development and use of renewable energy resources to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
Policy RM-5.4: Energy-Efficient Materials. Promote the use of energy-efficient materials, equipment, and design in public and private facilities and infrastructure.
Policy RM-5.5: Energy Conservation. Promote energy conservation and recycling by the public and private sectors.
Policy RM-5.6: Energy Needs. Collaborate with local service providers in determining and meeting the needs of the community for energy in clean, modern, and cost-effective ways.
Policy RM-5.7: Business Community. Support the decisions of the Lawndale business community as they select and implement the most appropriate, financially feasible, and responsible energy source for their individual operations.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-35 Air Quality
Policy RM-5.8: Public Education. Promote public education programs that advocate for reducing energy consumption, and promote renewable sources of energy.
Policy RM-5.9: Promote Energy Conservation in Existing Building Stock. Promote energy conservation by residents and businesses in existing structures, in close coordination with other agencies and local energy providers.
Action RM-5a: Implement energy conservation measures in public buildings through the following actions:
a. Promote energy efficient buildings and site design for all new public buildings during the site development permit process; and
b. Install energy saving devices in new public buildings and retrofit existing public buildings.
Action RM-5b: During the development review process, encourage innovative building design, layout, and orientation techniques to minimize energy use by taking advantage of sun/shade patterns, prevailing winds, landscaping and building materials that control energy usage, and solar design.
Action RM-5c: Continue to review development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
Action RM-5d: Promote the CEC Building Energy Benchmarking Program (AB 802) on the City’s website to help benchmark and monitor energy use for participating businesses seeking to increase energy efficiency and realize cost savings.
Action RM-5e: Identify and reduce government constraints to installation of renewable energy infrastructure and electric vehicle charging stations, as feasible, through incentives such as, streamlined permitting, and expedited inspection times.
Action RM-5f: Consider participation in a Community Choice Aggregation program, such as Clean Power Alliance, to help meet the City’s energy objectives.
Action RM-5g: Use the City’s website to promote existing incentivized programs such as Energy Upgrade California, financing programs such as Properly Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), and energy audits through State programs.
Action RM-5h: Partner with SBCCOG and relevant utilities on outreach events and to obtain educational content and promote on the City’s website.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-36 Air Quality
AQ-2: Would the project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Impact Analysis: Ozone, NO2, VOC and PM10 and PM2.5 are pollutants of concern, as SCAB has been designated as a nonattainment area for State ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 and as a Federal nonattainment area for ozone and PM10. SCAB is currently in attainment and/or unclassified for State and Federal CO, SOx, NO2, lead and Federal attainment for PM10. SCAQMD has established numerical significance thresholds for regional emissions during construction and operation. The numerical significance thresholds are based on the recognition that the Basin is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health. The General Plan Update would potentially cause or contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard if the following would occur:
Regional construction emissions from both direct and indirect sources would exceed any of the following SCAQMD prescribed daily emissions thresholds:
• 75 pounds a day for VOC;
• 100 pounds per day for NOX;
• 150 pounds per day for PM10; and
• 55 pounds per day for PM2.5.
Regional operational emissions exceed any of the following SCAQMD prescribed daily emissions thresholds:
• 55 pounds a day for VOC;
• 55 pounds per day for NOX;
• 150 pounds per day for PM10; and
• 55 pounds per day for PM2.5.
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the growth anticipated by the proposed General Plan Update has the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, and through vehicle trips generated by workers and haul trucks. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and various soil-handling activities. Mobile source emissions, primarily NOx and PM emissions (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5), would result from the use of diesel-powered on- and off-road vehicles and equipment. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day-to-day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of construction activity.
Information regarding the specific development projects and location of receptors for those projects is required in order to model specific emissions throughout the buildout horizon. Construction activities are anticipated to occur at various levels throughout the 20-year buildout horizon (2025 to 2045). Since specific projects are unknown at this time, as is the level of intensity of construction over the 20 years, Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-37 Air Quality
the analysis provides emissions from an anticipated reasonable worst-case construction scenario.
Specifically, emissions were modeled for all development within the Planning Area in buildout year 2045.
3,4
As detailed in the methodology section above, daily emissions were estimated for the construction of the land uses provided in Table 3-4 of Section 3.0, Project Description. Detailed information on modeling parameter inputs is provided in Appendix B of this EIR. The results of the criteria air pollutant calculations are presented in Table 5.3-6, Maximum Regional Construction Emissions. The calculations used to develop construction emissions incorporate compliance with applicable dust control measures required to be implemented during each phase of construction by SCAQMD Rule 403 (Control of Fugitive Dust), and fugitive VOC control measures required to be implemented by architectural coating emission factors based on SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings).
As shown in Table 5.3-6, construction-related daily emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, short-term regional construction emissions would be potentially significant.
Table 5.3-6
Maximum Regional Construction Emissions
Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 124.5 351.0 1,086.7 1.0 196.1 52.4 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Above Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
Source: CalEEMod v.2022.1; Kittelson & Associates, 2023.
OPERATION
Operation of future development accommodated by the General Plan Update would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from Project-generated vehicle trips traveling within the City, energy sources such as natural gas combustion, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer products usage.
The on-road mobile sources related to the operation of future development accommodated by the General Plan Update include passenger vehicles, onsite use of off-road equipment and delivery trucks.
VMT data, takes into account ridership, mode, and distance on freeways and local streets as provided in Section 5.17, Transportation. Projected emissions resulting from operational activities of future 3 Note that this approach provides an overestimate of the emissions generated by the proposed Project within the Planning Area (since it models total development that is projected to exist within the Planning Area in 2045, including development that currently exists and would continue to exist in 2045). This approach to estimate proposed project emissions provides a proxy for the ‘worst-case scenario’ for the purposes of CEQA analysis. 4 Note that traffic data provided by the traffic consultant (Kittelson & Associates) was unavailable for year 2045. Therefore, traffic data for year 2040 was used as a proxy for year 2045.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-38 Air Quality
development accommodated by the General Plan Update are presented in Table 5.3-7, Maximum Regional Operational Emissions (pounds/day).
Table 5.3-7
Maximum Regional Operational Emissions (pounds/day)
Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 1,465.7 441.1 3,956.6 8.2 751.4 208.2 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Above Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: CalEEMod v.2022.1; Kittelson & Associates, 2023.
As identified in Table 5.3-7, operational emissions for future development accommodated by the General Plan Update would exceed regulatory thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. While these thresholds are the only thresholds available for numerically determining significance, it should be noted that these thresholds were specifically developed for use in determining significance for individual projects and not for program-level documents, such as the General Plan Update. However, as emissions for VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exceed regulatory thresholds, the regional operational emissions would be potentially significant.
CONCLUSION
The exact level of construction emissions from the development anticipated by future development accommodated by the General Plan Update cannot be quantified without full detail of the development projects to be implemented and the extent to which mitigation can be applied. Individual projects anticipated by the General Plan Update would be required to implement their own environmental review.
The proposed policies and actions of the General Plan Update would potentially reduce emissions, which could potentially address impacts related to exceeding air quality regulatory thresholds. These policies and actions are oriented toward the reduction of the air quality impacts of individual projects. Action RM4k requires that future development projects implemented under the General Plan Update would be required to demonstrate consistency with SCAQMD construction threshold emissions.
With respect to operational emissions, future development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with AQMP, SIP, CARB, SCAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the General Plan Update’s policies and actions. Policy RM-4.2 of the General Plan Update Resources Management Element requires the City to coordinate with CARB and SCAQMD to enforce the standards of the Clean Air Act. Policy RM-4.6 encourages and incentivizes higher density and mixed-use development opportunities to lessen the impacts of traffic congestion on local air quality. Policy RM-4.8 requires the implementation of relevant mitigation measures for all future development upon identification of potential air quality impacts. Action RM-5c provides for the continue review of development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with Title 24 energy standards, as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the General Plan Update and the Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-39 Air Quality
Municipal Code. However, as there is no way to determine the effectiveness of such regulations, policies, and actions for individual projects, it is impossible to determine if potential impacts would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds.
As project-specific information is not currently known, there are no known feasible mitigation measures that can be identified at this time beyond the policies and actions listed above. While implementation of these policies and actions would reduce criteria pollutant emissions resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update, the extent to which the impacts are reduced would need to be determined on a project-by-project basis, as necessary. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan Update goals, policies and actions cited above in AQ-1.
Mitigation Measures: There is no feasible mitigation available for this impact.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
AQ-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact Analysis: Criteria air pollutant emissions have the potential to result in health impacts on sensitive receptors located near new development within the Planning Area. As discussed previously, localized impacts are associated with onsite activities. In addition to these localized impacts, vehicle travel associated with future development accommodated by the General Plan Update has the potential to result in exposure of sensitive receptors to CO emissions from intersection congestion. Based on the nature and extent of new development, nearby sensitive receptors could be exposed to levels of toxic air contaminants that could result in a potential increase in cancer, acute, and/or chronic risk. The proposed Project would potentially cause a significant impact if one of the following would occur:
Localized emissions from NO2 and CO for future development accommodated by the General Plan Update, when combined with existing ambient concentrations, would exceed the CAAQS.
Localized emissions from PM10 and PM2.5 would result in exceedance of the following incremental increase thresholds:
• 10.4 µg/m3(24-hour) and 1 µg/m3 of PM10 (Annual) for construction; • 10.4 µg/m3(24-hour) of PM2.5 for construction;
• 2.5 µg/m3(24-hour) and 1.0 µg/m3(Annual) of PM10 for operations; and • 2.5 µg/m3(24-hour) of PM2.5 for operation.
Buildout of the General Plan Update would emit carcinogenic materials or TACs that exceed the maximum incremental cancer risk of ten in one million or an acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0; or if cancer burden corresponds to an increase in more than 0.5 excess cancer cases in areas where the Project-related increase in individual cancer risk exceeds 1 in one million.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-40 Air Quality
LOCAL AIR QUALITY
SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts on sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of project-specific level proposed projects (following the SCAQMD Localized Significant Threshold, or LST, methodology). However, the SCAQMD explicitly advises that the LST methodology is not applicable to regional projects such as general plans. Therefore, an analysis of localized emissions during construction activities is not provided herein. Because the exact nature, location, and operation of the future developments are unknown, quantification of potential localized operational risk would be speculative. However, as construction and operation of these future developments would occur within close proximity to sensitive receptors, there is the potential for localized emissions to exceed regulatory levels. Therefore, localized construction and operational emissions with respect to the proposed Project would be potentially significant.
INTERSECTION HOT SPOT ANALYSIS
The potential for future development accommodated by the General Plan Update to cause or contribute to CO hotspots is evaluated by comparing Planning Area intersections (both intersection geometry and traffic volumes) with prior studies conducted by the SCAQMD in support of their AQMPs and considering existing background CO concentrations. As discussed below, this comparison demonstrates that the implementation of the General Plan Update would not cause or contribute considerably to the formation of CO hotspots, that CO concentrations at project impacted intersections would remain well below the ambient air quality standards, and that no further CO analysis is warranted or required.
CO levels in the Planning Area are substantially below the Federal and State standards. CO levels decreased dramatically in the Air Basin with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of CO have been recorded at monitoring stations in the Air Basin for some time and the Air Basin is currently designated as a CO attainment area for both the CAAQS and NAAQS. Thus, it is not expected that CO levels within the Planning Area at project-impacted intersections would rise to the level of an exceedance of these standards.
Additionally, SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 AQMP for the four worst-case intersections in the Air Basin: (1) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; (2) Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; (3) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard; and (4) Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway.
Based on the intersection volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP, if a project’s traffic levels exceed 100,000 vehicles per day at any proposed project-impacted intersection, there would be the potential for significant impacts and dispersion modeling would need to be conducted to determine project level impacts.
Based on the Lawndale General Plan CEQA Transportation Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated July 12, 2023 (Appendix F), there are no intersections that would exceed 100,000 vehicles per day within the Planning Area. As a result, CO concentrations are expected to be less than those estimated in the 2003 AQMP, which would not exceed the applicable thresholds. Thus, this comparison demonstrates that implementation of the General Plan Update would not contribute considerably to the formation of CO hotspots and no further CO analysis is required. The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to CO hotspots.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-41 Air Quality
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Construction and operation of the future development accommodated by the General Plan Update would result in emissions of TACs, predominantly from diesel particulate emissions from on- and off-road vehicles during construction and from the operation of diesel fueled equipment or generators during operational activities. Because the exact nature, location, and operation of the future developments are unknown, and because health risk impacts from TACs are cumulative over the life of the nearby receptors, quantification of potential health risks would be speculative. However, as construction and operation of these future developments would occur within close proximity to sensitive receptors, there is the potential for risk to exceed regulatory levels. Therefore, health risks with respect to the development anticipated by the General Plan Update would be potentially significant.
HEALTH IMPACTS
Because regional emissions exceed the SCAQMD regulatory thresholds during construction and operational activities, there is the potential that these emissions would exceed the CAAQS and NAAQS thus, resulting in a health impact. Without knowing the exact specifications for all projects that may be developed under the General Plan Update, there is no way to accurately calculate the potential for health impacts from the overall General Plan Update. Individual projects would be required to provide their own environmental assessments to determine health impacts from the construction and operation of their projects. Because there is no way to determine the potential for these projects to affect health of sensitive receptors within the City of Lawndale, the proposed Project would result in potentially significant health impacts.
The proposed policies of the General Plan Update would potentially reduce emissions, which could potentially reduce impacts related to exceeding regulatory thresholds of criteria air pollutant emissions.
Goal RM-4 of the General Plan Update Resources Management Element addresses potential air quality impacts by improving air quality in Lawndale and the region through reductions in air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Specifically, Policy RM-4.7 addresses potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors. Policy LU-1.1 of the General Plan Update Land Use Element promotes a land use pattern that would reduce pollution and air quality impacts.
CONCLUSION
With respect to local air quality emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, and health impacts, future development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with AQMP, SIP, CARB, SCAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the proposed General Plan Update policies and actions. Implementation of the General Plan Update policies and actions listed above would mitigate and reduce such emissions. However, the exact location, type, nature, and size of future projects that may expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations cannot be calculated at this time, as the details of potential future projects are not currently known. As such, there is no way to determine the extent to which these regulations will be, or need to be, implemented, and it is impossible to determine if potential impacts would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds. As project-specific information is not currently known, there are no known feasible mitigation measures that can be identified at this time beyond the Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-42 Air Quality
policies and actions listed above. Therefore, localized operational impacts, construction and operational health, and toxic air impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan Update goals, policies and actions cited above in AQ-1.
Mitigation Measures: There is no feasible mitigation available for this impact.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
AQ-4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact Analysis: Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents. SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) limits the amount of VOCs from architectural coatings and solvents. According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, construction equipment is not a typical source of odors. Odors from the combustion of diesel fuel would be minimized by complying with the CARB ATCM that limits diesel-fueled commercial vehicle idling to five minutes at any given location, which was adopted in 2004. Future development accommodated by the General Plan Update would also comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), which prohibits the emissions of nuisance air contaminants or odorous compounds. Through adherence with mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules and State measures, construction activities and materials would not create objectionable odors. Construction of future development would not be expected to generate nuisance odors at nearby air quality sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts with respect to odors would be less than significant.
According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Potential operational airborne odors could be created by commercial and industrial uses developed under the General Plan Update. However, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, including Section 6.24.040 which prohibits animal premises from being a source of offensive odors, and SCAQMD’s Rule 402 (Nuisance), which prohibits the emissions of nuisance air contaminants or odorous compounds would reduce potential impacts. The other potential source of odors would be new waste receptacles within the Planning Area. The receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers, as required by City Municipal Code Chapter 8.32, Garbage Collection and Disposal, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have developed.
Additionally, the policies included as part of the General Plan Update (described above) would reduce mobile and stationary source emissions and odors associated with diesel fuel by focusing on land use patterns that improve air quality, reduce air pollution from stationary sources, and encourage/enable increased transit behavior. Consequently, implementation of the General Plan Update would not create operational-related objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: The General Plan Update does not include goals, policies, or actions specific to odors.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-43 Air Quality
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.3.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analysis, establishes growth and development within Los Angeles County as anticipated by SCAG as having the potential to interact with the proposed Project to the extent that a significant cumulative effect may occur. The geographic setting for air quality considers development with the City as well as SCAB.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact Analysis: As stated under Impact AQ-1, the City of Lawndale continues to coordinate with SCAQMD and SCAG to ensure Citywide growth projections, land use planning efforts, and local development patterns are accounted for in the regional planning and air quality planning processes.
Additionally, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to further minimize potential impacts to air quality in support of the AQMP. Therefore, the operation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or state ambient air quality standard? Impact Analysis: Construction of the growth anticipated by the General Plan Update has the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, and through vehicle trips generated by workers and haul trucks. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and various soil-handling activities. Mobile source emissions, primarily NOX and PM emissions (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5), would result from the use of diesel-powered on- and off-road vehicles and equipment. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day-to-day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of construction activity. As shown in Table 5.3-6, construction-related daily emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Operation of the future development accommodated by the General Plan Update would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from project-generated vehicle trips traveling within the City, energy sources such as natural gas combustion, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer products usage. As identified in Table 5.3-7, potential operational emissions for the proposed Project would also Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-44 Air Quality
exceed regulatory thresholds (for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5). Feasible mitigation measures are incorporated into the policies and actions included within the General Plan Update. However, there are no feasible criteria air pollutant reduction measures beyond those identified within the policies and actions identified that would reduce impacts. While implementation of these policies and actions would reduce criteria pollutant emissions, the extent to which impacts would be generated by future development and infrastructure projects have to be determined on a project-by-project basis, as necessary.
Moreover, with respect to local air quality emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, and health impacts, future development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with AQMP, SIP, CARB, SCAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the proposed General Plan Update policies and actions. Implementation of the policies and actions listed above would mitigate and reduce such emissions. However, as there is no way to determine the extent to which these regulations would be, or need to be, implemented, it is impossible to determine if potential impacts would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds because the details and potential emissions levels of future development projects is not known at this time, as there are no specific development projects proposed as part of the General Plan Update. Additionally, there are no known feasible mitigation measures beyond the policies and actions listed above. Therefore, localized operational impacts, construction and operational health, and toxic air impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Lastly, with respect to other emissions, future development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with AQMP, SIP, CARB, SCAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the proposed General Plan Update policies and actions. However, as there is no way to determine the extent to which these regulations would be, or need to be, implemented, it is impossible to determine if potential impacts would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds. As project-specific information is not currently known, there are no known feasible mitigation measures that can be identified at this time beyond the policies and actions listed above. Based on these impacts, the General Plan Update would contribute to a cumulative impact with regard to air quality in the region and within the air basin (i.e. the South Coast Air Basin) as a whole. Therefore, this impact is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: There is no feasible mitigation available for this impact.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact Analysis: As stated under Impact AQ-3, with respect to local air quality emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, and health impacts, future development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with AQMP, SIP, CARB, SCAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the proposed General Plan Update policies and actions. Implementation of the General Plan Update Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-45 Air Quality
policies and actions listed above would mitigate and reduce such emissions. However, the exact location, type, nature, and size of future projects that may expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations cannot be calculated at this time, as the details of potential future projects are not currently known. As such, there is no way to determine the extent to which these regulations will be, or need to be, implemented, and it is impossible to determine if potential impacts would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds. Additionally, as project-specific information is not currently known, there are no known feasible mitigation measures that can be identified at this time beyond the policies and actions listed above. Therefore, this impact is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: There is no feasible mitigation available for this impact.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Impact Analysis: As stated under Impact AQ-4, with respect to potential sources that may emit odors during construction and operations, future developments under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with the CARB requirements, SCAQMD rules, the City’s Municipal Code, and the proposed General Plan Update policies and actions. As a result, the implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative odor impacts.
Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Project implementation would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City; impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.3.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The General Plan Update would result in a significant unavoidable impact for the following areas:
• General Plan implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard during construction and operational activities. • General Plan implementation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and operational activities.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.3-46 Air Quality
• General Plan implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts with the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
All other air quality impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant.
If the City of Lawndale approves the General Plan Update, the City will be required to make findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations for consideration by the City’s decision makers in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
5.3.8 REFERENCES
Ahrens, Donald C., Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment, 2006.
California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from DieselFueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000, https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf California Air Resources Board, National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2023a, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/national-ambient-air-quality-standards California Air Resources Board, Maps of State and Federal Area Designations, 2023b, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook# South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003, Revised July 2008. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology – Appendix C, Revised October 21, 2009.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022- air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16, accessed May 1, 2023.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Connect SoCal (2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Adopted Final Connect SoCal, https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan, accessed May 1, 2023.
Western Regional Climate Center, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5114, accessed on May 1, 2023.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-1 Biological Resources
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5.4.1 PURPOSE
This section describes biological resources within the Planning Area and provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update.
KEY TERMS
The following key terms are used throughout this section to describe biological resources and the framework that regulates them:
Hydric Soils: One of the three wetland identification parameters, according to the Federal definition of a wetland, hydric soils have characteristics that indicate they were developed in conditions where soil oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated soil for long periods during the growing season. There are approximately 2,000 named soils in the United States that may occur in wetlands.
Sensitive Natural Community: A sensitive natural community is a biological community that is regionally rare, provides important habitat opportunities for wildlife, is structurally complex, or is in other ways of special concern to local, State, or Federal agencies. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) identifies the elimination or substantial degradation of such communities as a significant impact. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) tracks sensitive natural communities in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
Special-Status Species: Special-status species are those plants and animals that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized by Federal, State, or other agencies. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by Federal or State endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as "sensitive" on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of State resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts to meet local conservation objectives. These species are referred to collectively as "special status species" in this report, following a convention that has developed in practice but has no official sanction. For the purposes of this assessment, the term “special status” includes those species that are:
• Federally listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11-
17.12);
• Candidates for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (61 FR 7596-7613); • State listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (14 CCR 670.5); • Species listed by the USFWS or the CDFW as a species of concern (USFWS), rare (CDFW), or of special concern (CDFW);
• Fully protected animals, as defined by the State of California (California Fish and Game Code Section 3511, 4700, and 5050);
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-2 Biological Resources • Species that meet the definition of threatened, endangered, or rare under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380);
• Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.); and
• Plants listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as rare, threatened, or endangered (List 1A and List 2 status plants in Skinner and Pavlik 1994).
Waters of the U.S.: The Federal government defines waters of the U.S. as "lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent drainages, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows" [33 C.F.R. §328.3(a)].
Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed and bank and ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].
5.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
BIOREGIONS
Lawndale is located within the Southern California Coast bioregion. This bioregion is bounded on the north by the southern edge of the Los Padres National Forest and the northern base of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains. This bioregion is bounded on the east by the western edge of the Bureau of Land Management California Desert Conservation Area, and is bordered on the south by the Mexican border.
Landscapes in this bioregion range from flatlands to mountains, and ecosystems range from ocean to desert. The region also contains two of California’s largest cities (Los Angeles and San Diego). More than any other bioregion in the State, urbanization has caused intense effects of natural resources (SWRCB 2012). Urbanization in the Southern California Coast bioregion has resulted in the loss of habitat, spread of nonnative species, and the loss of native species.
CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM
The California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) habitat classification scheme has been developed to support the CWHR System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularlyoccurring birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. When first published in 1988, the classification scheme had 53 habitats. At present, there are 59 wildlife habitats in the CWHR System, including: 27 tree, 12 shrub, six herbaceous, four aquatic, eight agricultural, one developed, and one non-vegetated (CDFW 2023).
According to the CWHR System, there is only one cover type (wildlife habitat classification) in the Planning Area out of 59 found in the State; refer to Figure 5.4-1, Land Cover Types. This cover type is Urban.
However, there are three additional cover types found within the surrounding region. These include:
Annual Grassland, Lacustrine, and Pasture.
A brief description of the four cover types are as follows:
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-3 Biological Resources Developed Cover Types
Urban habitats are not limited to any particular physical setting. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished: downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. The heavily-developed downtown is usually at the center, followed by concentric zones of urban residential and suburbs. There is a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative cover. Species richness and diversity is extremely low in the inner cover. The structure of urban vegetation varies, with five types of vegetative structure defined: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. A distinguishing feature of the urban wildlife habitat is the mixture of native and exotic species. As stated, the entire Planning Area (approximately 1,555 acres) is identified as urban habitat.
Herbaceous Dominated Cover Types
Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Climatic conditions are typically Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and dry, hot summers. The length of the frost-free season averages 250 to 300 days. Annual precipitation is highest in northern California. Annual grassland habitat is not found within the Planning Area, but is found within the surrounding region (e.g., in open space areas of Alondra Park and utility easement).
Pasture vegetation is a mix of perennial grasses and legumes that normally provide 100 percent canopy closure. Heights of vegetation varies, according to season and livestock stocking levels, from a few inches to two or more feet on fertile soils before grazing. Pasture habitat is not found within the Planning Area, but is found within the surrounding region (e.g., in small patches of undeveloped residential areas).
Aquatic Cover Types
Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water. These habitats may occur in association with any terrestrial habitats, Riverine, or Fresh Emergent Wetlands. They may vary from small ponds less than one acre to large areas covering several square miles. Depth can vary from a few inches to hundreds of feet. Typical lacustrine habitats include permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs, and intermittent lakes and ponds (including vernal pools) so shallow that rooted plants can grow over the bottom. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life; intermittent types usually do not. Lacustrine habitat is not found within the Planning Area, but is found within the surrounding region (e.g., the artificial pond in Alondra Park).
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
As previously described, special-status species are those plants and animals that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized by Federal, State, or other agencies. The following discussion is based on a background search of specialstatus species that are documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Survey (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the USFWS endangered and threatened species lists. The background search was regional in scope and focused on documented occurrences within a nine-quad (which includes the following U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles: Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Los Angeles, Venice, Inglewood, South Gate, Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Long Beach), and a one-mile search area; refer to Appendix C, Biological Resources.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-4 Biological Resources Special-Status Plants
The search revealed documented occurrences of over 100 special-status plant species within the ninequad search area. Of these special-status plant species, four species are located within one mile of the Planning Area; refer to Appendix C.
Table 5.4-1, Special-Status Plants Present or Potentially Present, provides a list of special-status plant species that are documented within a one-mile search area of the Planning Area, and their current protective status. Figure 5.4-2, California Natural Diversity Database: One-Mile Search, illustrates the special-status plant species located within one mile of the Planning Area.
Table 5.4-1
Special-Status Plants Present or Potentially Present
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status State Status CRPR*
Orcuttia Californica California Orcutt Grass Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Navarretia Prostrata Prostrate Vernal Pool Navarretia None None 1B.2 Eryngium Aristulatum Var. Parishii San Diego Button- Celery Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Atriplex Coulteri Coulter’s Saltbush None None 1B.2
Source: California Department of Fish & Wildlife, CNDDB, 2022.
Notes: Nine-quad search area of Lawndale.
*California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Key:
1B.1 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California. 1B.2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California.
Special-Status Animals
The search revealed documented occurrences of nine special-status animal species within one-mile of the Planning Area; refer to Appendix C. This includes: one bird, four insects, one amphibian, two reptiles, and one mammal. Table 5.4-2, Special-Status Animals Present or Potentially Present, provides a list of the special-status animal species that are documented within one mile of the Planning Area, and their current protective status. Figure 5.4-2 illustrates the special-status animal species located within one mile of the Planning Area.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-5 Biological Resources Table 5.4-2
Special-Status Animals Present or Potentially Present
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status State Status CDFWStatus*
Amphibians
Spea hammondii Western spadefoot None None SSC
Birds
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird None Threatened SSC Insects
Glaucopsyche lygdamus
palosverdesensis Palos Verdes blue butterfly Endangered None -- Rhaphiomidas terminatus
terminatus El Segundo flower-loving fly None None --
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee None None --
Danaus plexippus pop. 1 Monarch- California
overwintering population
Candidate
Threatened None --
Reptiles
Anniella stebbinsi Southern California legless
lizard None None SSC
Phrynosoma blainvillii Coast horned lizard None None SSC Mammal
Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat None None SSC Source: California Department of Fish & Wildlife, CNDDB, 2022.
Notes: Nine-quad search area of Lawndale.
*CDFW Status Key:
SSC CDFW Species of Special Concern
Sensitive Natural Communities
The CDFW considers sensitive natural communities to have significant biotic value, with species of plants and animals unique to each community. The CNDDB search found that there are no sensitive natural communities within the nine-quad search area. The Planning Area is largely built-out and consists of a mixture of impervious surfaces and native and non-native species, typical of urban habitats.
Aquatic Resources
There are no large water bodies or creeks within the Planning Area. A portion of the Dominguez Channel, a 15.7-mile-long channelized watercourse, flows through the eastern portion of the Planning Area; refer to Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Vernal pools are a temporary wetland that occur as a result of rainwater failing to drain into subsoils and can provide habitat for several sensitive plant and animal species. In California, vernal pools fill in the winter and spring, as water collects in depressions. The water eventually evaporates, leaving a dry depression in the summer and fall. Vernal pools support a range of unique plant and animal species. On some occasions, vernal pools can be connected by small drainages. These connected vernal pools are known as vernal complexes. No known vernal pools that have been identified within Lawndale.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-6 Biological Resources
5.4.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
Federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected under provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973. FESA Section 9 prohibits “take” of threatened or endangered species. “Take” under the FESA is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct.” The presence of any Federally threatened or endangered species that are in a project area generally imposes severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in “take” of the species or its habitat. Under the regulations of the FESA, the USFWS may authorize “take” when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act.
“Harm” has been defined by the regulations of the USFWS to include types of “significant habitat modification or degradation.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in Babbit v. Sweet Home, 515 U.S. 687, ruled that “harm” may include habitat modification “...where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” Activities that may result in “take” of individuals are regulated by USFWS.
Under the FESA, “Critical Habitat” is also designated at the time of listing or within one year of listing. “Critical Habitat” refers to habitat or a specific geographic area that contains the elements and features that are essential for the survival and recovery of the species. In the event a project may result in take or in adverse effects to a species’ designated Critical Habitat, the project proponent may be required to provide mitigation. If the project has a Federal nexus (i.e., occurs on Federal land, is issued Federal permits, or receives any other Federal oversight or funding), the proponent would be required to enter into Section 7 informal and/or formal consultations with the USFWS to obtain, if possible, a biological opinion allowing for incidental take of the species in question. If the project is on private land or would not require any Federal permits, the proponent would be required to prepare a habitat management plan to address the impacts.
The FESA defines as “endangered” any plant or animal species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened” species is a species that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. A “proposed” species is one that has been officially proposed by USFWS for addition to the Federal threatened and endangered species list.
USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species for listing in June 2002 (Federal Register: Volume 67, Number 114, 50 CFR Part 17 2002). Candidate species are regarded by USFWS as candidates for addition to the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.” Although candidate species are not afforded legal protection under the FESA, they typically receive special attention from Federal and State agencies during the environmental review process.
USFWS also uses the label “species of concern,” an informal term that refers to species which might be in need of concentrated conservation actions. As the species of concern designated by USFWS do not receive Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-7 Biological Resources formal legal protection, the use of the term does not necessarily ensure that the species would be proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 United States Government Code [USC] 703) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, or possess or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union, and authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. It establishes seasons and bag limits for hunted species and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs (16 USC 703; 50 CFR 10, 21).
Bald and Golden Eagle Preservation Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds (16 U.S. Government Code Section 668(a)). “Take” under the Act includes actions which significantly disturb eagles (50 CFR Section 22.3). 1972 amendments increased penalties for violating provisions of the Act and strengthened other enforcement measures. A 1978 amendment authorized the Secretary of the Interior to permit the taking of golden eagle nests that interfere with resource development or recovery operations, and recent amendments authorize USFWS to issue permits for incidental and practically unavoidable take of eagles.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 requires that a permit be obtained from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any “waters of the United States or wetlands.” Waters of the United States are broadly defined in the Corps regulations (33 CFR 328) to include navigable waterways, their tributaries, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2021). Wetlands that are not specifically exempt from Section 404 regulations (such as drainage channels excavated on dry land) are considered to be “jurisdictional wetlands.” In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Court acted to limit the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps under CWA Section 404 as it applies to adjacent waters (2001). Specifically, the Court ruled that waters that are non-navigable, isolated, and intrastate are not subject to the Corps jurisdiction (Guzy and Anderson 2001). The Corps is required to consult with the USFWS, EPA, and State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), among other agencies, in carrying out its discretionary authority under Section 404.
The Corps grants two types of permits, individual and nationwide. Project-specific individual permits are required for certain activities that may have a potential for more than a minimal impact and necessitate a detailed application. The most common type of permit is a nationwide permit. Nationwide permits authorize activities on a nationwide basis unless specifically limited and are designed to regulate with little delay or paperwork certain activities having minimal impacts. Nationwide permits typically take two to Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-8 Biological Resources three months to obtain whereas individual permits can take a year or more. To qualify for a nationwide permit, specific criteria must be met. If the criteria restrictions are met, permittees may proceed with certain activities without notifying the Corps. Some nationwide permits require a pre-construction notification before activities can begin.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Applicants for a Federal license or permit for activities which may discharge to waters of the U.S. must seek Water Quality Certification from the State or Indian tribe with jurisdiction. Such Certification is based on a finding that the discharge would meet water quality standards and other applicable requirements.
In California, RWQCBs issue or deny Certification for discharges within their geographical jurisdiction.
Water Quality Certification must be based on a finding that the proposed discharge would comply with water quality standards, which are defined as numeric and narrative objectives in each RWQCB’s Basin Plan. Where applicable, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has this responsibility for projects affecting waters within the jurisdiction of multiple RWQCBs. The RWQCB’s jurisdiction extends to all waters of the State and to all waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
CWA Section 401 requires that “any applicant for a Federal permit for activities that involve a discharge to waters of the State, shall provide the Federal permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge is proposed that states that the discharge would comply with the applicable provisions under the Federal Clean Water Act.” Therefore, before the Corps would issue a Section 404 permit, applicants must apply for and receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB.
STATE
California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.) State-listed threatened and endangered species are protected under provisions of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Activities that may result in “take” of individuals (defined in CESA as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) are regulated by the CDFW. Habitat degradation or modification is not included in the definition of “take” under CESA.
Nonetheless, CDFW has interpreted “take” to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging habitat necessary to maintain a viable breeding population of protected species.
The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens.
State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above.
The CDFW has also produced a Species of Special Concern list to serve as a species watch list. Species on this list are either of limited distribution or their habitats have been reduced substantially, such that a threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of special concern may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have formal statutory protection.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-9 Biological Resources California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 independently defines “endangered” and “rare” species separately from the definitions in the CESA. Under CEQA, “endangered” species of plants or animals are defined as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while “rare” species are defined as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens.
Lake and Streambed Alteration Program (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616) California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616 establish a fee-based process to ensure that projects conducted in and around lakes, rivers, or streams do not adversely impact fish and wildlife resources, or, when adverse impacts cannot be avoided, ensures that adequate mitigation and/or compensation is provided.
Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires any person, State, or local governmental agency or public utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that would do one or more of the following:
• Substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; • Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or
• Deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake.
Fish and Game Code Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State. CDFW’s regulatory authority extends to include riparian habitat (including wetlands) supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric soils and saturated soil conditions. Generally, the CDFW takes jurisdiction to the top of bank of the stream or to the outer limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation (outer drip line), whichever is greater. Notification is generally required for any project that would take place in or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake, or their tributaries. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life and watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation.
Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code Sections 1900 through 1913) Fish and Game Code Sections 1900 through 1913 were developed to preserve, protect, and enhance Rare and Endangered plants in the State of California. The act requires all State agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve Endangered and Rare native plants. Provisions of the Native Plant Protection Act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least ten days in advance of any change in land use which would adversely impact listed plants. This allows the CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed.
California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, 3513, 4700, 5050, and 5515 The CDFW administers the Fish and Game Code. There are particular sections of the Fish and Game Code that are applicable to natural resource management. For example, Section 3503 of the Code makes it unlawful to destroy the nests or eggs of any birds that are protected under the MBTA. Furthermore, any Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-10 Biological Resources birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (Birds of Prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls) are protected under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 which makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy their nest or eggs. A consultation with CDFW would be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey nest that may occur on a project site. Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 list fully protected bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian, and fish species, respectively. The CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Examples of species that are State fully protected include golden eagle and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Fish and Game Code Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA.
California Native Plant Society Rare or Endangered Plant Species Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which have no designated status under State and Federal endangered species legislation are defined as follows:
• California Rare Plant Rank
1A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere 1B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 2A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But More Common Elsewhere 2B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere
3. Plants about Which More Information is Needed - A Review List
4. Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List
• Threat Ranks
1. Seriously threatened in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
2. Moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
3. Not very threatened in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) LOCAL
City of Lawndale Municipal Code
The City of Lawndale Municipal Code Chapter 12.28, Street Trees, outlines the City’s tree planting and master street tree plan. Per Section 12.28.030, Jurisdiction and Control, the Director has exclusive jurisdiction over the planting, maintenance, and removal of City trees, plants and other vegetation within streets and on other City property. A permit is required for the planting, spraying, pruning, or removal of street trees or trees on public property.
Municipal Code Section 13.16.050, Subdivision Design, requires new development to limit clearing and grading of native vegetation to the minimum extent practicable.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-11 Biological Resources
5.4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to biological resources. The issues presented in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this section.
Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (refer to Impact Statement BIO-1);
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (refer to Impact Statement BIO-2); • Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (refer to Impact Statement BIO-2); • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (refer to Impact Statement BIO-3); • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (refer to Impact Statement BIO-4); and • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (refer to Impact Statement BIO-5).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a), Mandatory Findings of Significance, states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would have “... the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species ...” An evaluation of whether an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional and/or local context. Substantial impacts would be those that would substantially diminish or result in the loss of, an important biological resource or those that would obviously conflict with local, State, or Federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations. Impacts are sometimes locally adverse but not significant because, although they would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population- or region-wide basis.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, Endangered, Rare or Threatened Species, states that a lead agency can consider a non-listed species to be Rare, Threatened, or Endangered for the purposes of CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria in the definition of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered. For the purposes of this discussion, the current scientific knowledge on the population size and distribution for Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-12 Biological Resources each special-status species was considered according to the definitions for Rare, Threatened, and Endangered listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.
5.4.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
BIO-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact Analysis: The Planning Area is located within an urbanized area and currently developed with residential and non-residential land uses. The Planning Area consists primarily of developed and/or disturbed land that has been developed, paved, or landscaped, and existing vegetation consists of primarily ornamental and/or nonnative plant species. Pursuant to the special-status species searches presented in Table 5.4-1 and Table 5.4-2, four special-status plant species and nine special-status animal species have been identified within one mile of the Planning Area and are considered candidate, sensitive, or special status under FESA, CESA and/or CNPS/CRPR designation. A CNDDB search revealed no sensitive natural communities within the nine-quad search area (refer to Appendix C).
The Project proposes a comprehensive update to the City’s existing General Plan, including a revised Land Use Map. Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in new development and intensification of existing urban uses primarily along major corridors including Hawthorne Boulevard and Redondo Beach Boulevard. In order to be consistent with the existing use, the Project would redesignate seven acres of land which are existing public-school sites designated as Open Space in the 1992 General Plan to the Public Facilities land use designation. The Open Space land being redesignated consists of existing school facilities with a Joint Powers Agreement with the Lawndale Elementary School District for utilization by the City’s residents. The General Plan Update would not modify the Open Space Land Use designation and would continue to provide for public parks, parks that are part of school sites, public and private outdoor recreational facilities, and landscaped open space areas. Further, the Project does not include any specific development proposals and would not result in significant direct impacts to existing biological resources. However, subsequent development projects under the proposed General Plan Update could result in direct impacts to certain species found present on an individual project site. For instance, future development within the City could involve the removal of trees, which may have the potential to impact nesting migratory birds. Proposed removal of any street trees or trees on public property within the City would be reviewed in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 12.28 and would be required to comply with the requirements for removal. Future development projects would be required to adhere to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations that provide for sensitive species as part of the discretionary approval process for site-specific development projects.
Compliance with applicable regulations at the time of future development would minimize adverse impacts to sensitive species. Additionally, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to preserve and protect biological resources within the Planning Area. The proposed Resource Management Element Policy RM-1.1 requires that the City provide for public recreational lands, trails, and open space.
Policy RM-1.3 requires new residential development to incorporate on-site open areas or greenspace for Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-13 Biological Resources resident use. Policy RM-1.7 directs the City to provide for the use of street trees along sidewalks and property frontages, consistent with the City’s Master Street Tree program. Policy RM-1.8 encourages the development of innovative non-traditional public and semi-public open space such as community gardens, parkways, and green space. Action RM-1b directs the City to pursue funding for parkland acquisition, development, and maintenance. Action RM-1c directs the City to prepare and adopt a Master Parks Plan to set policies and standards for City parks and open space. Policy RM-6.3 encourages the City to work with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to preserve and/or restore riparian communities along and within established flood control channels. Action RM-6a requires the implementation of BMPs and compliance with the City’s MS4 permit to control stormwater runoff and prevent water quality impairment. The proposed Public Safety Element Policy PS-7.3 directs the City to coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies to establish ecological recovery programs. Adherence to these policies and actions during the discretionary review of future development projects would serve to minimize impacts to sensitive species. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations, and implementation of General Plan Update policies and actions, would reduce potential impacts to sensitive species to a less than significant level.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions:
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-1: Parks, Recreation and Open Space. A community with attractive, safe and accessible parks, recreation, and open space areas.
Policy RM-1.1: Recreation Types. Provide residents a variety of useable and accessible public recreational lands, facilities, trails, open space, and amenities.
Policy RM-1.3: Open Space for Private Developments. Require new private residential development to incorporate on-site open areas, greenspace, or recreational facilities for resident use.
Policy RM-1.7: Street Trees. Provide for the consistent use of street trees along all sidewalks and property frontages, consistent with the City’s Master Street Tree program.
Policy RM-1.8: Creative Open Space and Parks. Recognize the value of non-traditional public and semipublic open space and encourage creativity and innovation during the development and provision of additional open space or parks, including but not limited to plazas, parklets, pedestrian paths, patios, rooftop gardens, community gardens, parkways, green space integrated into parking structures, and temporary or semi-permanent gathering spaces, to supplement the City’s green space and parks.
Action RM-1b: Pursue available resources to fund recreation facilities and parkland acquisition, development, and maintenance, including but not limited to, State and Federal grants, special districts, private donations, gifts, and endowments.
Action RM-1c: Prepare and adopt a Master Parks Plan to guide the provision and maintenance of parkland. The Master Park Plan should be designed to serve as a statement of general Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-14 Biological Resources policy and desired City standards for location and development of public parks and community open space areas, with definite time frames outlined.
Action RM-1g: Coordinate with LA Metro and associated entities regarding the multi-use trail and/or greenway proposed as part of Metro’s C Line (Green) extension project. The City should be actively engaged in the design and implementation of the project to ensure the project reflects community preferences, is compatible with surrounding uses, and maximizes connectivity for active transportation.
Action RM-1h: Consider the creative use of space for the median along Hathorne Boulevard to expand available open space and opportunities for physical fitness, including but not limited to, greenways, parklets, bike or pedestrian paths, and a fitness trail.
Policy RM-6.3: Riparian Habitat. Work with Los Angeles County Public Works and Los Angeles County Flood Control District to preserve and/or restore riparian communities along and within established flood control channels such as the Dominguez Channel, if feasible.
Action RM-6a: To reduce soil erosion and pollutants in urban runoff, require new development and redevelopment projects to control stormwater runoff through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. Existing development shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. As specific development projects are implemented, project proponents will be required to consult with relevant agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Also, ensure that projects of one acre or more complete a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to State of California, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the City’s MS4 permit (order no. R4-2012-0175 (NPDES No. CAS 004001).
PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy PS-7.3: Ecological Recovery. Coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies to establish ecological recovery programs.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact.
BIO-2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-15 Biological Resources Impact Analysis: The CDFW considers sensitive natural communities to have significant biotic value, with species of plants and animals unique to each community. The CNDDB search revealed no sensitive natural communities within the nine-quad search area. The Planning Area is largely built-out and consists of a mixture of impervious surfaces and native and non-native species, typical of urban habitats.
While not always documented as a sensitive natural community in the CNDDB, streams, rivers, wet meadows, and vernal pools are of high concern because they provide unique aquatic habitat for many endemic species, including special status plants, birds, invertebrates, and amphibians. These aquatic habitats oftentimes qualify as protected wetlands or jurisdictional waters and are protected from disturbance through the CWA. There are no large water bodies or creeks within the Planning Area and no known vernal pools have been identified. A portion of the Dominguez Channel, a 15.7-mile-long channelized watercourse, flows through the eastern portion of the Planning Area. No other aquatic resources exist within the Planning Area.
The General Plan Update is a planning document that enables additional development consistent with the proposed Land Use Map, but does not include any site-specific development proposals; therefore, adoption of the General Plan Update would not directly impact the environment. However, the Project could have an indirect change on the physical environment through subsequently approved projects that are consistent with the buildout under the General Plan Update. Individual projects within the Planning Area would require a detailed and site-specific review of the site to determine the presence or absence of water features. If water features are present and disturbance is required, Federal and State laws require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. The requirements of these Federal and State laws are implemented through the permit process. Additionally, the General Plan Update Resource Management Element includes policies and actions intended to protect sensitive natural communities and aquatic resources from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects within the Planning Area. The proposed Resource Management Element Policy RM6.3 directs the City to work with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to preserve and/or restore riparian communities along and within established flood control channels, such as the Dominguez Channel. Action RM-6a requires the implementation of BMPs and compliance with the City’s MS4 permit to control stormwater runoff and prevent water quality impairment. Adherence to these policies and actions during the discretionary review of future development projects would serve to minimize impacts to sensitive species.
Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations, and implementation of General Plan Update policies and actions, would reduce potential impacts to aquatic resources to a less than significant level.
Thus, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, or on State or Federally protected wetlands and impacts would be less than significant.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions:
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Policy RM-6.3: Riparian Habitat. Work with Los Angeles County Public Works and Los Angeles County Flood Control District to preserve and/or restore riparian communities along and within established flood control channels such as the Dominguez Channel, if feasible.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-16 Biological Resources Action RM-6a: To reduce soil erosion and pollutants in urban runoff, require new development and redevelopment projects to control stormwater runoff through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. Existing development shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. As specific development projects are implemented, project proponents will be required to consult with relevant agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Also, ensure that projects of one acre or more complete a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to State of California, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the City’s MS4 permit (order no. R4-2012-0175 (NPDES No. CAS 004001).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact.
BIO-3: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Impact Analysis: Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from land use changes or habitat conversion can alter the use and viability of wildlife movement corridors (i.e., linear habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more otherwise disjunct larger habitats or habitat fragments). Wildlife habitat corridors maintain connectivity for daily movement, travel, mate-seeking, and migration; plant propagation; genetic interchange; population movement in response to environmental change or natural disaster; and recolonization of habitats subject to local extirpation or removal. The suitability of a habitat as a wildlife movement corridor is related to, among other factors, the habitat corridor’s dimensions (length and width), topography, vegetation, exposure to human influence, and the species in question.
The City and surrounding area are highly urbanized and generally developed with urban uses. The Planning Area consists of developed and/or disturbed land that has been developed, paved, or landscaped, and existing vegetation consists of primarily ornamental and/or nonnative plant species. Thus, the Planning Area does not provide for habitat linkages. The portion of the Dominguez Channel that flows through the eastern portion of the Planning Area is concrete-lined and considered to have low habitat value. Although the channel could be used for wildlife movement, the Project does not propose site-specific development activities, nor does it involve any changes or modifications to the channel. Thus, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
The proposed General Plan Resource Management Element includes policies and actions intended to preserve ecological and biological resources. The proposed Resource Management Element Policy RM1.1 directs the City to provide for public recreational lands, trails, and open space. Policy RM-1.3 requires Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-17 Biological Resources new residential development to incorporate on-site open areas or greenspace for resident use. Policy RM1.7 directs the City to provide for the use of street trees along sidewalks and property frontages, consistent with the City’s Master Street Tree program. Policy RM-1.8 encourages the development of innovative non-traditional public and semi-public open space such as community gardens, parkways, and green space. Action RM-1b encourages the City to pursue funding for parkland acquisition, development, and maintenance. Action RM-1c directs the City to prepare and adopt a Master Parks Plan to set policies and standards for City parks and open space. Policy RM-6.3 directs the City to work with Los Angeles County Public Works Department and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to preserve and/or restore riparian communities along and within established flood control channels. Action RM-6a requires the implementation of BMPs and compliance with the City’s MS4 permit to control stormwater runoff and prevent water quality impairment. The proposed Public Safety Element Policy PS-7.3 directs the City to coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies to establish ecological recovery programs. Adherence to these policies and actions would serve to protect potential biological resources and provide for trees and other vegetation consistent with wildlife habitat recovery. Thus, through compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations, and General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions, future development under the General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact associated with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions:
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-1: Parks, Recreation and Open Space. A community with attractive, safe and accessible parks, recreation, and open space areas.
Policy RM-1.1: Recreation Types. Provide residents a variety of useable public recreational lands, facilities, trails, open space, and amenities.
Policy RM-1.3: Open Space for Private Developments. Require new private residential development to incorporate on-site open areas, greenspace, or recreational facilities for resident use.
Policy RM-1.7: Street Trees. Provide for the consistent use of street trees along all sidewalks and property frontages, consistent with the City’s Master Street Tree program.
Policy RM-1.8: Creative Open Space and Parks. Recognize the value of non-traditional public and semipublic open space and encourage creativity and innovation during the development and provision of additional open space or parks, including but not limited to plazas, parklets, pedestrian paths, patios, rooftop gardens, community gardens, parkways, green space integrated into parking structures, and temporary or semi-permanent gathering spaces, to supplement the City’s green space and parks.
Action RM-1b: Pursue available resources to fund recreation facilities and parkland acquisition, development, and maintenance, including but not limited to, State and Federal grants, special districts, private donations, gifts, and endowments.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-18 Biological Resources Action RM-1c: Prepare and adopt a Master Parks Plan to guide the provision and maintenance of parkland. The Master Park Plan should be designed to serve as a statement of general policy and desired City standards for location and development of public parks and community open space areas, with definite time frames outlined.
Action RM-1g: Coordinate with LA Metro and associated entities regarding the multi-use trail and/or greenway proposed as part of Metro’s C Line (Green) extension project. The City should be actively engaged in the design and implementation of the project to ensure the project reflects community preferences, is compatible with surrounding uses, and maximizes connectivity for active transportation.
Action RM-1h: Consider the creative use of space for the median along Hathorne Boulevard to expand available open space and opportunities for physical fitness, including but not limited to, greenways, parklets, bike or pedestrian paths, and a fitness trail.
Policy RM-6.3: Riparian Habitat. Work with Los Angeles County Public Works and Los Angeles County Flood Control District to preserve and/or restore riparian communities along and within established flood control channels such as the Dominguez Channel, if feasible.
Action RM-6a: To reduce soil erosion and pollutants in urban runoff, require new development and redevelopment projects to control stormwater runoff through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. Existing development shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. As specific development projects are implemented, project proponents will be required to consult with relevant agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Also, ensure that projects of one acre or more complete a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to State of California, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the City’s MS4 permit (order no. R4-2012-0175 (NPDES No. CAS 004001).
PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy PS-7.3: Ecological Recovery. Coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies to establish ecological recovery programs.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
BIO-4: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Impact Analysis: Future development under the General Plan Update would be subject to all applicable Federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources as outlined above. The City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance; however, Lawndale Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-19 Biological Resources Municipal Code Chapter 12.28, Street Trees, addresses the City’s tree planting and master street tree plan and requires authorization for the planting, spraying, pruning, or removal of street trees or trees on public property. In addition, the General Plan Resource Management Element includes policies and actions intended to provide for additional trees within the City. For instance, Policy RM-1.7 requires the City to provide for the use of street trees along all sidewalks and property frontages, consistent with the City’s Master Street Tree program. Future development projects would be assessed for consistency with the Lawndale Municipal Code and General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions. Thus, the General Plan Update would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant tin this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions:
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Policy RM-1.7: Street Trees. Provide for the consistent use of street trees along all sidewalks and property frontages, consistent with the City’s Master Street Tree program.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
BIO-5: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact Analysis: The Planning Area is urbanized and is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Thus, the Project would not conflict with any of these plans and no impact would occur.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no General Plan Update goals, policies, or actions specific to habitat conservation plans.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: No Impact.
5.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analysis, establishes growth and development within Los Angeles County as anticipated by SCAG as having the potential to interact with the proposed Project to the extent that a significant cumulative effect may occur. The cumulative projects’ setting for biological resources would be the Los Angeles region.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-20 Biological Resources candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, a have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, have a substantial adverse effect on state or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Impact Analysis: The City is highly urbanized and is not known to support any significant wildlife or native planning communities or species. The Planning Area, along with the surrounding region, are predominately developed or paved and any landscaping consists primarily of ornamental and/or nonnative plant species. Areas having the potential to support significant wildlife or native planning communities or species typically consist of lands designated as open space or for resource protection.
As described above, the potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on any special status species, riparian habitat or sensitive natural community or wetlands is less than significant as these resources do not generally occur within the Planning Area. Future development within the City could involve the removal of trees, which may have the potential to impact nesting migratory birds. Proposed removal of any street trees or trees on public property within the City would be reviewed in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 12.28 and would be required to comply with the requirements for removal.
Future development projects would be required to adhere to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations that provide for sensitive species as part of the discretionary approval process for site-specific development projects.
Any future development would be assessed for consistency with local policies and ordinances, including the Municipal Code and General Plan goals and policies, and adopted regulations pertaining to biological resources, as appropriate. With implementation of the adopted policies and regulations described above, the proposed General Plan Update would not considerably contribute to adverse effects to biological resources, including special status plant or wildlife species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or any State or Federally protected wetlands. The polices and actions included within the General Plan Update and compliance with existing regulations would reduce the cumulative effect of the General Plan Update on biological resources to a less than significant level. Thus, the proposed Project’s incremental effects involving special status plant or wildlife species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or any State or Federally protected wetlands would not be cumulatively considerable.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-21 Biological Resources Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Impact Analysis: The Planning Area, along with the surrounding region, are predominantly developed or paved and any landscaping consists primarily of ornamental and/or non-native plant species and do not provide for habitat linkages. The Dominguez Channel is concrete-lined and considered to have low habitat value. Although the channel could be used for wildlife movement, the Project as well as the cumulative projects do not involve any direct or indirect physical changes or modifications to the channel. Further, future projects implemented under the General Plan Update would be required to be consistent with the General Plan Update policies and actions pertaining to biological resources. The proposed General Plan Update would not considerably contribute to interference of wildlife movement or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Thus, the proposed Project’s incremental effects involving the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites would not be cumulatively considerable.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Impact Analysis: Site-specific development is not currently proposed as part of the Project; however, future development associated with implementation of the Project would be assessed for consistency with local policies and ordinances, including the Municipal Code and General Plan Update goals and policies, as appropriate. Proposed removal of any street trees or trees on public property within the City would be reviewed in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 12.28 and would be required to comply with the requirements for removal. Similarly, cumulative development within the region would be required to comply with any agency-specific policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Future development within the City and cumulative development would be assessed for consistency with the agency-specific Municipal Code and General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions. Since the Project would not conflict with any local policies or Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-22 Biological Resources ordinances protecting biological resources, the Project’s incremental effects would not be cumulatively considerable in this regard.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: Refer to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions cited above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The Planning Area is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Thus, the Project’s incremental effects involving a conflict with any of these plans would not be cumulatively considerable.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies, and Actions: There are no General Plan Update goals, policies, or actions specific to habitat conservation plans.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.4.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Impacts to biological resources associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant. No significant unavoidable impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of the General Plan Update.
5.4.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Wildlife Habitats - California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Wildlife-Habitats, accessed March 6, 2023.
California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diversity Database, March 2, 2022.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Policy:
Draft Substitute Environmental Document, March 19, 2012, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/owts/docs/substitute_environdoc.pd f, accessed March 6, 2023.
Guzy, G. and Anderson, R., Memorandum: Supreme Court Ruling Concerning CWA Jurisdiction of Isolated Waters: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers, January 2001.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-23 Biological Resources United States Environmental Protection Agency, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: How Wetlands are Defined and Identified, https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/how-wetlands-are-defined-andidentified-under-cwa-section-404, accessed September 20, 2021.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-24 Biological Resources This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF LAWNDALE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LEGEND
City of Lawndale
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Adjacent Incorporated Area
Land Cover Type
Annual Grassland
Lacustrine
Pasture
Urban
Sources: City of Lawndale; Los Angeles County. CAL FIRE fveg15_1. Map date: June 22, 2023
Figure 5.4-1.
Land Cover Types
Dominguez Channel
Crenshaw Blvd
Prairie Ave
W Rosecrans Ave
Hawthorne Blvd
Prairie Ave
Inglewood Ave
Manhattan Beach Blvd
Rosecrans Ave
Redondo Beach Blvd
Yukon Ave
Marine Ave
Condon Ave
147th St
171st St
Ainsworth Ave
Jefferson Ave
W 168th St
S La C ien e g a Blvd
M cB a i n A ve
Cranbrook Ave
S Doty Ave
Gerkin Ave
S Shoup Ave
W 170th St
Bodger Ave
Kornblum A ve
Carnegie Ln
Vanderbilt Ln
W 140th St
165th St
144th St
W 162nd St Ramona Ave
163rd St
Prairie Ave
170th St
Doty Ave
Johnston Ave
Dow Ave
Kingsdale Ave
Mansel Ave
153rd St
S Lemoli Ave
156th St
Cerise Ave
W 152nd St
Robinson St
Perkins Ln
Felton Ln
W 145th St
Mackay Ln
Freeman Ave
Osage Ave
May Ave
W 157th St
Burin Ave
Grevillea Ave
Firmona Ave
W 154th St
Gates Ave
Graham Ave
Curtis Ave
Voorhees Ave
Ruhland Ave
Nelson Ave
144th Pl
173 rd S t
175th Pl
W 171st St
S Eriel Ave
W 163rd St
168th St
164th St
167th St
W 173rd St 173rd Pl
W 166th St
W 142nd St
141st St
W 147th St
W 149th St
W 161st St
W 160th St
154th St
14 8 th S t
Lemoli Ave
166th St
Eastwood Ave
Chadron Ave
162nd St Beland Blvd
W 159th St
Yukon Ave
160th St
Larch Ave
172nd St
Fo nth ill A ve
153rd Pl
W 146th St
161st St
Avis Ave
139th St
169th St
159th St
W 156th St
W 139th St
142nd St
S Ermanita Ave
S Faysmith Ave
1 4 7 th P l Roselle Ave
Cordary Ave
S Florwood Ave
W 153rd St
W 154th St
175th St
Pinckard Ave
Gibson Ln
405
Artesia Blvd
Mathews Ave
H a w t h o r n e
R e d o n d o B e a c h
G a r d e n a
To r ra n c e
0 500 1,000
Feet
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-26 Biological Resources This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF LAWNDALE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LEGEND
City of Lawndale
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
1-mile Radius of Planning Area
Adjacent Incorporated Area
Special Status Species Occurrences*
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Sensitive EO's (Commercial only)
Sources: City of Lawndale; Los Angeles County; California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) version3/1/2022.
Date: June 20, 2023.
Figure 5.4-2.
California Natural
Diversity Database
LawndaleHawthorne Blvd
Artesia Blvd
405
182nd St
Prospect Ave
S Inglewood Ave
2nd St
Van Ness Ave
Yukon Ave
W 135th St
Ing el wood Ave
Grant Ave
Marine Ave
Ripley Ave
S Douglas St
Redondo Beach Ave
N Nash St
Western Ave
Crenshaw Blvd
Prairie Ave
Hawthorne Blvd
W El Segundo Blvd
Inglewood Ave
S Western Ave
N Aviation Blvd
Crenshaw Blvd
W Redondo Beach Blvd S Western Ave
Manhattan Beach Blvd
W Rosecrans Ave
E El Segundo Blvd
190th St
Aviation Blvd
Aviation
Blvd
Rosecrans Ave
S Western Ave
S
Aviat oi n B vl d
Rosecrans Ave
Prairie Ave
Redondo Beach Blvd
Anita St
S Aviation Blvd
H a w t h o r n e
R e d o n d o B e a c h
G a r d e n a
To r r a n c e
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
* The occurrences shown on this map represent
the known locations of the species listed here as of
the date of this version. There may be additional
occurrences or additional species within this area
which have not been surveyed and/or mapped.
Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species
or an area can never be used as proof that no
special status species occur in an area.
1-Mile Radius Search
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.4-28 Biological Resources This page intentionally left blank.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-1 Cultural Resources
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.5.1 PURPOSE
This section identifies existing cultural (including historic and archeological resources) resources within the Planning Area, and provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update.
This section is primarily based upon the Cultural and Paleontological Resource Study for the General Plan Update: City of Lawndale, Los Angeles County (Cultural Study), prepared by Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC and dated October 2020 and updated July 2023; refer to Appendix D, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Study.
For impacts specific to tribal cultural resources, refer to Section 5.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.
5.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
The Planning Area is located within the boundaries of Gabrielino or Tongva Indians. The Gabrielino Indians are named because of their association with the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel. The Gabrielino are one of the least known Native American groups in California. Generally, their territory included all of the Los Angeles Basin, parts of the Santa Ana and Santa Monica Mountains, along the coast from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Canyon in the north, and San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina Islands.
The Gabrielino spoke a dialect of the Cupan group of the Takic language family. This language was part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language stock which migrated west from the Great Basin. The Gabrielino shared this language with their neighboring groups to the south and east.
Groups of Gabrielino lived in villages that were autonomous from other villages. Each village had access to hunting, collecting, and fishing areas. Villages were typically located in protected coves or canyons near water. Acorns were the most important food for the Gabrielino, although the types and quantity of different foods varied by season and locale. Other important sources of food were grass and many other seed types, deer, rabbit, jackrabbit, woodrat, mice, ground squirrels, quail, doves, ducks and other fowl, fish, shellfish, and marine mammals.
Typically, Gabrielino women gathered and men hunted, although work tasks often overlapped. Each village had a chief who controlled religious, economic, and warfare authorities. The chief had an assistant and an advisory council who assisted in important decisions and rituals. Each of these positions was hereditary being passed down from generation to generation. According to mapping of Gabrielino villages undertaken by McCawley, no known villages would be located within the City of Lawndale. The two nearest Gabrielino villages, which may compose large areas rather than just a single location, are Swaanga, approximately 10 miles to the southeast, and Waachnga, approximately five miles to the northwest. The Kirkman-Harriman Pictorial and Historical Map of Los Angeles also does not identify any Gabrielino villages within the City.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-2 Cultural Resources
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (from 1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (from 1821 to 1848), and the American Period (from 1848 to Present). The first Europeans in California were the Spanish. In 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo entered what was to become known as San Diego Harbor where he met a group of Kumeyaay Indians while on shore. Over the next few hundred years there were several maritime excursions along the California coast, but it would be more than 225 years until the Spanish established a permanent settlement. To protect its interests, Spain sent four excursions into California, two by land and two by sea. The entire expedition was led by Captain Gaspar de Portolá, military commander of California. Portolá came through the Los Angeles basin area in 1769 while travelling from San Diego to Monterey. To fulfill some of the religious goals of the expedition, Father Junípero Serra was sent to California to establish a system of Catholic Missions. It was not until two years later on September 8, 1771 that Mission San Gabriel Arcángel was established by Fathers Pedro Cambon and Angel Somera.
Ten years later on September 4, 1781, Los Angeles was founded. Early settlers farmed and they built a system of zanjas, or irrigation ditches, to transport water from the Los Angeles River to plots of land. With Mexican Independence in 1821, Los Angeles and California experienced great economic independence and growth. By 1822, the Mexican government began to grant permits to its citizens along the southern coast for animal pasture. Governor of Alta California, Juan Alvarado, gave the Rancho Sausal Redondo land grant to Antonio Ignacio Ávila, son of Spanish soldier Cornelio Ávila, that encompasses the present-day cities of Lawndale, Inglewood, Hawthorne, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Hermosa Beach. The total acreage of the land grant was roughly 40,000 acres; but when the United States Land Commission confirmed title, Rancho Sausal Redondo was reduced to 22,000 acres. The City of Lawndale is located in what was the southwestern corner of Rancho Sausal Redondo. Between 1820 and 1841, the population of Los Angeles tripled to 1,680. California was ceded to the U.S. in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo assured owners that prior, valid land grants would be honored if a claim was filed as required by the Land Act of 1851. Soon after, Antonio Ignacio Ávila filed a claim for Rancho Sausal Redondo and was awarded a patent in 1855 by the Public Land Commission. He later died in 1858 and his heirs sold the Rancho to pay for the probate costs. In 1868, ten years after his death, a Scottish nobleman named Sir Robert Burnett purchased the land grant from Ávila’s heirs. Having also acquired the Aquaje de la Centinela parcel, Burnett combined both areas and named it Centinela Ranch. After doing so, Burnett gradually slowed cattle ranching and began to incorporate his prior specialization of sheep raising. In 1873, Burnett leased Centinela Ranch to Daniel and Catherine Freeman and returned to his home in Scotland. The Freeman’s continued to raise sheep but after a tumultuous two-year drought from 1875 to 1876, they began to plant barley along with several thousand citrus, almond, olive, and eucalyptus trees. The Freeman’s made dry-land farming profitable and exported 3,000,000 bushels of barley and other crops to Liverpool and London well in to the 1880s.
The City of Lawndale
The history of what later would be Lawndale begins with the opening of the Redondo seaport in 1890 and the railroad service created between the port and Los Angeles. By 1902, the Los Angeles and Redondo Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-3 Cultural Resources railways passed along in what is now Hawthorne Boulevard, extending from Inglewood to Railroad Avenue. In March of 1905, real estate developer Charles B. Hopper subdivided and opened the southern portion of Centinela Ranch and named it Lawndale. It was marketed as an ideal poultry farming location for early settlers, but unfortunately a lack of buyers forced Hopper to change to smaller lots a year later.
When the U.S. Census was taken in 1910, the unincorporated town of Lawndale had reached 142 residents. In the 1920s the discovery of oil transformed the Lawndale community into a town that built oil derricks, though the Great Depression muted this economic development. After World War II, Lawndale boomed primarily due to subsidized veteran housing and increased accessibility of the Harbor Freeway (I-110). Also, the Businessman’s Group Association created zoning policies to promote and advertise the residential, commercial, and industrial advantages of Lawndale. Amid rapid commercial growth and urbanization of the Centinela Valley in 1958, zoning restrictions officially abolished agriculture in the community. On December 28, 1959, Lawndale was incorporated as a City in Los Angeles County.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
A search of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SSCIC) located at the California State University, Fullerton was conducted on June 9 2020. The records search covered the entire City of Lawndale. In addition, a variety of other sources were consulted, including the California State Historic Property Data File (which includes the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest), the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), California Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) directory, as well as a review of known cultural resource surveys, excavation reports, and historic aerial photos and maps. Further, a reconnaissance field survey was conducted in order to gather baseline data on the present state of previously recorded archaeological and historic resources within the Planning Area.
Results of the SCCIC and BERD records search indicate that 12 historic built environment resources are recorded within the City; refer to Table 5.5-1, Cultural Resources Recorded within the Planning Area.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-4 Cultural Resources Table 5.5-1
Cultural Resources Recorded within the Planning Area
Primary No. or
BERD No.
Resource
Age Characteristics Year Recorded
NHRP/
CRHP
Status*
P-19-178543 1972 Single Family Property (HP2) at 16713 Firmona Ave Unknown 7R P-19-188892 1959 Educational Building Complex 2010 U
P-19-188893 Unknown Educational Building Complex 2010 3CS P-19-190021 Unknown Commercial Building, 3 stories and under 2012 6Z 481616 1935 Single Family Property at 4724 W 159th St 1993 U 480244 1941 Single Family Property at 4523 W 167th St 1993 U 483066 1939 Single Family Property at 4609 W 167th St 1993 U 483164 1936 4726 W 167th St 1993 U
481694 1935 Multiple Family Property (HP3), 2-4 unit at 4562 W. 172nd St 1993 U
561704 1946 Urban Open Space, Alondra Park, at 3850 Manhattan Boulevard 2003 U
574962 1923 Government Building (HP14), City Hall at 14717 Burin Ave 1997 U 681590 1955 Commercial Building, 3 stories, at 16715 Hawthorne Boulevard 2018 U
Source: Duke Cultural Resources Management, 2023.
*NHRP/CRHP Key
3CS Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through survey evaluation 6Z Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation 7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated.
U Unknown Information
No archaeological resources have been recorded within the City. This lack of identified resources is likely to be a consequence of development occurring prior to the implementation of CEQA, rather than a lack of archaeological sites.
All historic built environment resources located within the City are surrounded by paved asphalt parking lots, commercial buildings, and/or single-family residential homes. None of the resources were accompanied by any historic archaeological deposits, nor were any prehistoric cultural resources identified. Records for three of the 12 historic built environment resources were provided by the SCCIC.
A brief description of the three historic built environment resources which contained records from the SCCIC is provided below.
P-19-188892
According to the SCCIC search, Resource P-19-188892 is the Lawndale High School Campus complex. First constructed in 1959, it was built to accommodate the postwar growing population needs of the newly founded City of Lawndale. The core campus consists of an administration building, a cafeteria, classroom buildings, support buildings, athletic fields, and a parking lot. The original campus was a series of one- and two-story brick and cinder block buildings with low pitched roofs constructed on concrete pads. Windows Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-5 Cultural Resources consisted of steel framed fixed and casements. The campus complex was recommended as not historically significant.
P-19-188893
According to the SCCIC search, Resource P-19-188893 is the Leuzinger High School complex. It is the earliest high school built in the City in 1930, shortly after the Great Depression. It consisted of a main administration building, a cafeteria, an Olympian gym and a classroom building. It was named in honor of Adolph Leuzinger, who was a member of the Inglewood Union High School District Board of Trustees for 25 consecutive years. The campus was later expanded in 1956 with the addition of a new cafeteria, locker rooms north of the Olympic gymnasium, and classroom buildings 2, 3, 4, and 5. By 1976, a locker room, the Thompson gym, and classroom buildings 6, 7, and 8 had been added. Leuzinger High School was recommended to be considered a significant cultural resource under CEQA, and therefore qualifies as a historical resource eligible for listing in the CRHR. Additionally, it was recommended that any additional alterations or demolition to the Olympic Gymnasium and/or Memorial Garden be avoided while any alterations to the interior of the Main Administration Building be kept to a minimum.
P-19-190021
Located in a commercial zone in the City of Lawndale, 16720 Hawthorne Boulevard is a two-story retail building and a 10-vehicle parking lot first constructed in 1947. Designated as Tract 8293, Lot Number 106 and 107, this 6,000-square-foot retail building measures roughly 50 feet wide by 105 feet long. Much of the construction is reinforced masonry on a concrete foundation and clad with stucco. The building has a flat roof covered with asphalt and gravel. The roof has a stepped parapet and fenestration that consists of an enframed window wall on the front with metal frames that span the length of the building. There are no records of the original site plan or building permit; however, a building permit indicates that by 1970 the building was used for office space by the Mattel Toymakers Federal Credit Union. Building permits show that by 2003 the building was remodeled with the addition of a bathroom, a storefront, and stairs, as well as the demolition of a partition wall. The property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP.
Results of Reconnaissance Field Survey
A reconnaissance-level overview of the City was conducted by Nicholas F. Hearth of Duke CRM on April 29, 2020. The reconnaissance survey consisted of surveying the City to get a general sense of the potential historical nature and visits to locations of built environment resources indicated in the City’s existing General Plan (1992 General Plan). The reconnaissance-level survey of the City revealed that land uses within Lawndale are predominantly residential, though commercial development is also present, especially along Hawthorne Boulevard.
The City’s 1992 General Plan identifies 32 locations of historic structures. Of these 32 locations, 17 are still extant and were visited during the field survey; refer to Table 5.5-2, Potential Built Environment Resources Locations Visited during Reconnaissance Survey. The remaining 15 historic structures noted in the 1992 General Plan appear to be removed or are so altered as to be unrecognizable.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-6 Cultural Resources Table 5.5-2
Potential Built Environment Resources Locations Visited during Reconnaissance Survey BERD No. Address (approximate) Notes and Condition
N/A 16700 Prairie Ave. Single family residence, Extant
N/A 4039 160th St. Single family residence, Extant
N/A 4061 159th St. Single family residence, Extant
N/A 4061 W. 147th St. Single family residence, Extant
N/A 14752 Prairie Ave. Single family residence, Extant
N/A 14615 Osage Ave. Single family residence, Extant
N/A 4118 W. 147th St. Single family residence, Extant
N/A 14606 Freeman Ave Single family residence, Extant
N/A NW Corner of 149th and Larch Single family residence, Likely extant (view obscured) N/A 14814 Grevillea Ave. Single family residence, Extant N/A 4625 154th St. Single family residence, Extant
N/A 4630 154th St. Single family residence, Extant
N/A 4555 171st. Single family residence, Extant
574962 14717 Burin Ave. City Hall, Extant
481616 4724 159th St. Single family residence, Extant
480244 4523 167th St. Single family residence, Extant
681590 16715 Hawthorne Boulevard Commercial Building, 3 stories, NRHP status 6Y* Source: Duke Cultural Resources Management, 2023.
*NHRP/CRHP Key
6Y Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CR or Local Listing.
Twelve built environment resources are recorded at the SCCIC and in the BERD. The City’s 1992 General Plan lists 32 historic structures. Through the reconnaissance survey it was determined 17 of the 32 structures are extant, the remaining 15 have either been demolished or are so disturbed so as to be unrecognizable. Four of these 17 were also listed at the SCCIC/BERD bringing the total historic structures recorded in the City to 25. None are listed on the NRHP or CRHR.
5.5.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
Enacted in 1966 and amended in 2000, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) declared a national policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at Federal, State, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assisted Native American tribes to preserve their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-7 Cultural Resources Section 106 Process
Through regulations associated with the NHPA, an impact to a cultural resource would be considered significant if government action would affect a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The NHPA codifies a list of cultural resources found to be significant within the context of national history, as determined by a technical process of evaluation. Resources that have not yet been placed on the NRHP, and are yet to be evaluated, are afforded protection under the Act until shown not to be significant.
Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800) state that for a cultural resource to be determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, the resource must meet specific criteria associated with historic significance and possess certain levels of integrity of form, location, and setting. The criteria for listing on the NRHP are applied within an analysis when there is some question as to the significance of a cultural resource. The criteria for evaluation are defined as the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. This quality must be present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
• Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or • Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
• Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Criterion D is usually reserved for archaeological resources. Eligible cultural resources must meet at least one of the above criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character.
The Section 106 evaluation process does not apply to projects undertaken under City environmental compliance jurisdiction. However, should the undertaking require funding, permits, or other administrative actions issued or overseen by a Federal agency, analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources following the Section 106 process would likely be necessary. The Section 106 process typically excludes cultural resources created less than 50 years ago unless the resource is considered highly significant from the local perspective. Finally, the Section 106 process allows local concerns to be voiced and the Section 106 process must consider aspects of local significance before a judgment is rendered.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Evolving from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects with Guidelines for Applying the Standards that were developed in 1976, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings were published in 1995 and codified as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-8 Cultural Resources Part 67. Neither technical nor prescriptive, these standards are “intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect our Nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources.” “Preservation” acknowledges a resource as a document of its history over time, and emphasizes stabilization, maintenance, and repair of existing historic fabric. “Rehabilitation” not only incorporates the retention of features that convey historic character, but also accommodates alterations and additions to facilitate continuing or new uses. “Restoration” involves the retention and replacement of features from a specific period of significance. “Reconstruction,” the least used treatment, provides a basis for recreating a missing resource. These standards have been adopted, or are used informally, by many agencies at all levels of government to review projects that affect historic resources.
STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a lead agency determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1). A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical resources, or any object building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][1-3]).
A resource is considered historically significant if it meets any of the following criteria:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; • Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-9 Cultural Resources California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR.
Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the criteria modeled on the NRHP criteria.
Public Resources Code Section 5097 (Related to Cultural Resources) California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097 addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. It has been incorporated into Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The NAHC, created by statute in 1976 (AB 4239), is a nine-member body, appointed by the Governor to identify, catalog, and protect cultural resources (i.e., places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans, and known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands) in California.
The NAHC is charged with the duty of preserving and ensuring accessibility of sacred sites and burials, the disposition of Native American human remains and burial items, maintaining an inventory of Native American sacred sites located on public lands (i.e., Sacred Lands File), and reviewing current administrative and statutory protections related to these sacred sites.
PRC Sections 5097.9 through 5097.991 establish that no public agency or private party using or occupying public property (or operating on under a public license, permit, grant, lease or contract made after July 1, 1977) shall in any manner interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion as provided in the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. It also prohibits such agencies and parties from causing severe or irreparable damage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site or sacred shrine located on public property, except on a clear and convincing showing that the public interest and necessity so require it.
These sections also establish the State’s NAHC. The NAHC is tasked with working to ensure the preservation and protection of Native American human remains, associated grave goods and cultural resources. Towards this end, the NAHC has a strategic plan for assisting the public, development communities, local and Federal agencies, educational institutions and California Native Americans to better understand problems relating to the protection and preservation of cultural resources and to serve as a tool to resolve these problems. In 2006, PRC Sections 5097.91 and 5097.98 were amended by Assembly Bill 2641 to authorize the NAHC to bring legal action when necessary to prevent damage to Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-10 Cultural Resources Native American burial grounds or places of worship. It also established more specific procedures to be implemented in the event that Native American remains are discovered.
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the PRC), as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, treatment of the remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.
LOCAL
City of Lawndale Municipal Code
The Lawndale Zoning Code Chapter 17.30, Design Review, requires design review and approval for applicable development projects. The reviewing body must make the following findings: that the proposed development site plan and the building design features will integrate harmoniously and enhance the character and design of both the immediate neighborhood and the surrounding area; that the site plan and building design will improve the community appearance by preventing extremes of building bulk and mass; that the site plan and design of the buildings, parking areas, landscaping, illumination and other design features demonstrate that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development and the visual effects as seen from public spaces; and that the site plan and building design substantially conform to the City’s adopted design guidelines.
Mills Act Program
The City of Lawndale adopted the Mills Act program in December 2010. The Program allows owners of qualified historic properties to apply for a Mills Act contract if they pledge to rehabilitate and maintain the historical and architectural character of their properties for the minimum ten-year life of the contract.
Mills Act contracts are executed between a property owner and the City of Lawndale. Because valuations of Mills Act properties are determined by an income approach to value rather than by the standard market approach to determining appraised value, Mills Act participants may realize substantial property tax savings each year.
Historic Plaque Program
Award of a Historic Preservation Plaque recognizes and honors the careful preservation of older homes and other buildings. Eligibility for a plaque is based on the following criteria: the building must be 50 years or older; the building must be in good condition, and the building's exterior must have been preserved, maintained, or rehabilitated (or sensitively enlarged) in accordance with its original architectural style and detailing. Preference will be given to buildings that were either owned by a prominent person or family or are historically significant to the community, as well as those that are good examples of one or more architectural styles. This program is administered free of charge to the property owner by the Lawndale Historical Society and the City of Lawndale.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-11 Cultural Resources
5.5.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to cultural resources. The issues presented in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this section.
Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5 (refer to Impact Statement CUL-1);
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 (refer to Impact Statement CUL-2); and/or
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (refer to Impact Statement CUL-3).
5.5.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CUL-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Impact Analysis: Known historic resource sites are located throughout the Planning Area, as described above, and undiscovered or potentially eligible sites may be located in various areas of the Planning Area.
Redevelopment and alteration of existing structures has the potential to impact known and potentially eligible historical resources. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is defined in Section 15064.5 (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines as the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.”
According to officially recorded resources and other databases that were researched for the Project, 25 historic built environment resources are located within the City, as documented in Table 5.5-1, and Table
5.5-2. These historic resources are scattered throughout the Planning Area and vary in terms of type, architectural style, condition, and alteration history. While the General Plan Update does not directly propose any changes to any historic resources, future development allowed under the General Plan Update could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical resources or unknown historical resources which have not yet been identified. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
The General Plan Update Resource Management Element includes goals, policies, and actions addressing heritage resources, including historical resources. Proposed Policy RM-3.1 requires the City to protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code. Policy RM-3.2 encourages the City to promote community identity and local history by identifying, documenting, and appropriately archiving tangible and intangible cultural resources so they can be recognized, accessed, and appreciated by future generations. Policy RM-3.4 directs the City to include the public in efforts to preserve cultural assets, including techniques, incentives, and legal requirements for preservation. Policy RM-3.6 directs the City to evaluate the condition of historical buildings, the costs of rehabilitation, and the feasibility of preservation or conservation Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-12 Cultural Resources alternatives when considering the demolition or movement of historic structures. Policy RM-3.7 encourages the City to seek funding and support from public and private sources that aim to protect cultural and historic resources within the City. Action RM-3a requires the assessment of development proposals for potential impacts to sensitive historic, archaeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources pursuant to CEQA. Action RM-3b directs the City to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a local historic registry program that provides incentives for retrofitting and building maintenance, as well as public recognition, of the local resource. Action RM-3c directs the City to consider conducting a historic properties inventory that takes into consideration buildings, neighborhoods, and other features of historic, architectural, or cultural significance. Action RM-3d requires, for structures that potentially have historic significance, that a study be conducted by a professional archaeologist or historian to determine the actual significance of the structure and potential impacts of the proposed development in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The City may require modification of the project and/or mitigation measures to avoid any impact to a historic structure, when feasible, such as retaining or rehabilitating historic buildings or relocating the historic building as feasible.
As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable State and local regulations relative to historic and potentially historic resources. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to the City’s entitlement review process. For structures that potentially have historical significance, the City would require preparation of a study by a qualified professional archaeologist or historian to determine the significance of the structure and potential impacts of the proposed development in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, compliance with the General Plan Update policies and actions and existing regulations, would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts would be less than significant.
Proposed General Plan Update Goals, Policies and Actions:
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Policy RM-3.1: Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code.
Policy RM-3.2: Documentation. Promote community identity and local history by identifying, documenting, and appropriately archiving tangible and intangible cultural resources so they can be recognized, accessed, and appreciated by future generations.
Policy RM-3.3: Cultural Reminders. Seek to incorporate reminders of the City’s culture through adaptive reuse, signage, markers, cultural events, and other reminders of Lawndale’s community identity and local history.
Policy RM-3.4: Public Education. Educate and actively involve the public in preserving cultural assets, including techniques, incentives, and legal requirements for preservation.
Policy RM-3.6: Historic Preservation. Evaluate the condition of historical buildings, the costs of rehabilitation, and the feasibility of preservation or conservation alternatives when Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-13 Cultural Resources considering the demolition or movement of historic structures; when possible, encourage the adaptive re-use of the historic structure.
Policy RM-3.7: Funding. With input and involvement of stakeholder groups, seek adequate funding and support from public and private sources that aim to protect cultural and historic resources within the City.
Action RM-3a: Continue to assess development proposals for potential impacts to sensitive historic, archaeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Action RM-3b: Evaluate the feasibility of implementing a local historic registry program that provides incentives for retrofitting and building maintenance, as well as public recognition, of the local resource.
Action RM-3c: Consider conducting a historic properties inventory that takes into consideration buildings, neighborhoods, and other features of historic, architectural, or cultural significance.
Action RM-3d: For structures that potentially have historic significance, the City shall require that a study be conducted by a professional archaeologist or historian to determine the actual significance of the structure and potential impacts of the proposed development in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The City may require modification of the project and/or mitigation measures to avoid any impact to a historic structure, when feasible, such as retaining or rehabilitating historic buildings or relocating the historic building as feasible.
Action RM-3e For all development proposals within areas with the potential to contain prehistoric/historic resources, the City shall require a study to be conducted by a professional archaeologist. The objective of the study will be to determine if significant archaeological resources are potentially present and if the project will significantly impact these resources. If significant impacts are identified, the City may require the project to be modified to avoid the impacts, or require mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts.
Mitigation may involve archaeological investigation and resources recovery.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
CUL-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Impact Analysis: Redevelopment and development of previously undeveloped areas have the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources. Surface-level and subsurface archaeological sites and deposits can be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with construction activities.
Lawndale General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | August 2023 5.5-14 Cultural Resources Although the records search identifies no previously-recorded archaeological resources within the City, the Cultural Study concludes the lack of identifies resources is likely to be a consequence of development occurring prior to the implementation of CEQA, rather than a lack of archaeological sites. Effects on archaeological resources deemed to be significant could be considered adverse if they involve physical demolition, destruction, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a resource would be materially impaired. While the General Plan Update does not directly propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact archaeological resources, future development allowed under the General Plan Update could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of previously undiscovered archaeological resources. This is considered a potentially significant impact.