City of Gardena Specific Plan and TTM 74350...Western Avenue Specific Plan and TTM 74350 Initial Study December 2016 11 Initial Study 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Project Description

DRAFTINITIALSTUDYPROPOSEDMITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATION

CityofGardenaWesternAvenueSpecificPlanandTTM74350

LEADAGENCY:

CityofGardena

CommunityDevelopmentDepartment1700West162ndStreetGardena,California90247

PREPAREDBY:

KeetonKreitzerConsulting31986CalleBalareza

Temecula,California92592

December2016

DRAFTINITIALSTUDYPROPOSEDMITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATION

WESTERNAVENUESPECIFICPLANANDTTM74350

CityofGardenaCommunityDevelopmentDepartment

1700West162ndStreetGardena,California90247

Contact:Mr.RaymondBarragan,CommunityDevelopmentManager(310)217‐9546

Preparedby:

KeetonKreitzerConsulting31986CalleBalarezaTemecula,CA92592

Contact:KeetonK.Kreitzer,Principal(714)665‐8509

December2016

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 STATUTORYAUTHORITYANDREQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................11.2 PURPOSE....................................................................................................................................................................................11.3 INCORPORATIONBYREFERENCE................................................................................................................................... 2.0 PROJECTDESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................32.1 PROJECTLOCATIONANDENVIRONMENTALSETTING......................................................................................32.2 PROJECTCHARACTERISTICS........................................................................................................................................112.3 DISCRETIONARYAPPROVALS.....................................................................................................................................173.0 ENVIRONMENTALSUMMARY..................................................................................................................193.1 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................................................193.2 ENVIRONMENTALFACTORSPOTENTIALLYAFFECTED.................................................................................203.3 EVALUATIONOFENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS....................................................................................................204.0 ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS...................................................................................................................234.1 AESTHETICS..........................................................................................................................................................................234.2 AGRICULTUREANDFORESTRESOURCES..............................................................................................................304.3 AIRQUALITY.........................................................................................................................................................................324.4 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES...............................................................................................................................................384.5 CULTURALRESOURCES...................................................................................................................................................404.6 GEOLOGYANDSOILS........................................................................................................................................................424.7 GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS....................................................................................................................................464.8 HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS..............................................................................................................494.9 HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY.........................................................................................................................524.10 LANDUSEANDPLANNING............................................................................................................................................584.11 MINERALRESOURCES.....................................................................................................................................................634.12 NOISE.......................................................................................................................................................................................644.13 POPULATIONANDHOUSING........................................................................................................................................714.14 PUBLICSERVICES...............................................................................................................................................................724.15 RECREATION........................................................................................................................................................................754.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.......................................................................................................................................764.17 UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS............................................................................................................................834.18 MANDATORYFINDINGSOFSIGNIFICANCE...........................................................................................................874.19 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................................914.20 REPORTPREPARATIONPERSONNEL.......................................................................................................................925.0 CONSULTANTRECOMMENDATION.....................................................................................................................956.0 LEADAGENCYDETERMINATION.........................................................................................................................97Appendix(RefertoCD)A AirQuality/GHGAssessmentB NoiseAssessmentC TrafficImpactStudy

Thispageintentionallyleftblank


InitialStudy

December2016 1 InitialStudy

1.0 INTRODUCTIONFollowing preliminary reviewof the proposedWesternAvenue Specific PlanProject andTTM74350 (i.e.,“Project”), the City has determined that the Project is subject to the guidelines and regulations of theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA).ThisInitialStudyaddressesthedirect,indirect,andcumulativeenvironmental effects associated with the Project, as proposed, in order to determine if the proposedWesternAvenueSpecificPlanProjectwouldresultinpotentiallysignificantenvironmentaleffectsthatwouldrequirethepreparationofaDraftEnvironmentalImpactReport(DEIR).1.1 STATUTORYAUTHORITYANDREQUIREMENTSInaccordancewiththeCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)(PublicResourcesCodeSection21000‐21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City ofGardena,actinginthecapacityofLeadAgency,isrequiredtoundertakethepreparationofanInitialStudytodetermineiftheproposedProjectwouldhaveasignificantenvironmentalimpact.If,asaresultoftheInitialStudy, the LeadAgency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the projectmay cause a significantenvironmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) iswarranted to analyze project‐related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the LeadAgency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or asmodified to include themitigationmeasuresidentifiedintheInitialStudy,maycauseasignificanteffectontheenvironment,theLeadAgencyshallfindthattheproposedprojectwouldnothaveasignificanteffectontheenvironmentandshallprepareaMitigatedNegativeDeclaration (MND) for thatproject. Suchdeterminationcanbemadeonly if“thereisnosubstantialevidenceinlightofthewholerecordbeforetheLeadAgency”thatsuchimpactsmayoccur(Section21080(c),PublicResourcesCode).The environmentaldocumentation,which isultimately selectedby theCityofGardena in accordancewithCEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis forsubsequent discretionary actionsupon theproject. The resultingdocumentation is not, however, a policydocumentanditsapprovaland/orcertificationneitherpresupposesnormandatesanyactionsonthepartofthoseagenciesfromwhompermitsandotherdiscretionaryapprovalswouldberequired.Theenvironmentaldocumentationandsupportinganalysisissubjecttoapublicreview,“…whichshallnotbe less than20days” inaccordancewithSection15105of theCEQAGuidelines foraproject that isnotofregionalorareawidesignificanceasdefinedbyCEQAGuidelines§15206;thisprojectdoesnotmeetthoserequirements.Duringthisreview,publiccommentsonthedocumentrelativetoenvironmentalissuesshouldbeaddressedtotheCityofGardena. Followingreviewofanycommentsreceived, theCityofGardenawillconsider thesecommentsasapartof theproject’senvironmentalreviewand includethemwith the InitialStudydocumentationforconsiderationbytheCity.1.2 PURPOSEThepurposeofthisInitialStudyistoprovidetheCityofGardena(i.e.,the“LeadAgency”)withinformationtouseas thebasis fordecidingwhether toprepareaNegativeorMitigatedNegativeDeclarationpursuant toSection15070oftheCEQAGuidelinesoraDraftEIRpursuanttoSection15080oftheCEQAGuidelines.Section15063of theCEQAGuidelines identifies specificdisclosure requirements for inclusion inan InitialStudy. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include: (1) a description of the project,includingthelocationoftheproject;(2)anidentificationoftheenvironmentalsetting;(3)anidentificationofenvironmentaleffectsbyuseofachecklist,matrixorothermethod,providedthatentriesonachecklistorother form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; (4) adiscussionofwaystomitigatesignificanteffectsidentified,ifany;(5)anexaminationofwhethertheprojectis compatiblewith existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and (6) the name of thepersonorpersonswhopreparedorparticipatedinthepreparationoftheInitialStudy.


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


2.0 PROJECTDESCRIPTION2.1 PROJECTLOCATIONANDENVIRONMENTALSETTINGPROJECTLOCATIONTheCityofGardenaislocatedintheSouthBayareaofLosAngelesCounty,approximately10milessouthofdowntown Los Angeles, approximately 7 miles southeast of the Los Angeles International Airport, andapproximately12milesnorthofthePortofLosAngelesinSanPedro.ThelocationoftheprojectsiteinitsregionalsettingisillustratedinExhibit2‐1(RegionalLocation).TheCityofGardenaisconvenientlylocatedadjacenttomajorfreewaysthatprovideaccesstoallofSouthernCaliforniaincludingtheSanDiegoFreeway(I‐405),theArtesiaFreeway(SR‐91),theHarborFreeway(I‐110),andtheCenturyFreeway(I‐105).Becauseof itsstrategic locationandproximity todowntownLosAngeles,Gardena iswell servedbybusandmetrotransit lines that provides residents and employees with many alternative ways to traveling to work,shopping,andhome.Theprojectsiteencompasses2.31acresat16958WesternAvenueintheCityofGardena.WesternAvenue,ahighvolumearterialroadway,abutsthesubjectpropertyonthewest.Theareainwhichthesiteislocatedisintensivelydevelopedwithavarietyofresidential,commercial,andindustrialuses.Thesiteisimprovedwithanasphaltsurfaceandiscurrentlyusedtostorerecreationalvehicles. TheprojectlocationisillustratedonExhibit2‐2(VicinityMap).ENVIRONMENTALSETTING ExistingSiteFeaturesAnaerialphotographoftheWesternAvenueSpecificPlansiteandvicinityisprovidedExhibit2‐3.Thesiteiscurrently used for recreational vehicle (e.g., boats, RVs, etc.) storage. Approximately 198 angled parkingspacesarecurrentlyprovidedforrecreationalvehiclesontheexistingprojectsite.Theexistingprojectsitecurrentlyaccommodatesvehicularaccessviatwositedrivewayslocatedalongthewesterlypropertyfrontage(i.e.,alongWesternAvenue). Thesite isdevoidof landscapingand,withtheexceptionofasmallkiosk,nolargepermanentstructuresexistonthesubjectproperty.Previously,thesitewasusedforagriculturalusesfromthe1930sthroughthe1960s. SurroundingLandUsesTheprojectsiteislocatedinanareaoftheCitythatisintensivelydevelopedwithavarietyoflanduses.Thesubject property is boundedon thewest byWesternAvenue, a high volume arterial; amobile homeparkexistswestofthisarterialroadway.One‐andtwo‐storysingle‐familyhomesarelocatedadjacenttothesiteonthenorthandeastandamanufacturingcenterandautobodyshoparelocatedsouthofthesubjectsite. GeneralPlanandZoningThe site is designated as General Commercial on the City’s General Plan Land UseMap and is zoned C‐3(GeneralCommercial). LandusedesignationsoftheadjacentpropertiesincludeGeneralCommercialtothesouth; Industrial to the west; Medium Residential and General Commercial to the north, and MediumResidential to the west. Properties to the north are zoned C‐3 and R‐2 (Low Density Multiple FamilyResidential).Propertiestotheeast,southandwestarezonedR‐2,C‐3,andM‐1(Industrial),respectively.


InitialStudy


Thispageleftintentionallyblank

CityofGardenaWesternAvenueSpecificPlan

InitialStudy

December2016 InitialStudy

Exhibit2‐1RegionalLocation


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


Exhibit2‐2VicinityMap


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


Exhibit2‐3AerialPhotograph


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


2.2 PROJECTCHARACTERISTICS ProjectDescriptionThe applicant, City Ventures, LLC, is proposing the redevelopment of the 2.31‐acre propertywith 46 single‐familyattachedresidentialdwellingunits.ThedesignconceptfortheWesternAvenueSpecificPlanistocreateaninfillneighborhoodof46attached3‐storyhomes.Allhomeshaveatleastthreebedroomsandaden.Therearemultiplebuilding configurations composedof twoplan types. Fourof thebuildings aredesigned in aU‐shapewith8to10unitsineachbuilding.Twobuildingsarelocatedinastraightlineconfigurationwith5unitseach;oneofthesebuildingsfrontWesternAvenueandtheotherfacestheexistinghomesattherearofthesite.Allof thebuildingswillbedesigned inaContemporary theme.Thehomesrange insize from1,538 to1,922squarefeet.Table2‐1summarizestheproposedWesternAvenueSpecificPlan.

Table2‐1

ProposedDevelopmentSummaryWesternAvenueSpecificPlan

PlanTotalDUs

MinimumFloorArea

No.ofBedrooms

No,ofBathrooms Coverage

GrossArea(Acres)

GrossDensityDUs/Ac

1 22 1,538 3 2.5 2 24 1,709 3+Den/Opt.1Bath

2,5+Opt.1Bath

Total 46 35% 2.31 20SOURCE:DraftWesternAvenueSpecificPlan(June2016)Each home has a direct access 2‐car garage with additional guest parking provided along the northerndriveway.Anadditional23guestparkingspacesarealsoprovided.AllthehomeswillbedesignedtoachievemeetTitle24energystandards.Low‐flowwaterfixtures,tanklesswaterheaters,high‐performanceEnergyStar,energy efficient appliances and materials will be provided. The landscape will be climate appropriate anddesignedforlowwaterconsumption.Onlydroughttolerant, low‐wateruse,andnon‐invasiveplantlandscapewill be planted. Highly efficient irrigation and ocean friendly storm water treatment will be installed. Twocentrally locatedopenspaceareas featureoutdoorpatiospaceswith landscapingandturfarea.A thirdopenspaceattheendofthedriveoffersaturfareafordogplay.Decorativelypaved,semi‐privateatriumcourtyardsinclude a variety of drought‐tolerant shrubs and small accent trees and seating opportunities. The climate‐appropriatethemedlandscapewithbrightcolorsandvaryingtextureswillbemaintainedbythecommunity’shomeownerassociation(HOA)inthecommonopenspaceandtheatriumcourtyardareas.TheconceptualsiteplanisshowninExhibit2‐4.TheproposedTentativeTractMapisillustratedonExhibit2‐5. ProjectPhasingRedevelopment of the site will necessitate site preparation (grading), infrastructure development, andconstruction of the 46 single‐family homes. Site preparation and infrastructure improvements within theproject boundarywill be completed in the initial phase. These improvements include rough grading, stormdrain,water,wastewater,dryutilities,andstreetimprovements.Homeconstructionphasingwillbebasedonsalesofhomesinthepreviousphase.Itisunclearatthistimehowmanyphasestherewillbe.Thenumberofphasesandnumberofunitsinphasesmaybealteredfromtimetotime.However,openspaceamenitieswillbeconstructedinthefirstdevelopmentphase.


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


Exhibit2‐4

ConceptualSitePlan


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


Exhibit2‐5

TentativeTractMap74350


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


ProjectObjectivesThegoaloftheWesternAvenueSpecificPlanistoencouragecommunityrejuvenationandincreasethechoiceof desirable housing options for families in the City of Gardena. Specifically, implementation of theWesternAvenueSpecificPlanisintendedtoachievetheobjectivesidentifiedbelow:

• Providehousingopportunitiesresponsivetotheneedsofthecommunityincludinghousingforfamilies.

• Convertanunder‐utilizedcommercialsiteintoavibrantlivingenvironment.

• Createacohesiveenclavethroughprogressivearchitecturalandlandscapedesign.• Provideadesirablecommunitywherepeoplewillwanttolive.

• Promoteindoor/outdoorliving.

• Reducethedemandfordomesticwaterthroughtheuseofwater‐wiselandscapeprinciples.

• Createasustainableresidentialcommunitythatutilizessolarenergy.

2.3 DISCRETIONARYAPPROVALSTheprojectapplicantisrequestingapprovalofthefollowingdiscretionaryactions:

• GeneralPlanAmendmentfromGeneralCommercialtoSpecificPlan(Minimumof20dwellingunits/acre)

• ZoneChangefromC‐3(GeneralCommercial)toWesternAvenueSpecificPlan• WesternAvenueSpecificPlan• TentativeTractMap74350


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


3.0 ENVIRONMENTALSUMMARY3.1 BACKGROUND

1. ProjectTitle:WesternAvenueSpecificPlan/TTM743502. LeadAgencyNameandAddress: CityofGardena 1700West162ndStreetGardena,CA90247

3. ContactPersonsandPhoneNumbers: Mr.RaymondBarragan,CommunityDevelopmentManager(310)217‐95464. ProjectLocation: 16958SouthWesternAvenue,Gardena,CA902475. ProjectSponsor’sNameandAddress:

Ms.KimPrijatel,ProjectManagerCityVentures,LLC3221MichelsonDriveIrvine,CA92612

6. GeneralPlanDesignation:

GeneralCommercial

7. Zoning:C‐3(GeneralCommercial)

8. DescriptionoftheProject:The applicant is proposing a specific plan in order to redevelop the 2.31‐acre site. Developmentwould consist of 46 single‐family attached residential condominiums at aminimum density of 20dwellingunitsperacre (du/ac). The applicant is also requestingapproval ofTentativeTractMap(TTM) 74350. Project implementationwill require approval of a General Plan Amendment, ZoneChange,SpecificPlan,andTentativeTractMap.

9. SurroundingSettingandLandUses:Landuses intheprojectarea include lowdensitymultiple‐familyresidential tothenorth,amobilehomeparkwestofWesternAvenue,amanufacturingcenterandautobodyshop to thesouth,andone‐andtwo‐storysinglefamilyresidentialdwellingunitstotheeast.

9. Otherpublicagencieswhoseapprovalisrequired(e.g.,permits,financingapproval,orparticipationagreement):None


InitialStudy


3.2 ENVIRONMENTALFACTORSPOTENTIALLYAFFECTEDTheenvironmental factorscheckedbelowwouldbepotentiallyaffectedbythisproject, involvingat leastoneimpact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially Significant Impact With MitigationIncorporated,”asindicatedbythechecklistonthefollowingpages.

Aesthetics LandUseandPlanning AgricultureandForestResources MineralResources AirQuality X Noise BiologicalResources PopulationandHousingX CulturalResources PublicServicesX GeologyandSoils Recreation GreenhouseGasEmissions Transportation/Traffic HazardsandHazardousMaterials UtilitiesandServiceSystems HydrologyandWaterQuality X MandatoryFindingsofSignificance

3.3 EVALUATIONOFENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSSection 4 (following) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed WesternAvenueSpecificPlanProject.TheissueareasevaluatedinthisInitialStudyinclude:

• Aesthetics • LandUseandPlanning• AgricultureandForestResources • MineralResources• AirQuality • Noise• BiologicalResources • PopulationandHousing• CulturalResources • PublicServices• GreenhouseGasEmissions • Recreation• GeologyandSoils • Transportation/Traffic• HazardsandHazardousMaterials • UtilitiesandServiceSystems• HydrologyandWaterQuality

TheenvironmentalanalysisinSection4ispatternedaftertheInitialStudyChecklistrecommendedbytheCEQAGuidelines, and used by the City of Gardena in its environmental review process. For the preliminaryenvironmentalassessmentundertakenaspartofthisInitialStudy’spreparation,adeterminationthatthereisapotential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development’s impacts and toidentifymitigation.Fortheevaluationofpotentialimpacts,thequestionsintheInitialStudyChecklistarestatedandananswerisprovidedaccordingtotheanalysisundertakenaspartoftheInitialStudy.Theanalysisconsidersthelong‐term,direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possibleresponses:

▪ No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on theenvironment.

▪ LessThanSignificant Impact. The developmentwill have the potential for impacting the

environment,althoughthisimpactwillbebelowestablishedthresholdsthatareconsideredtobesignificant.


InitialStudy


▪ LessThanSignificant ImpactWithMitigation Incorporated. Thedevelopmentwill have

the potential to generate impacts, which may be considered as a significant effect on theenvironment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s physical oroperationalcharacteristicscanreducetheseimpactstolevelsthatarelessthansignificant.

▪ Potentially Significant Impact. The development could have impacts, which may be

considered significant, and therefore additional analysis is required to identify mitigationmeasuresthatcouldreducepotentiallysignificantimpactstolessthansignificantlevels.


InitialStudy


Thispageleftintentionallyblank


InitialStudy


4.0 ENVIRONMENTALANALYSISThe following is adiscussionofpotential project impactsas identified in the Initial Study. Explanationsareprovidedforeachitem.4.1 AESTHETICS

Wouldtheproject:

PotentiallySignificantImpact

LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigation

Incorporated

LessThanSignificantImpact

NoImpact

a. Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but

not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historicbuildingswithinastatescenichighway?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or

qualityofthesiteanditssurroundings? d. Createanewsourceofsubstantial lightorglare,which

would adversely affect day or nighttime views in thearea?

ImpactAnalysis4.1(a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista?NoImpact. Thesubjectpropertyisnotlocatedalongascenichighwayorotherdesignatedscenicvista. The2.31‐acre site is locatedwithin a commercial and industrial area alongWestern Avenue, a heavily traveledarterial roadway that extends in a north‐south direction through the City of Gardena. This arterial is notdesignatedasasceniccorridorbytheCity.Further,thisprojectsiteisnotlocatednearanydesignatedscenichighwaysorscenicroutes,andnoscenicvistasexistalongtheaffectedroadway.Theprojectislocatedwithinahighly urbanized area of Los Angeles County. The area in which the project site is located is intensivelydevelopedwithavarietyof landuses, includingresidential,commercialandindustrial. TheprojecthasbeendesignedinaccordancewiththestandardsestablishedbytheproposedWesternAvenueSpecificPlan;italsocomplieswithapplicablerequirementsprescribedbytheGardenaMunicipalCode.Inaddition,landscapingwillbeincorporatedintotheprojectsitetoenhancetheaestheticandvisualcharacteroftheproposedresidentialproject. Exhibit4.1‐1(ConceptualLandscapePlan) illustratesthe landscapingproposed for theproject. Thecharacteroftheproposed46‐unitsingle‐familyattachedresidentialcondominiumdevelopmentisillustratedinExhibit4.1‐2. Neither thesubjectpropertynor theadjacentareaspossessanysignificantvisualoraestheticresources that would be adversely affected, either directly or indirectly, by project implementation. NosignificantadversevisualimpactsareanticipatedasaresultofconvertingtheexistingRVstoragefacilitytoaresidentialdevelopment.


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


Exhibit4.1‐1

ConceptualLandscapePlan


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


Exhibit4.1‐2TypicalBuildingElevation


InitialStudy




InitialStudy


4.1(b) Substantiallydamagescenicresources,including,butnotlimitedto,trees,rockoutcroppings,and

historicbuildingswithinastatescenichighway?NoImpact. Asindicatedabove,theprojectislocatedinanurbanizedareaandthesiteneitherpossessesnorwouldtheprojectaffectanysignificantaestheticresources,rockoutcroppingsand/orhistoricbuildings. Thesubjectproperty iscurrentlyusedtoparkrecreationalvehiclesanddoesnotsupportanysignificanttreesorotherfeaturesthatareconsideredtobeimportantaestheticamenities.AlthoughconversionofthesitefromanRVstorageparktoasingle‐familyattachedresidentialdevelopmentencompassingapproximately46dwellingunitswillchangethecharacterofthesite.However,conversionoftheRVstorageparkasproposedwouldnotresultindamagetoanyimportantopenspace,recreational,orscenicresources.Asindicatedabove,theprojecthasbeendesignedinaccordancewiththeapplicablerequirementsprescribedintheproposedWesternAvenueSpecificPlanandMunicipalCode. Furthermore, thearchitecturalcharacteroftheproposedstructurewillbecompatiblewiththeexistingresidential,commercialandindustrialdevelopmentintheprojectarea.Therefore,nosignificantimpactstoscenicresourcesareanticipated;nomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.1(c) Substantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorqualityofthesiteanditssurroundings?No Impact. As indicated above, project implementation will result in the development of the site with 46single‐familyattachedresidentialdwellingunits.AlthoughconversionofthesitefromanRVstorageparktoaresidentialdevelopmentwillchangethecharacterofthesite,itwillnotresultinpotentiallysignificantdamageto the aesthetic character of any important scenic resources as discussed above. Neither the site nor thesurroundingareaisdesignatedasascenicamenity. Aspreviouslydescribedtheprojectareaischaracterizedbyavarietyof residential, commercial,and industrialdevelopmentalong theWesternAvenuecorridor. Thearchitectural character of the proposed structure, including the landscaping, will be compatible with theexistingdevelopmentandwouldnotcreateanyvisualoraestheticimpacts.Furthermore,designofthesiteandthe proposedWestern Avenue Specific Plan residential developmentwill be subject to review by the City’sPlanningCommission,whichwill ensure that it is compatiblewithapplicabledesignparametersand relatedrequirementsestablishedbytheCityforthearea.Therefore,nosignificantvisualimpactsareanticipatedandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.1(d) Createanewsourceofsubstantial lightorglare,whichwouldadverselyaffectdayornighttime

viewsinthearea?LessthanSignificantImpact.Thesubjectpropertyisusedtostorerecreationalvehiclesanddoesnotsupportanysignificantsourcesoflight;therefore,thesitecurrentlygeneratesonlylimitedlighting.Implementationofthe proposed projectwill result in the creation of additional lighting in the predominantly residential areasadjacenttoandinthevicinityoftheprojectsite.However,thelightingwillbesimilarinnaturetothatoccurringintheadjacentneighborhoodstothenorthandeast.Nonetheless,theproposedresidentialsubdivisionwillberequired to comply with Section 18.42.150 of the City’s Zoning Code (refer to SC 1‐1), which requires thatlightingplansbesubmittedtotheCitytodemonstratethatprojectlightingmeetstheprescribedparameters.Inaddition, lighting would also be controlled to ensure that glare on driveways, walkways and/or publicthoroughfaresdoesnotoccur.ThelightingproposedfortheprojectwouldberequiredtomeetCitystandardsand criteria and avoid the creation of intrusive lighting and glare. Therefore, potential lighting and glareimpactsareanticipatedtobelessthansignificant.StandardConditionsSC1‐1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit security and lighting

plansforreviewandapprovalbytheCitytoensurethatsafetyandsecurityissuesareaddressedinthedesignofthedevelopment.Lightingfortheprojectshallensurethatlightingisadequateshieldedandthatisdoesnotprojectontoadjacentproperties.


InitialStudy


MitigationMeasuresNosignificantaestheticsimpactswouldoccurasaresultofprojectimplementationandnomitigationmeasuresarenecessary.4.2 AGRICULTUREANDFORESTRESOURCES

Indeterminingwhetherimpactstoagriculturalresourcesare significant environmental effects, leadagenciesmayrefer to theCaliforniaAgricultural LandEvaluationandSiteAssessmentModel(1997)preparedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofConservationasanoptionalmodel tousein assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Indetermining whether impacts to forest resources,including timberland, are significant environmentaleffects, leadagenciesmay refer to information compiledby the California Department of Forestry and FireProtectionregarding the state’s inventoryof forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project andtheForestLegacyAssessmentproject;and forest carbonmeasurementmethodology provided in Forest ProtocolsadoptedbytheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.Wouldtheproject:



Incorporated


NoImpact

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, orFarmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), asshownonthemapspreparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program of the CaliforniaResourcesAgency,tonon‐agriculturaluse?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or aWilliamsonActcontract?

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,forestland(asdefinedinPublicResourcesCodesection12220(g)), timberland (as definedbyPublicResourcesCode section 4526), or timberland zoned TimberlandProduction (as defined by Government Code section51104(g))?

d. Result in the lossof forest landorconversionof forestlandtonon‐forestuse?

e. Involve other changes in the existing environmentwhich, due to their location or nature, could result inconversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use orconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

ImpactAnalysis4.2(a) ConvertPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,orFarmlandofStatewideImportance(Farmland),as

shownonthemapspreparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgramoftheCaliforniaResourcesAgency,tonon‐agriculturaluse?

No Impact. Thesite isnot currentlyused foragriculture. Furthermore,neither theCityofGardenanor theState of California has designated the site or the area surrounding the project site as “agricultural” and noagriculturalusesexistingwithinthesurroundingarea.Theprojectarea,includingthesubjectsite,isdesignated


InitialStudy


as“UrbanandBuiltUpLand.”1Therefore,theproposedWesternAvenueSpecificPlanwouldnotresultintheconversion of either existing or potential farmland to a non‐agricultural use. No impacts to agriculturalresourceswilloccurasaresultofprojectimplementationandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.2(b) ConflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluseoraWilliamsonActcontract?No Impact. Theproject sitehasbeen improvedasa recreationalvehicle (RV)storagepark.Theproperty ispavedandsupportsthestorageofseveralRVs.Asindicatedabove,noagriculturally‐zonedlandexistsonthesiteorintheimmediatevicinityoftheprojectandtherearenoexistingWilliamsonActContractscoveringthepropertyorintheprojectarea. SincetherearenoagriculturalusesorWilliamsonActcontractsaffectingtheproject site, project implementation would not result in any significant impacts (i.e., conflicts with existingzoning or Williamson Act contract) to potential agricultural uses. Therefore, no mitigation measures arerequired.4.2(c) Conflictwithexistingzoningfor,orcauserezoningof,forestland(asdefinedinPublicResources

Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), ortimberlandzonedTimberlandProduction(asdefinedbyGovernmentCodesection51104(g))?

NoImpact.ThereisnozoningforforestlandintheCityofGardenaandnoareaswithintheCityareclassifiedasforestortimberlandasdefinedbyPRCSection4526,includingthesubjectpropertyandsurroundingarea.Therefore,projectimplementationwouldnotconflictwithexistingzoningfor,orcauserezoningof,anyforestortimberland.Nosignificantimpactswouldoccurandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.2(d) Resultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?NoImpact.Asindicatedabove,therearenoforestlandspresenteitheronthesubjectpropertyorintheCityofGardena.Therefore,projectimplementationwouldnotresultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse.Noimpactswouldoccurandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.2(e) Involveother changes in theexistingenvironmentwhich,due to their locationornature, could

resultinconversionofFarmland,tonon‐agriculturaluseorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

NoImpact.Noimportantfarmland,agriculturalactivity,orforestand/ortimberlandsexistontheprojectsiteor in the surrounding area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result inenvironmentalchangesthatwouldconvertfarmlandtonon‐agriculturalusesorforestlandtonon‐forestuses.Noimpactswouldoccurandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.StandardConditionsNostandardconditionsarerequired.MitigationMeasuresNosignificantimpactstoeitheragriculturalorforestresourceswilloccurasaresultofprojectimplementation;nomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

1StateofCalifornia,TheNaturalResourcesAgency;CaliforniaDepartmentofConservation2014LosAngelesCountyImportantFarmlandMap.


InitialStudy


4.3 AIRQUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established bythe applicable air qualitymanagement or air pollutioncontroldistrictmaybereliedupontomakethefollowingdeterminations.Wouldtheproject:



Incorporated


NoImpact

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of theapplicableairqualityplan?

b. Violate any air quality standard or contributesubstantially to an existing or projected air qualityviolation?

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of

any criteria pollutant for which the project region isnon‐attainment under an applicable federal or stateambient air quality standard (including releasingemissions which exceed quantitative thresholds forozoneprecursors)?

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations?

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantialnumberofpeople?

ImpactAnalysis4.3(a) Conflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheapplicableairqualityplan?Less than Significant Impact. The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designatedagenciesinanyareaofthenationnotmeetingnationalcleanairstandardsmustprepareaplandemonstratingthestepsthatwouldbringtheareaintocompliancewithallnationalstandards.TheSCABcouldnotmeetthedeadlinesforozone,nitrogendioxide,carbonmonoxide,orPM‐10.IntheSCAB,theagenciesdesignatedbythegovernor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association ofGovernments (SCAG). The twoagencies first adoptedanAirQualityManagementPlan (AQMP) in1979andreviseditseveraltimesasearlierattainmentforecastswereshowntobeoverlyoptimistic.The1990FederalCleanAirActAmendment (CAAA)required thatall stateswithair‐shedswith “serious”orworseozoneproblemssubmitarevisiontotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP).AmendmentstotheSIPhavebeenproposed,revisedandapprovedoverthepastdecade. Themostcurrentregionalattainmentemissionsforecast for ozone precursors (ROG andNOx) and for carbonmonoxide (CO) and for particulatematter areshown in Table4‐1. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continuethroughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM10 andPM2.5areforecasttoslightlyincrease.


InitialStudy


Table3‐1

SouthCoastAirBasinEmissionsForecast

WesternAvenueSpecificPlan

Pollutant

20121 20152 20202 20252

2030

NOx 512 451 357 289 266VOC 466 429 400 393 393PM10 154 155 161 165 170PM2.5 68 67 67 68 17012012BaseYear.2Withcurrentemissionsreductionprogramsandadoptedgrowthforecasts.SOURCE:Giroux&Associates(November17,2016)CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard,2013AlmanacofCEPAM

TheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict(SCAQMD)adoptedanupdatedcleanair“blueprint”inAugust2003.The2003AirQualityManagementPlan(AQMP)wasapprovedbytheEPAin2004.TheAQMPoutlinedthe air pollution measures needed to meet federal health‐based standards for ozone by 2010 and forparticulates(PM10)by2006.The2003AQMPwasbaseduponthefederalone‐hourozonestandardwhichwasrevoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8‐hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourlystandard,anewairqualityplanningcyclewasinitiated.Withre‐designationoftheairbasinasnon‐attainment forthe8‐hourozonestandard,anewattainmentplanwas developed. This plan shiftedmost of the one‐hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8‐hourstandard.Theattainmentdatewasanticipatedto“slip”from2010to2021.TheupdatedattainmentplanalsoincludesstrategiesforultimatelymeetingthefederalPM2.5standard.Because projected attainment by 2021 requires control technologies that do not exist yet, the SCAQMDrequested a voluntary “bump‐up” from a “severe non‐attainment” area to an “extreme non‐attainment”designation forozone. The extremedesignationwill allowa longerperiodof time for these technologies todevelop. If attainment cannotbedemonstratedwithin the specifieddeadlinewithout relyingon “black‐box”measures,EPAwouldhavebeenrequiredtoimposesanctionsontheregionhadthebump‐uprequestnotbeenapproved.InApril2010,theEPAapprovedthechangeinthenon‐attainmentdesignationfrom“severe‐17”to“extreme.”Thisreclassificationsetsalaterattainmentdeadline(2024),butalsorequirestheairbasintoadoptevenmorestringentemissionscontrols.In other air quality attainmentplan reviews, EPAhasdisapprovedpart of the SCABPM‐2.5 attainmentplanincludedintheAQMP.EPAhasstatedthatthecurrentattainmentplanreliesonPM‐2.5controlregulationsthathavenotyetbeenapprovedor implemented. It isexpected that several rules thatarependingapprovalwillremovetheidentifieddeficiencies.Iftheseissuesarenotresolvedwithinthenextseveralyears,federalfundingsanctions for transportationprojects could result. The2012AQMP included in theARBsubmittal toEPAaspart of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) is expected to remedy identified PM‐2.5 planningdeficiencies.ThefederalCleanAirActrequiresthatnon‐attainmentairbasinshaveEPAapprovedattainmentplansinplace.Thisrequirementincludesthefederalone‐hourozonestandardeventhoughthatstandardwasrevokedalmostten years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the one‐hour federal standard at the time ofrevocation.Throughalegalquirk,theSCAQMDisnowrequiredtodevelopanAQMPforthelongsincerevokedone‐hour federal ozone standard.Because the2012AQMPcontains several controlmeasures for the8‐hour


InitialStudy


ozone standard that are equally effective for one‐hour levels, the 2012 AQMP is believed to satisfy hourlyattainmentplanningrequirements.AQMPsarerequiredtobeupdatedeverythreeyears.The2012AQMPwasadoptedinearly2013.AnupdatedAQMPmust therefore be adopted in 2016. Planning for the 2016 AQMP is currently on‐going. The currentattainmentdeadlinesforallfederalnon‐attainmentpollutantsarenowasfollows:

▪ 8‐hourozone(70ppb) 2037▪ AnnualPM‐2.5(12g/m3) 2025▪ 8‐hourozone(80ppb) 2024(oldstandard)▪ 8‐hourozone(75ppb) 2032(currentstandard)▪ 1‐hourozone(120ppb) 2032(rescindedstandard)▪ 24‐hourPM‐2.5(35g/m3) 2019

ThekeychallengeisthatNOxemissionlevels,asacriticalozoneprecursorpollutant,areforecasttocontinuetoexceedthelevelsthatwouldallowtheabovedeadlinestobemet.UnlessadditionalNOxcontrolmeasuresareadoptedandimplemented,attainmentgoalsmaynotbemet.TheproposedprojectdoesnotdirectlyrelatetotheAQMPinthattherearenospecificairqualityprogramsorregulationsgoverningresidentialprojects.Conformitywithadoptedplans, forecastsandprogramsrelativetopopulation,housing,employmentandlanduseistheprimaryyardstickbywhichimpactsignificanceofplannedgrowth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth‐accommodatingdocument,doesnotfavordesignatingregionalimpactsaslessthansignificantjustbecausetheproposeddevelopment isconsistentwithregionalgrowthprojections. Airquality impactsignificancefortheproposedprojecthas,therefore,beenanalyzedonaproject‐specificbasis.Asaresultoftheanalysisconducted,theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinapotentialconflictwithorobstructionoftheimplementationofanairqualityplan.Asaresult,potentialimpactsarelessthansignificant.

4.3(b) Violateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallytoanexistingorprojectedairquality

violation?LessthanSignificant Impact. Aspreviously indicated, theproposedprojectencompasses theconversionoftheexistingRVstoragelottothe46single‐familyattachedresidentialcondominiums.Theproposedprojectisgenerally consistent with all of the policies and requirements established in the Land Use Element of theGardenaGeneralPlanrelatedtoresidentialdevelopment(refertoTable10‐1inSection4.10).IntensificationoflandusesintheSouthCoastAirBasinpotentiallyimpactsambientairqualityontwoscalesofmotion.AscarsdrivethroughoutSouthernCalifornia,thesmallincrementalcontributiontothebasinairpollutionburdenfromanysinglevehicleisaddedtothatfromseveralmillionothervehicles.Theimpactassociatedwiththeproposedresidentialprojectisverysmallonaregionalscaleasindicatedintheanalysisofshort‐term(i.e.,construction)impactsandlong‐term(i.e.,operational)impacts.Asindicatedintheanalysisinthissection,bothconstruction‐relatedandoperational‐relatedpollutantemissionswouldbelessthansignificant.Basedonthatanalysis,itisanticipated that project implementation would not result in the violation of any air quality standard orcontributesubstantiallyanexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation.Nomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.3(c) Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichtheproject

region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(includingreleasingemissions,whichexceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)?

LessthansignificantImpact.Short‐term(i.e.,construction‐related)andlong‐term(i.e.,operation‐related)airquality impactsanticipatedtooccurasaresultofproject implementationare identifiedanddescribed in theanalysisbelow.


InitialStudy


ConstructionImpactsAlthoughexhaustemissionswillresultfromtheoperationofonandoff‐siteequipmentduringtheconstructionphase(s), the exact types and numbers of equipmentwill vary among contractors such that such emissionscannotbequantifiedwithcertainty.EstimatedconstructionemissionsweremodeledusingCalEEMod2013.2.2toidentifymaximumdailyemissionsforeachpollutantduringprojectconstruction.Theproposedprojectentails constructionof46single familyattachedhomes. Constructionwasmodeled inCalEEMod2013.2.2 using default construction equipment and schedule for a project of this size as shown inTable 6 in Appendix C. Utilizing equipment fleet and durations shown in that table, the “worst case” dailyconstructionemissionswerecalculatedandaresummarizedinTable3‐2.

Table3‐2

ConstructionActivityEmissionsMaximumDailyEmissions(pounds/day)WesternAvenueSpecificPlan

MaximalConstruction

Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2

PM10 PM2.52017

Unmitigated 28.2 58.0 18.4 0.1 9.9 5.2Mitigated 28.2 58.0 18.4 0.1 6.2 3.4SCAQMDThresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55ExceedsThreshold? No No No No No NoSOURCE:Giroux&Associates(November17,2016)

PeakdailyconstructionactivityemissionsareestimatedbebelowSCAQMDCEQAthresholdswithouttheneedforaddedmitigation.Theonlymodel‐basedmitigationmeasureappliedforthisprojectwaswaterwasappliedtoexposeddirtsurfacesthreetimesperdaytominimizethegenerationoffugitivedustduringgrading. OperationalImpactsOperationalemissionswerecalculatedusingCalEEMod2013.2.2foranassumedprojectbuild‐outyearof2017asatargetforfulloccupancy.Theprojectwouldgenerate267dailytrips. Inadditiontomobilesourcesfromvehicles,generaldevelopmentcausessmalleramountsof“areasource”airpollutiontobegeneratedfromon‐site energy consumption (primarily space heating, hot water and landscaping). These sources represent aminimalpercentageof the totalprojectNOxandCOburdens, anda fewpercentotherpollutants. Table3‐3providesasummaryoftheproject‐relatedoperationalemissions.


InitialStudy


Table3‐3

DailyProject‐RelatedOperationalImpacts


Source

OperationalEmissions(lbs/day)ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Area 13.2 1.0 27.2 0.1 3.5 3.5Energy 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Mobile 0.6 2.8 7.9 0.0 2.0 0.6Total 13.8 4.1 35.2 0.1 5.5 4.1SCAQMDThreshold 55 55 550 150 150 55ExceedsThreshold? No No No No No NoSOURCE:Giroux&Associates(September13,2016)

As reflected in Table 3‐3, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the generation ofpollutionemissionsthatwouldexceedtheSCAQMDoperationalemissionssignificancethresholds.Therefore,potentiallong‐termairqualityimpactswouldbelessthansignificant;nomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.3(d) Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations?LessthanSignificantImpact. Constructionequipmentexhaustcontainscarcinogeniccompoundswithinthedieselexhaustparticulates.Thetoxicityofdieselexhaustisevaluatedrelativetoa24‐hourperday,365daysper year, 70‐year lifetime exposure. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of construction‐relateddieselemissionsrelativetohealthriskduetotheshortperiodforwhichthemajorityofdieselexhaustwouldoccur.Health riskanalysesare typically assessedovera9‐,30‐, or70‐year timeframeandnotoverarelativelybriefconstructionperiodduetothelackofhealthriskassociatedwithsuchabriefexposure. LocalizedSignificanceThresholdsTheSCAQMDhasdevelopedanalysisparameterstoevaluateambientairqualityonalocallevelinadditiontothemore regional emissions‐based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called LocalizedSignificanceThresholds(LSTs).LSTsweredevelopedinresponsetoGoverningBoard’sEnvironmentalJusticeEnhancementInitiative1‐4andtheLSTmethodologywasprovisionallyadoptedinOctober2003andformallyapprovedbySCAQMD’sMobileSourceCommitteeinFebruary2005.UseofanLSTanalysisforaprojectisoptional. Fortheproposedproject,theprimarysourceofpossibleLSTimpactwouldbeduringconstruction.LSTsareapplicableforasensitivereceptorwhereit ispossiblethatanindividualcouldremainfor24hourssuchasaresidence,hospitalorconvalescentfacility.LSTsareonlyapplicabletothefollowingcriteriapollutants:oxidesofnitrogen(NOx),carbonmonoxide(CO),andparticulatematter(PM10andPM2.5). LSTsrepresentthemaximumemissionsfromaprojectthatarenotexpectedtocauseorcontributetoanexceedanceofthemoststringentapplicablefederalorstateambientairquality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each sourcereceptorareaanddistancetothenearestsensitivereceptor.LST screening tables are available for 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500‐meter source‐receptor distances. For thisprojectthenearestsensitivereceptorsaretheresidentialusesadjacenttotheprojectsitesuchthatthemostconservative25‐meterdistancewasmodeled.


InitialStudy


TheSCAQMDhasissuedguidanceonapplyingCalEEModtoLSTs.LSTpollutantscreeninglevelconcentrationdataiscurrentlypublishedfor1,2and5acresitesforvaryingdistances. Forthisproject,themoststringentthresholds for a 1‐acre site were applied. Table 3‐4 summarizes the project‐related LST thresholds andconstructionemissions

Table3‐4

LSTandProjectEmissions(pounds/day)WesternAvenueSpecificPlan

LST1.0acre/25meters

SWCoastalLosAngelesCounty CO NOx PM10

PM2.5LSTThreshold 664 91 5 3

MaximumOn‐SiteEmissionsUnmitigated 18 32 8 5Mitigated 18 32 4 3ExceedsThreshold? No No No NoSOURCE:Giroux&Associates(September13,2016)

LSTswerecomparedtothemaximumdailyconstructionactivities. AsseeninTable3‐3,emissionswillmeettheLSTforconstructionthresholdswiththeapplicationofthewaterontheexposedsurfacesthreetimesperdayduringgradingactivitiesaspreviouslyindicated.4.3(e) Createobjectionableodorsaffectingasubstantialnumberofpeople?LessthanSignificantImpact.Odorsareoneofthemostobviousformsofairpollutiontothegeneralpublic.Odors can present significant problems for both the source and the surrounding community. Althoughoffensiveodorsseldomcausephysicalharm,theycancauseagitation,angerandconcerntothegeneralpublic.Most people determine an odor to be offensive (objectionable) if it is sensed longer than the duration of ahumanbreath,whichistypically2to5seconds.Landusesthatresultinorcreateobjectionableodorstypicallyinclude agriculture (e.g., livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants,compostingoperations,refineries,landfills,etc.).Theprojectdoesnotincludeanyuseofthesitethatwouldbea source of potential odors. The only potential odors associatedwith the project are from the operation ofdieseltrucksandheavyequipmentduringconstructionoftheproposedproject.Anyodorsfromtheequipmentemissions,ifperceptible,arecommonintheenvironmentandwouldbeofverylimitedduration;nosignificantlong‐termproject‐relatedodorswouldoccurasaresultoftheproposedproject. Therefore,anyodorimpactswouldbeconsideredlessthansignificantandnomitigationmeasuresarenecessary.StandardConditionsConstruction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds.Nevertheless, the followingstandardconditionsshallbeemployedtominimize fugitivedustwithin theSCABnon‐attainmentareaandproximitytoresidentialuses.SC3‐1 The following fugitive dust control and emissions exhaust control measures shall be

implementedduringtheconstructionphase.

FugitiveDustControl Applysoilstabilizersormoisteninactiveareas. Waterexposedsurfacesasneededtoavoidvisibledust leavingtheconstructionsite

(typically2‐3times/day).


InitialStudy


Coverallstockpileswithtarpsattheendofeachdayorasneeded. Providewatersprayduringloadingandunloadingofearthenmaterials. Minimizein‐outtrafficfromconstructionzone Coveralltruckshaulingdirt,sand,orloosematerialandrequirealltruckstomaintain

atleasttwofeetoffreeboard Sweepstreetsdailyifvisiblesoilmaterialiscarriedoutfromtheconstructionsite

ExhaustEmissionsControl Utilizewell‐tunedoff‐roadconstructionequipment. EstablishapreferenceforcontractorsusingTier3orbetterratedheavyequipment. Enforce5‐minuteidlinglimitsforbothon‐roadtrucksandoff‐roadequipment.

MitigationMeasuresNeitherproject‐relatedconstructionemissionsnoroperationalemissionsareforecasttoexceedtheSCAQAMDsignificancethresholds.Implementationfugitivedustandemissionscontrolmeasureswillminimizepollutantemissions.Asaresult,potentialimpactsarelessthansignificant;nomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.4 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES

Wouldtheproject:PotentiallySignificantImpact


Incorporated


NoImpact

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthroughhabitatmodifications,onanyspeciesidentifiedas a candidate, sensitive, or special status species inlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

b. Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunityidentifiedinlocalor regional plans, policies, regulations or by theCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

c. HaveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbySection404of theCleanWaterAct (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,coastal,etc.)throughdirectremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption,orothermeans?

d. Interferesubstantiallywiththemovementofanynativeresident or migratory fish or wildlife species or withestablished native resident or migratory wildlifecorridors, or impede the use of nativewildlife nurserysites?

e. Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiological resources, suchas a treepreservationpolicyorordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Community ConservationPlan,orotherapproved local, regional,or statehabitatconservationplan?


InitialStudy


ImpactAnalysis4.4(a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffect,eitherdirectlyorthroughhabitatmodifications,onanyspecies

identifiedasacandidate,sensitive,orspecialstatusspeciesinlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

NoImpact. Theprojectsiteencompassesapproximately2.31acresontheeastsideofWesternAvenue. TheprojectsiteisimprovedasanRVstorageparkandischaracterizedbyasphaltandconcrete;nonativehabitatexists eitherwithin the limits of theproject site or adjacent to the site on the east orwest,whichhas beenextensivelyalteredanddevelopedandurbanized. Project implementation includestheredevelopmentofthesitewith46 single‐family attached residential dwellingunits. Nonativehabitator sensitiveplantor animalspeciesexisteitheronor inthevicinityofthesubjectproperty. Therefore,theproposeddevelopmentofthehomes would not affect, either directly or indirectly, any important biological resources, including habitatand/orsensitiveplantsandanimals.Furthermore,theprojectwouldnotconflictwithanylong‐rangeregionalplans, policies, or regulations protecting biological resources. No impacts will occur as a result of projectimplementation.4.4(b) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunity

identifiedinlocalorregionalplans,policies,regulationsorbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

No Impact. As indicatedabove, theprojectsitehasbeensubstantiallyalteredand iscoveredbyasphaltandconcrete and is devoid of any native vegetation or habitat, including riparian habitat; no native or naturalvegetationorplantcommunitiesexistonthesite.Asaresult,noimpactswilloccurtoriparianhabitat.4.4(c) HaveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbySection404ofthe

CleanWaterAct (including,butnot limited to,marsh,vernalpool, coastal,etc.) throughdirectremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption,orothermeans?

No Impact. As previously indicated, the project site has been significantly altered as a result of past siteimprovementsassociatedtheexistingRVstoragepark.NoprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbySection404oftheClean Water Act would be affected, either directly or indirectly, as a result of project implementation.Therefore,noimpactstowetlandswilloccur.4.4(d) Interfere substantiallywith themovement of any native resident ormigratory fish orwildlife

speciesorwithestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,or impede theuseofnativewildlifenurserysites?

No Impact. Theproposedproject site encompasses2.31 acreson the east sideofWesternAvenue thathasbeensignificantlyaltered. Inaddition,thesiteissurroundedbyurbanizationonallsidesandthroughouttheCityofGardena,includinghighvolumearterialroadwaysandrelatedfeaturesthatserveasphysicalbarrierstowildlife migration. Furthermore, there is no open space or large areas of habitat in the project environs.Therefore, the subject property does not serve as a potential wildlife movement corridor. No significantimpactstowildlifemovementareexpectedasaresultoftheproject.4.4(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservationpolicyorordinance?NoImpact. Thesiteisdevoidoftreesandlandscaping. Thesitesupportsonlyrecreationalvehiclesthatarestoredtemporarily. Notreesorothervegetationwouldbeaffectedbytheproposedproject. Theprojectwillnotconflictwithany localpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources, includingtrees. No impactswilloccur.


InitialStudy


4.4(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community

ConservationPlan,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan?NoImpact. Aspreviouslyindicated,theprojectsiteencompassesanimprovedRVstorageparkintheCityofGardena,whichissurroundedbydevelopment. ThesitedoesnotsupportanysensitivehabitatandhasbeenextensivelydisturbedbytheurbanizationthathastakenplaceintheCity. Furthermore,thehighlydisturbedprojectsiteandenvironsaredetachedfromlargeareasofnativehabitatand/oropenspace.Thesiteandareaare intensively development and the proposed improvements to the existing arterial roadway would notconflictwithanyadoptedhabitatconservationplan,naturalcommunityconservationplan,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan.StandardConditionsNostandardconditionsarerequired.MitigationMeasuresProjectimplementationwillnotresultinanypotentiallysignificantimpactstobiologicalresources;nomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.5 CULTURALRESOURCES


LessthanSignificant

WithMitigation

Incorporated


NoImpact

a. Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofa historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines§15064.5?

b. Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceof

anarchaeologicalresourcepursuanttoCEQAGuidelines§15064.5?

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interredoutsideofformalcemeteries?

ImpactAnalysis4.5(a) CauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofahistoricalresourceasdefinedinCEQA

Guidelines§15064.5?

Less thanSignificant Impact. Nositesor structuresarecurrently identifiedby theCityofGardenaas locallandmarksandnoneare listedonthestateor federalregistersofhistoricplaces. Nohistoricresourcesexistwithin the limits of the proposedWestern Avenue Specific Plan project. Project implementationwould notadverselyaffectanyhistoricresources,eitherdirectlyorindirectly.Therefore,noimpactswilloccurtohistoricresources.


InitialStudy


4.5(b) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanarchaeologicalresourcepursuantto

CEQAGuidelines§15064.5?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Although the subject property is not intensivelydeveloped,itwaspreviouslyusedforagriculturalpurposesthroughthe1930s.Asaresult,boththesurfaceandsubsurfaceofthesitehavebeenalteredbythepastandpresentusesoftheproperty.Theareasurroundingtheproject site is also intensively developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.Therefore,basedon theextentofdevelopment thathasoccurrednotonlyon theproject sitebutalso in theproject area, it is unlikely that significant cultural resources, including sacred lands, exist on the subjectproperty. Nonetheless, pursuant to AB 52, the City of Gardena sent letters to each of the affected NativeAmericanRepresentativesrequestingconsultation.The30‐dayconsultationperiodendedonOctober20,2016.TherewasoneresponsetotheAB52Consultationnotification. TherepresentativeoftheGabrieleñoBandofMission Indians – KizhNation expressed “… concerns for cultural resources” despite the alteration that hasoccurredonthesiteandtheurbanizationintheprojectarea.The subjectpropertyand the surroundingareaarehighlyurbanizedandcharacterizedbydevelopment thatinvolvedextensivegradingandsignificantlandformmodificationinordertoaccommodatethatdevelopment.Anyarchaeologicalsitesnearthesurfaceofthegroundwouldhavebeendisturbedand/ordestroyedbypastgradingactivitiesthatwerenecessarytoaccommodatetheexistingdevelopment.Althoughextensivegradingandexcavationwillnotberequiredinordertopreparethesiteproject,itisunlikelythatsignificantimpactstocultural or archaeological resourceswould be encountered as a result of project implementation due to thenatureandextentofpast landformalterationoccurringon the site. Althoughpotentially significant impactswouldnotbeanticipated,intheunlikelyeventculturalmaterialsareencounteredduringsitepreparationandgrading, theCitywill require thataNativeAmericanmonitor fromtheGarrieleñoBandofMission Indians–KizhNationwillbepresent“…duringanyandallgrounddisturbances(includingbutnotlimitedtopavementremoval, post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching) to protect any cultural resourceswhichmaybeeffectedduringconstructionordevelopment(refertoMM5‐1).ImplementationofMM5‐1willensurethatanypotentiallysignificantimpactstoculturalmaterials/resourceswouldbeavoided.4.5(c) Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?LessthanSignificantImpact.Asindicatedabove,theprojectareaislocatedwithinahighlyurbanizedareaoftheCityofGardenathathasundergonesignificantlandformalterationandsitedevelopment.Anynear‐surfacepaleontological resources thatmayhaveexistedatone timehave likelybeendisturbedand/ordestroyedbyprior development activities. It is not likely that implementation of the project will result in any potentialimpactstopaleontologicalresourcesbecauseofthepriordevelopment,demolitionandremediationactivitiesthathavetakenplacebothonthesiteandintheprojectareathathavenotyieldedsuchresources.Therefore,noimpactsareanticipatedandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.4.5(d) Disturbanyhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries?

No Impact. The project will not encompass any sites or properties that possess known cultural values.Specifically, no formal cemeteries areknown tobe locatedeitheron theproject site or in thevicinityof theproject area, and no human remains are known to exist within the project environs. Although projectimplementationwillrequire landformalterationto implementtheproposed46‐unitresidentialdevelopment,the discovery of human remains is not anticipated. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated.However, in theunlikelyevent thathumanremainswouldbeencountered,compliancewith theStateHealthandSafetyCode(Section7050.5)andPublicResourcesCode(Section5097.98),whichrequirenotificationoftheLosAngelesCountyCoronerandCityofGardena)willensurethattheyareproperlytreated,iffoundonthesite.Therefore,noimpactsareanticipated.


InitialStudy


StandardConditionsSC5‐1 Theproject shall complywith the StateHealth andSafetyCode (Section7050.5) andPublic

Resources Code (Section 5097.98), which require notification of the Los Angeles CountyCoronerandCityofGardena)will ensure that in theeventhumanremainsareencounteredduringconstruction,theyareproperlytreated.

MitigationMeasuresImplementation of the standard condition cited above and the mitigation measure requiring monitoringduringconstructionwillensurethatpotentialimpactstoculturalresourceswillbeavoidedorreducedtoalessthansignificantlevel.MM5‐1 ANativeAmericanMonitorfromtheGabrieleñoBandofMissionIndians–KizhNationshallbe

retainedbytheapplicantpriortoissuanceofagradingpermit.TheNativeAmericanMonitorshallbeonsiteduringallgrounddisturbances(includingbutnotlimitedtopavementremoval,post‐holing,auguring,boring,grading,excavationandtrenching)toprotectculturalresourcesthatmaybepresent.

4.6 GEOLOGYANDSOILS


LessthanSignificant

WithMitigation

Incorporated


NoImpact

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantialadverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, ordeathinvolving:

1) Ruptureofaknownearthquakefault,asdelineated

onthemostrecentAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoning Map issued by the State Geologist for thearea or based on other substantial evidence of aknown fault? Refer to Division of Mines andGeologySpecialPublication42.

2) Strongseismicgroundshaking? 3) Seismic‐related ground failure, including

liquefaction? 4) Landslides?

b. Resultinsubstantialsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoil? c. Belocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstable,or

thatwould become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on‐site or off‐site landslide,lateralspreading,subsidence,liquefactionorcollapse?

d. Belocatedonexpansivesoil,asdefinedinTable 18‐1‐B

of the California Building Code (2001), creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty?

e. Havesoilsincapableofadequatelysupportingtheuseof

septictanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystemswheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwastewater?


InitialStudy


ImpactAnalysis4.6(a)(1) Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,

injury, ordeath involving rupture ofa known earthquake fault,asdelineated on themostrecentAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoningMapissuedbytheStateGeologistfortheareaor based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division ofMines andGeologySpecialPublication42.

No Impact. No known active faults are known to project through the site nor does the site lie within theboundariesofan“EarthquakeFaultZone”asdefinedbytheStateofCaliforniaintheAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoningAct.TheclosestknownactivefaultistheSierraMadrefaultlocatedabout2.8milesfromthesite.Therefore,thepotentialforgroundruptureduetoafaultdisplacementbeneaththesiteisconsideredverylow.Noimpactsassociatedwithgroundrupturewouldoccurasaresultofprojectimplementation.4.6(a)(2) Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,

injury,ordeathinvolvingstrongseismicgroundshaking?The site is situated in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generallymoderate tooccasionally high levels of groundmotion. The site lies in relatively close proximity to several active faults;therefore, during the life of the proposed improvements, it can be expected that the propertywill probablyexperience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as somebackground shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. The potentialprobabilistic peak ground acceleration is estimated to be 0.43g for the site. Design and construction inaccordancewiththecurrentCaliforniaBuildingCode(CBC)requirements isanticipatedtoaddresstheissuesrelatedtopotentialgroundshaking.4.6(a)(3) Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,

injury,ordeathinvolvingseismic‐relatedgroundfailure,includingliquefaction?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Engineering research of soil liquefactionpotential conducted during the preparation of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Investigation indicates thatgenerallythreebasicfactorsmustexistconcurrentlyinorderforliquefactiontooccur.Thesefactorsinclude:

• Asourceofgroundshaking,suchasanearthquake,capableofgeneratingsoilmassdistortions.• Arelativelyloosesiltyand/orsandysoil.• Arelativeshallowgroundwatertable(withinapproximately50feetbelowgroundsurface)or

completelysaturatedsoilconditionsthatwillallowpositiveporepressuregeneration.Based on the analyses conducted during the preparation of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Investigation,liquefaction may occur below the site during periods of strong ground motion. The analyses indicate thatliquefaction could lead to a total settlement of the ground surface of up to approximately 4.5 inches due toseismicconsolidationduringliquefaction.Althoughsitematerialsarelenticular,thegeneralcharacteristicsarerelativelyuniformacrossthesite.Giventhiscondition,differentialsettlementduetoseismicsettlementwouldlikely be on the order of ½ of the total settlement estimated, or approximately 2.25 inches over 30 feet.Evaluationspresentedinreportsfortheadjacentsitesindicatethatlateralspreadingisnotasignificantriskatthesite.BasedontheStateofCaliforniaSpecialPublication117A,hazardsfromliquefactionshouldbemitigatedtotheextentrequiredtoreduceseismicriskto“acceptablelevels”.Theacceptablelevelofriskisdefinedas,“thatlevelthatprovidesreasonableprotectionofthepublicsafety”[CaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle14,Section3721(a)].Theuseofwell‐reinforcedfoundations,suchaspost‐tensionedslabs,gradebeamswithstructuralslabs,ormat foundations have been proven to adequately provide basal support for similar structures duringcomparable liquefaction events. Implementation of these measures identified in MM 6‐1 will ensure thatpotentiallysignificantimpactsassociatedwithliquefactionwouldbereducedtoalessthansignificantlevel.


InitialStudy


4.6(a)(4) Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,

injury,ordeathinvolvinglandslides?No Impact. The site is neither characterized by steeply sloping topography nor located within an areaidentifiedby theCaliforniaGeologicSurvey(CGS)ashavingapotential forseismicslope instability.Geologichazards associated with landsliding are not anticipated at the subject site. Therefore, no impacts fromlandslidingwilloccurasaresultofprojectimplementation.4.6(b) Resultinsubstantialsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoil?

Less than Significant Impact. Clearing, excavation, and grading associated with future development andimprovementsproposedforthesitecouldexposesoilstosubstantialshort‐termsoilerosionorlossoftopsoil.FuturedevelopmentwouldbesubjecttocompliancewiththeCity’sstandardserosioncontrol,grading,andsoilremediation. Grading Plans prepared for proposed development must include an approved drainage anderosion control plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation during grading. Therefore,because theproposedProjectmust complywith local and regional requirements to reduce thepotential forerosion,bestmanagementpractices(BMPs)prescribedintheStormwaterPollutionPreventionPlan(SWPPP)shall be implemented during construction that that minimize the potential for erosion and controlsediment/runoff as prescribed by the City of Gardena as a standard condition. As a result, project‐relatedimpactsareanticipatedtobelessthansignificantwiththeimplementationoftheBMPsandcompliancewiththeCity’sgradingordinance.4.6(c) Belocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstable,orthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresult

of the project, and potentially result in an on‐site or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefactionorcollapse?

Less than Significant ImpactwithMitigation Incorporated. In general, the upper portions of the alluvialdeposits occurring on the site are considered unsuitable in their existing condition to support proposedstructural fills and site development. This condition can be mitigated by removal and recompaction ofunsuitablesoils.Theanticipateddepthofremovaltomitigatestructuralload‐inducedsettlementisontheorder3 feet to6 feetbelowexistinggradeor3 feetbelowbottomof footings,whichever isdeeper.Locallydeeperremovalmayberequiredintheareasofexistingfoundation,basementandundergroundutilities.Removalandrecompaction of the site materials will result in some moderate shrinkage and subsidence. Design of sitegrading will require consideration of this loss when evaluating earthwork balance issues. The artificial fill,residualsoil,andalluvialdepositsatthesiteareanticipatedtoberelativelyeasytoexcavatewithconventionalheavyearthmovingequipment.Theexplorationandlaboratorytestingconductedfortheproposedprojectalsoindicatedtheexistingsurficialsoils are compressible and may be collapsible. These materials would likely cause settlements beyond thetolerancesofproposedsitedevelopment. If thenearsurfacecompressiblesoilsareremovedandreplacedasengineeredcompacted fillandat least3 feetofengineered fill isplacedbelowbottomsof footings, totalanddifferential static settlements are anticipated to be 1 inch and ½‐inch over 30 feet, respectively. Theseestimatedmagnitudesofstaticsettlementsareconsideredwithintolerablelimitsfortheproposedresidentialstructures. Therefore, with the implementation of the grading recommendation (i.e., removal andrecompactionofunsuitablesoils),potentialimpactswouldbereducedtoalessthansignificantlevel.4.6(d) Belocatedonexpansivesoil,asdefinedinTable18‐1‐BoftheCaliforniaBuildingCode(2001),

creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty?

LessthanSignificant ImpactwithMitigation Incorporated. Basedon laboratory test resultsandtheUSCSvisualmanual classification, thenear‐surface soils at the site aregenerally anticipated topossessavery lowexpansionpotential.Althoughpotentialimpactsassociatedwithexpansivesoilsareanticipatedtobelessthansignificant, additional testing for soil expansion will be required subsequent to rough grading and prior toconstructionoffoundationsandotherconcreteworktoconfirmtheseconditions(refertoMM6‐4).


InitialStudy


4.6(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting theuse of septic tanks or alternativewaste

waterdisposalsystemswheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwastewater?

No Impact. There are adequate sewer facilitieswithin the affected roadways in the project area. Althoughproject implementation would result in an increase in the generation of raw sewage associated with sitedevelopment, the increase in the demand on current sewer facilities and/or the need for additional sewerfacilitiesfromprojectimplementationwouldnotbesignificant.Noseptictankswouldberequired.Noimpactsassociatedwithinadequatesoilsconditionsrelatedtoseptictanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystemsareanticipatedandasaresultofprojectimplementation.StandardConditionsSC6‐1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final geotechnical investigation report shall be

prepared for design, permitting and construction and the developer shall comply with allrecommendations. If for any reason the final geotechnical investigation report discloses anunforeseenproblem that results inaproblem that cannotbemitigated, allwork shall ceaseandtheprojectshallbereevaluatedandadditionalenvironmentalreviewshallbeconducted,ifdeterminednecessary.

SC6‐2 Design and construction shall comply with the current California Building Code (CBC)

requirementsineffectatthetimeofplansubmittaltoaddresstheissuesrelatedtopotentialgroundshaking.

MitigationMeasuresMM6‐1 Potentialhazardsfromliquefactionshallbemitigatedtotheextentrequiredtoreduceseismic

risk to “acceptable levels” as defined by California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section3721(a).2Theuseofwell‐reinforced foundations, suchaspost‐tensionedslabs,gradebeamswith structural slabs, or mat foundations have been proven to adequately provide basalsupportforsimilarstructuresduringcomparableliquefactionevents.

MM6‐2 Duringfutureroughgrading, theexistingsewersystem,RVdumpsystem,andotherexisting

underground improvementswill requireproperabandonmentor removal. If onsitedisposalsystemsareencounteredduringsitedevelopment,theseptictankshallbecompletelyremovedfrom the site and seepage pits should be properly abandoned in accordance with therequirementsestablishedbythegovernmentagencies.

MM6‐3 Thepresenceoftheexistingoffsiteimprovementsmaylimitremovalsofunsuitablematerials

adjacenttothepropertylines.Specialgradingtechniques,suchasslotcutting,mayberequiredadjacentthepropertylineswhereoffsiteimprovementsarenearby.

MM6‐4 Priortotheissuanceofagradingpermit,additionaltestingforsoilexpansionwillberequired

subsequenttoroughgradingandpriortoconstructionoffoundationsandotherconcreteworktoconfirmtheexistingverylowsoilexpansionconditions.

MM6‐5 Conventional shallow foundations are not suitable for use in supporting the proposed

residential structures but would be suitable for other non‐habitable structures such asretainingwallsandscreenwalls.Residentialstructuresareanticipatedtorequiresupportbypost‐tensionedslaborpost‐tensionedmatfoundations(refertoMM6‐1).

2Theacceptablelevelofriskmeans,“thatlevelthatprovidesreasonableprotectionofthepublicsafety”[CaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle14,Section3721(a)].


InitialStudy


MM6‐6 Subsequent to rough grading and prior to construction of foundations and other concrete

work, additional testing for soluble sulfate content will be required to confirm the solublesulfateconditionsintheunderlyingsoil.

MM6‐7 Unsuitablesoilsshallberemovedandrecompactedduringgradingtoensurethatsubsidence

isminimized.4.7 GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS


LessthanSignificant

WithMitigation

Incorporated


NoImpact

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly orindirectly, that may have a significant impact on theenvironment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation

adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ofgreenhousegases?

ImpactAnalysis4.7(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, thatmay have a significant

impactontheenvironment?Less than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed 46‐unit single‐family attached residentialcondominiumprojectwouldoccurinapproximatelyoneyear. Implementationoftheproposedprojectwouldresult in thegenerationofbothshort‐term(i.e., construction)and long‐term(operational)GHGemissionsasdiscussedbelow. ConstructionImpactsThe project is assumed to require less than one year for construction. During project construction, theCalEEMod2016.3.1 computermodel predicts that the construction activitieswill generate an estimated 357MTCO2eemissionsduringconstruction,whichequatesto11.9MTCO2eoverthe30‐yearamortizationperiodasreflectedinTable7‐1.

Table7‐1

ConstructionEmissions(MetricTonsCO2e)


MTCO2eYear2017 357.0Amortized 11.9

SOURCE:Giroux&Associates(November2016


InitialStudy


SCAQMDGHGemissionspolicy fromconstructionactivities is to amortize emissionsover a30‐year lifetime.The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less thansignificant. OperationalImpactsThetotaloperationalandannualizedconstructionemissionsfortheproposedprojectareidentifiedinTable7‐2,includingtheannualamortizedconstructionemissions.TotalprojectGHGemissionswouldbesubstantiallybelowtheproposedsignificancethresholdof3,000MTsuggestedbytheSCAQMD.Therefore,theprojectwouldnot result in generation of a significant level of greenhouse gases. No significant impactswould occur as aresultofprojectimplementation;nomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

Table7‐2

ProposedUsesOperationalEmissionsWesternAvenueSpecificPlan

ConsumptionSource MTCO2eEmissionsAreaSources 15.5EnergyUtilization 129.6MobileSource 396.1Waste 10.6Water 23.3Construction 11.9Total 587.0GuidelineThreshold 3,000ExceedsThreshold? NoSOURCE:Giroux&Associates(November2016)

4.7(b) Conflictwith an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the

emissionsofgreenhousegases?Less thanSignificant Impact. “Greenhousegases” (socalledbecauseof their role in trappingheatnear thesurfaceoftheearth)emittedbyhumanactivityareimplicatedinglobalclimatechange,commonlyreferredtoas “global warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’satmospherebytransparencytoshortwavelengthvisiblesunlight,butnearopacitytooutgoingterrestriallongwavelengthheatradiationinsomepartsoftheinfraredspectrum.Theprincipalgreenhousegases(GHGs)arecarbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation,Section15364.5oftheCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsdefinesGHGstoincludecarbondioxide,methane,nitrousoxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in thetransportation sector (on‐roadmotor vehicles, off‐highwaymobile sources, andaircraft) is the single largestsource of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial andcommercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one‐fourth of totalemissions.California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regardinggreenhousegases.GHGstatuesandexecutiveorders(EO)includeAB32,SB1368,EOS‐03‐05,EOS‐20‐06andEOS‐01‐07.


InitialStudy


AB32 is one of themost significantpiecesof environmental legislation thatCaliforniahas adopted. Amongotherthings,itisdesignedtomaintainCalifornia’sreputationasa“nationalandinternationalleaderonenergyconservationandenvironmentalstewardship.” Itwillhavewide‐rangingeffectsonCaliforniabusinessesandlifestylesaswell as far reachingeffectsonother statesandcountries. AuniqueaspectofAB32,beyond itsbroadandwide‐rangingmandatoryprovisionsanddramaticGHGreductionsaretheshorttimeframeswithinwhichitmustbeimplemented.MajorcomponentsoftheAB32include:

RequirethemonitoringandreportingofGHGemissionsbeginningwithsourcesorcategoriesofsourcesthatcontributethemosttostatewideemissions.

Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHGsources.

Mandatesthatby2020,California’sGHGemissionsbereducedto1990levels. ForcesanoverallreductionofGHGgasesinCaliforniaby25‐40%,frombusinessasusual,tobe

achievedby2020. Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality

standardsandtoreducetoxicaircontaminants.Statewide,theframeworkfordevelopingtheimplementingregulationsforAB32isunderway.MaximumGHGreductionsareexpectedtoderivefromincreasedvehiclefuelefficiency,fromgreateruseofrenewableenergyand from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate ActionRegistry(CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry‐specific protocols for assessing andreportingGHGemissionshavebeendeveloped.GHGsourcesarecategorizedintodirectsources(i.e.companyowned)andindirectsources(i.e.notcompanyowned).Directsourcesincludecombustionemissionsfromon‐andoff‐roadmobilesources,andfugitiveemissions.Indirectsourcesincludeoff‐siteelectricitygenerationandnon‐companyownedmobilesources.In 2015, the City of Gardena, in conjunctionwith SouthBay Cities Council of Governments,with funding bySouthern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company, adopted an energy efficiencyclimateactionplan(EECAP).AlthoughtheEECAPisheavilyfocusedontheGHGreductionoptionsapplicabletomunicipalgovernment,itcontainsavarietyofdiscretionaryactionsavailabletodevelopmentwithintheCityofGardena.TheEECAPincorporatesalimitednumberofgoalsandassociatedimplementationmeasuresthataredirectlyapplicabletoanindividualdevelopmentproject.Becauseoftherelativelysmallscopeoftheproposedproject (46townhome/condounits), theopportunityto implementsubstantialGHGreductionmeasuresonaproject specific basis is equally small. TheEECAPgoals/measures for small developments thatwould insureconsistencywithGHGplans,programsandpoliciesinclude:

Documents

City of Gardena Specific Plan and TTM 74350...Western Avenue Specific Plan and TTM 74350 Initial Study December 2016 11 Initial Study 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Project Description