CC SR 20251216 C - Border IssuesCITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/16/2025
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consider the second biannual 2025 Border Issues report.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1)Receive and file the second biannual report on the status of Border Issues for
2025.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Megan Barnes, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Catherine Jun, Deputy City Manager CJ
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A.City Council Policy No. 34 (page A-1)
B.November 18, 2025 Rolling Hills Estates City Council George F Canyon Nature
Center Nature Center Renovation Project staff report (page B-1)
C.August 26, 2025 Rolling Hills Estates City Council staff report (page C-1)
D.September 9, 2025 Rolling Hills Estates City Council staff report (page D-1)
E.June 24, 2025 Rolling Hills Estates City Council memorandum (page E-1)
F.November 18, 2025 Rolling Hills Estates City Council Brickwalk Estates Project
staff report (page F-1)
G.November 2025 City of Lomita press release (page G-1)
H.October 2025 Daily Breeze story on Five Points Union Project (page H-1)
I.June 16, 2025 Los Angeles Harbor Commission staff report (page I-1)
J.West Harbor FSEIR responses to City of Rancho Palos Verdes comments (page
J-1)
K.June 2025 Daily Breeze story on waterfront amphitheater approval (page K-1)
L.October 2024 Daily Breeze story on Phillips 66 refinery closure announcement
(page L-1)
M.Notice of Preparation for an EIR for the Five Points Union Project (page M-1)
N.September 2025 Five Points Union Project community presentation (page N-1)
1
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
O. July 2025 Daily Breeze story on Clearwater Project tunnel collapse (page O-1)
P. October 2025 Clearwater Project update (page P-1)
Q. November 2025 Clearwater Project update (page Q-1)
BACKGROUND:
According to City Council Policy No. 34 (Attachment A), twice a year, Staff presents the
City Council with a report on various development projects along the City’s borders that
may potentially affect residents and businesses of Rancho Palos Verdes. These “Border
Issues” reports are typically presented at the second City Council meeting in June and
December.
This is the second biannual report on the status of Border Issues for 2025 and includes
an update on the following projects:
Palos Verdes Estates
• Palos Verdes Drive West Corridor Project
Rolling Hills
• Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
• Proposed residence at 77 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills Estates
• George F Canyon Nature Center Renovation Project
• The Brickwalk Residences
• The Residences at Peninsula Center
Los Angeles / San Pedro
• Proposed leasing of the Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro for commercial fueling
operations and ball field land transfer
• Ponte Vista development on a former Navy housing site on Western Avenue
• Issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane storage facility
• San Pedro Waterfront Project (West Harbor)
• Proposed Starbucks drive-thru at 28110 South Western Avenue
• Five Points Union Project (new)
Torrance
• Proposed 18-unit mixed-use development on Hawthorne Boulevard near Rolling Hills
Road
Intercity Projects
• Proposed Caltrans Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project
• Clearwater Project (new)
The full current status report and archived reports are available on the City’s website at:
http://www.rpvca.gov/781/Border-Issues-Status-Report
2
DISCUSSION:
Current Border Issues
Palos Verdes Drive West Corridor Project (Palos Verdes Estates)
There has been no change in the status of the Palos Verdes Drive West Corridor Project,
which aims to alleviate traffic congestion along the Palos Verdes Drive West corridor in
the City of Palos Verdes Estates, including its intersections with Via Corta and Palos
Verdes Drive North. The project has not been discussed by the Traffic Safety Committee
or City Council since 2024. Staff has reached out to the City of Palos Verdes Estates for
an update on when it is expected to return to the City Council and will share it as late
correspondence if received prior to tonight’s meeting.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (Rolling Hills)
There has been no change in the status of the Rancho Del Mar Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone in the City of Rolling Hills, a mixed-use, multi-family overlay zone on a 31-
acre site owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) at 38
Crest Road West, which is included in Rolling Hills’ 6th Cycle Housing Element. The
overlay zone allows the addition of up to 16 multi-family units by-right, including low- and
very low-income units, in an area west of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority
(PVPTA) facility. According to staff at the City of Rolling Hills, the City previously received
informal inquiries about developing the site. However, no plans have been submitted.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
77 Portuguese Bend Road (Rolling Hills)
There has been no change in the status of the proposed residential development located
at 77 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills (referred to as the Shen
Residence).
The proposed project consists of the construction of an 8,847-square-foot single-family
residence, a 2,427-square-foot guesthouse, a 2,766-square-foot pool area, and the re-
alignment and potential modification of an existing road and driveway into the easement
area located between residences at 73 and 74 Portuguese Bend Road. The home would
include two 2-car garages, four bedrooms, four bathrooms and two half-bathrooms.
Amenities would include an open central courtyard, a gym/workshop, a breakfast nook, a
laundry room, and a pantry. The guesthouse would include an open pond courtyard, one
bedroom, one bathroom and one half-bathroom. The pool area would include a swimming
pool with a pool gate, jacuzzi, walkway, and pool deck. The proposed project would also
include a 450-square-foot stable, a 550-square-foot corral, and a trash enclosure near
the northern boundary of the project footprint.
3
The City previously provided comments on a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an initial
study and mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) for the project that was released by
the City of Rolling Hills in December 2022.
Rolling Hills planning staff previously indicated that the next step was for the applicant’s
geotechnical engineer to review and prepare responses to comments. It was Staff's
understanding that there was a possibility that the project notice may be reissued due to
information that needed to be corrected and updated. This would give the City’s
Community Development Department Staff another opportunity to provide comments.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
George F Canyon Nature Center Renovation Project (Rolling Hills Estates)
On November 18, 2025, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council accepted a $3.7 million
construction bid for Phase One of the George F Canyon Nature Center Renovation
Project, which calls for the demolition of the aging facility on the southwest corner of Palos
Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive East and the construction of a new nature
center/community center (Attachment B). Phase One includes construction of the new
Nature Center building and associated site work, grading, utilities, and landscaping
around the building pad. Future phases will include additional outdoor education features,
such as the amphitheater and classroom spaces. Construction is expected to begin in
early 2026 and is anticipated to last approximately one year.
On August 26, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council approved pursuing financing options
to close an estimated $1.1 million funding gap for the project (Attachment C). On
September 9, the City Council accepted a $424,000 grant from the San Gabriel and Lower
Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, which will cover project elements that
advance habitat restoration, improve water quality and ensure inclusive public access as
well as a portion of professional services (Attachment D). City staff continues to seek
private donations and explore grant funding opportunities, including a $4 million Los
Angeles County Measure A Competitive Grant Request. If awarded, the grant would
cover the Phase One funding gap and Phase Two. The grant award announcement is
expected in spring 2026.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
The Brickwalk Residences (Rolling Hills Estates)
A limited environmental review is underway for the Brickwalk Residences, a 407-unit
mixed-use development proposed for Indian Peak Road and Deep Valley Drive near
Crenshaw Boulevard in Rolling Hills Estates on the border with Rancho Palos Verdes.
Proposed by property owner Rolling Hills Capital, LLC, the project calls for the demolition
of existing buildings and the construction of 407 residential units (including 29 very low-
4
income units, qualifying for a 30% density bonus) in three eight-story buildings and one
six-story building on a 10.42-acre site located at 655-815 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950
Indian Peak Road, where a landslide occurred in 1997. Additionally, 3,249 square feet of
retail and 503 parking spaces are proposed. An 8-acre portion of the site is identified as
an Opportunity Area in the land use element of the City’s 2040 General Plan, which
considers infill and redevelopment potential in five areas in the City’s Commercial District.
The proposed residential development, under the Opportunity Area, includes 245 one-
bedroom/one-bathroom units, 83 two-bedroom/two-bathroom units, and 79 three-
bedroom/three-bathroom units, all for rent. Access and improvements at the Indian Peak
Road site will require coordination with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as Indian Peak
Road and Crenshaw Boulevard are within the City’s jurisdiction. To accommodate the
density bonus and proposed height maximum of 96.5 feet, the developer is requesting a
waiver for the site’s 44-foot height limit.
Rolling Hills Capital, LLC submitted a preliminary application for the project under Senate
Bill No. 330 on February 7, 2024, and a development application on August 5, 2024.
On June 24, 2025, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council approved a contract for a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the project (Attachment E). Due
to the site’s geological challenges, including the 1997 landslide failure, the Council also
approved a contract for a third-party geotechnical peer review. Less than one week later,
Governor Gavin Newsom signed two budget trailer bills, Assembly Bill (AB) No. 130 and
Senate Bill (SB) No. 131, which went into effect immediately on July 1. The legislation
included significant changes to the scope of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
review, particularly with respect to exempting in-fill housing projects in urban areas from
CEQA, and applies retroactively to pending housing development applications, such as
the Brickwalk Residences.
The City of Rolling Hils Estates determined that the project appears to qualify for CEQA
exemption due to the legislation. Out of an abundance of caution and because of a
potential ambiguity regarding one of the new exemption’s qualifying criteria related to
biological resources, the City proposed, and the applicant voluntarily agreed, to undertake
a narrowly focused environmental review of potential project impacts to habitat for certain
protected species under the “near miss” provisions of SB 131. Rather than prepare an
SEIR for the project, on November 18, 2025, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council
approved revised contracts for a narrower Addendum to the General Plan Update
Programmatic EIR (Attachment F). Although this review will not involve the same robust
level of public outreach as the SEIR would have, City of Rolling Hills Estates planning
staff is coordinating with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development and
Public Works Departments. As a result, two additional intersections were added to the
project’s Traffic Impact Study: Indian Peak Road/Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge
Road/Crenshaw Boulevard.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
5
The Residences at Peninsula Center (Rolling Hills Estates)
There has been no change in the status of the Residences at Peninsula Center, a
proposed 90-unit residential development on a 2-acre portion of the Peninsula Shopping
Center in Rolling Hills Estates, located at 27525 Norris Center Drive. According to City of
Rolling Hills Estates planning staff, Phoenix-based real estate development company
Vestar has not yet applied for building permits.
The project calls for the demolition of an existing vacant 7,000-square-foot building (may
have been used as a bank in the past) located on Norris Center Drive at a driveway
entering the Peninsula Center, and the construction of 90 units in a 206,514-square-foot,
five-story podium structure with a maximum overall height of 68 feet. The proposed
residential development is called The Residences at Peninsula Center, and all units would
be for rent. This includes 57 one-bedroom units and 33 two-bedroom units, with 15% of
the units reserved for moderate income households (9 units total). The project would
provide a total of 240 parking spaces, with 85 spaces provided as shared public/private
parking on the ground floor.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (San Pedro)
Negotiations remain ongoing for two leases for Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro
(DFSP), the sprawling, inactive U.S. Navy fuel tank farm on North Gaffey Street (which
borders the City on a stretch of Western Avenue) and an 8-acre Marine Terminal about
five miles southeast in the Port of Long Beach.
According to the Navy, the October-November 2025 federal government shutdown halted
work on all real estate projects, but negotiations have since resumed. An update on the
Marine Terminal lease and the Main Terminal outlease is expected in the coming weeks.
No additional information about the leases is available due to Department of Defense
solicitation regulations. Once they are signed, the Navy will be able to provide additional
information.
In addition to the former fuel tank farm, portions of DFSP’s Main Terminal are leased by
youth sports organizations for ball fields, the Los Angeles Police Department for a
shooting range, and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for a native plant
nursery and habitat for the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly. This includes a small
portion of the site that falls within the boundaries of the City of Lomita.
In December 2024, Rep. Nanette Barragán announced that the Cities of Los Angeles and
Lomita will take ownership of the ball fields after she and Rep. Ted Lieu secured language
in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to help transfer the federal land. The
transfer was requested by both the cities of Los Angeles and Lomita. This strategy of
acquiring federal land via an act of Congress was pursued due to a change in Department
6
of Defense policy that would have resulted in charging the lessees fair-market user fees.
In November 2025, the City of Lomita announced that it had officially begun the process
of taking over the approximately 6 acres of land (Attachment G).
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Ponte Vista (formerly Highpark) Project (San Pedro)
Home building continues at Ponte Vista, the 676-unit project on 61.4 acres of former Navy
property along Western Avenue in San Pedro across from Green Hills Memorial Park,
and consists of single-family homes, townhomes, and flats.
According to master developer Harridge Development Group, almost all areas of Ponte
Vista are in various phases of construction. As of June 2025, 345 homes were occupied.
Staff has requested an update on the number of homes sold and occupied and will share
it as late correspondence if received prior to tonight’s meeting.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
Staff has one update on the status of Rancho LPG, the facility on North Gaffey Street in
San Pedro, where 25 million gallons of butane are stored in two aboveground tanks.
Another five horizontal storage tanks each hold 60,000 gallons of propane. Rancho LPG
has long been the subject of concerns from residents of San Pedro, the Eastview area of
Rancho Palos Verdes, and others about safety and the potential for a catastrophic
explosion. Plains All American Pipeline, which owns the facility, has defended its safety
record and procedures.
In October 2024, Phillips 66 announced it will be winding down operations and closing its
massive, century-old refinery complex covering 650 acres in Carson and Wilmington,
which borders Rancho LPG. Phillips 66 is planning to redevelop the site with a 444-acre
mixed-use project dubbed Five Points Union (see discussion further below). In October
2025, Phillips 66 announced it reached an agreement with the owner of Rancho LPG to
incorporate the property into the project’s redevelopment plans. Upon approval of the Five
Points Union Project, the Rancho LPG site’s butane tanks would be removed, and the
property would be redeveloped with the rest of the project (Attachment H). The Five Points
Union Project is being added as a Border Issue and is discussed further in this report.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
San Pedro Waterfront Project (West Harbor) (Port of Los Angeles)
On June 26, 2025, the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners voted unanimously
to certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the West
Harbor Modification Project, which involves the construction of an approximately 6,200-
7
seat, 100,000-square-foot-amphitheater in the future West Harbor development on the
site of the former Ports O’ Call Village in San Pedro (Attachment I).
In January 2025, the City submitted comments on the project’s Draft SEIR, which found
significant, unavoidable impacts related to air quality, including greenhouse gases, noise
and transportation. The City raised concerns about potential noise impacts to residents
on the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes from approximately 100 paid events per year,
as well as impacts of offshore fireworks displays. The City supported mitigation efforts
including the creation of a noise complaint hotline and/or website for the amphitheater,
penalties for noise violations, requirements for a noise monitoring station and sound-
monitoring data reports, and a mitigation measure to replace firework displays with lighted
drone displays to the extent possible. Comments responding to the City’s comment letter
are available in Chapter 2 of the FSEIR (Attachment J).
Revisions in the FSEIR include reducing the number of annual fireworks shows permitted
from 25 to 13, with 10 of those events anticipated to be sponsored by West Harbor.
However, during the Board of Harbor Commissioners discussion, the project developer
expressed being amenable to having only five fireworks show per year. Based on the
discussion, Port of Los Angeles staff intends to recommend an additional measure be
included in West Harbor’s lease that allows up to five tenant-sponsored firework events
per year instead of the 10 events discussed in the FSEIR. The final lease will go before
the Board of Harbor Commissioners at a future meeting. In addition to reducing the
number of permitted fireworks shows, mitigation has been revised to prevent “salute”
concussive shell fireworks that are the most disruptive to sensitive groups.
According to the Daily Breeze, construction is expected to take approximately 14-16
months, and the amphitheater will be operated by the Nederlander Organization, which
ran the Greek Theater in Los Angeles (Attachment K). West Harbor is expected to have
soft openings by the end of 2025, with a grand opening celebration planned for the first
or second quarter of 2026.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Starbucks Drive-Thru at 28110 South Western Avenue (San Pedro)
There has been no change in the status of a proposed Starbucks drive-thru in the Garden
Village Shopping Center in San Pedro on Western Avenue just north of Westmont Drive.
The Kaidence Group, a Phoenix-based commercial real estate developer, previously
planned to build a 2,178-square-foot Starbucks drive-thru on the site of a vacant bank
building but withdrew its application in May 2023. Then, Kaidence considered the site of
a vacant Coco’s restaurant space in the southwest corner of the shopping center, before
exploring additional opportunities. It is Staff’s understanding that there are no plans to
move forward with the project.
Staff will remove this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
8
Five Points Union Project (Los Angeles)
In October 2024, Phillips 66 announced it will be winding down operations and closing its
century-old, 650-acre oil refinery complex in Carson and Wilmington, which borders north
San Pedro along Anaheim Street, North Gaffey Street, and John S. Gibson Boulevard
(Attachment L). The refining giant attributed the decision, which will impact approximately
600 employees and 300 contractors, to uncertainty surrounding the refinery’s long-term
sustainability due to market dynamics.
Phillips 66 engaged two real estate firms, Catellus Development Corporation and Deca
Companies — together, Catellus-Deca, LLC — to evaluate the future use of the site. The
developer began a public outreach campaign engaging various stakeholder groups to
help shape the vision.
In July 2025, Catellus-Deca submitted plans to the City of Los Angeles for a mixed-use
project over 444 acres dubbed Five Points Union. The proposed project would allow for
approximately 400,000 square feet of commercial and recreational development on the
northern portion of the site, known as the Town Center, and up to approximately 6 million
square feet of industrial development on the southern portion of the site, known as the
Industrial Center. All existing uses would be removed, and the site would be remediated
prior to the construction of new buildings and site improvements.
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR for the project was published on August 14
(Attachment M). Public scoping meetings were held on August 26 and 28, and the public
comment period for the NOP concluded on September 12. As mentioned earlier in this
report, in October 2025, Phillips 66 announced it reached an agreement with the owner
of the adjacent Rancho LPG facility in San Pedro (another Border Issue), to incorporate
the property into the project’s redevelopment plans. Upon approval of the Five Points
Union Project, the Rancho LPG site’s butane tanks would be removed, and the property
would be redeveloped with the rest of the project.
9
Image: Catellus-Deca
The Town Center would include 337,000 square feet of retail and food service uses
(including sit down and drive-thru restaurants, a grocery store, and a major retailer), a
60,000-square-foot indoor sports facility, and other community serving uses, such as a
500-square-foot police substation and a 5,000-square-foot community meeting/work
room, totaling 402,500 square feet of floor area, with building heights up to 65 feet. The
Town Center would include surface parking and 27 acres of publicly accessible outdoor
areas, including 3 acres of sports fields, two playgrounds, and more than 3.5 miles of
walking paths. A new approximately 1-mile sidewalk would also be installed along North
Gaffey Street.
The Industrial Center has two development options: the Reduced Outdoor Storage Option
and the Additional Outdoor Storage Option. Both options have the same overall uses,
massing, site access, and site layout, but vary in the allocation of indoor and outdoor
industrial uses within the southern-most portion of the Industrial Center. Building heights
would be permitted up to 115 feet.
Under the Reduced Outdoor Storage Option, the project would include the development
of up to 5,982,100 square feet of industrial uses; 184,000 square feet of ancillary office
uses generally located within the ground floor and mezzanines of the industrial buildings;
up to 402,500 square feet of commercial and recreational uses; and approximately 24
acres of outdoor storage uses, such as trailer parking and container storage that would
be integrated with, and support, the industrial uses, for a total floor area of 6,568,600
square feet.
Under the Additional Outdoor Storage Option, Building 8, located on the southeastern
portion of the Industrial Center, would be reduced by 664,000 square feet to provide for
10
an increase in the outdoor storage areas from 24 acres to 52 acres. Under this option,
the total floor area would be 5,904,600 square feet.
The project would provide vehicular and pedestrian access improvements, including a
new truck tunnel, located near an existing truck tunnel beneath the I-110 Freeway
connecting the southeast portion of the project site to John S. Gibson Boulevard. Surface
parking for vehicles and truck trailers, and landscaped areas would be provided.
Approximately 199,700 square feet of existing floor area would be removed, along with
the removal of existing large-scale bulk liquid storage tanks, refinery process units, other
refinery-related equipment and structures, and equipment related to the storage of
liquefied petroleum gas. Demolition and removal activities would be followed by
remediation of the project site and then construction of new buildings and site
improvements. A September 2025 community presentation with renderings is included in
this report as Attachment N.
The environmental analysis is expected to take a few years to complete. Meanwhile,
Phillips 66 has begun the process of idling process units, cleaning equipment, and safely
preparing the refinery site for future use.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Mixed-Use Residential Development on Hawthorne Boulevard Near Rolling Hills
Road (Torrance)
There has been no change in status for a proposed 18-unit apartment mixed-use
development along the east side of Hawthorne Boulevard just north of Rolling Hills Road.
In 2022, silhouettes went up outlining the visual impacts of the proposed project, including
5,745 square feet of office space. The site is located on seven vacant parcels within the
city’s Hillside Overlay Area.
It is Staff’s understanding that the project will not require an environmental review,
because it meets the parameters of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15332, meaning it is considered an “infill” development project. This
exemption is intended to promote infill development, which is defined by the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research as “building within unused and underutilized lands within
existing development patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas.”
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project (Caltrans)
With the Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA)
complete and a construction staging schedule selected, Caltrans remains in the design
phase of the Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project. The project aims to
preserve the 60-year-old suspension bridge’s structural integrity and enhance overall
11
safety by replacing the deck and upgrading barriers, railings, and seismic sensors. This
work will require a 16-month full bridge closure that will result in major traffic impacts to
commuters, including those traveling between the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Long
Beach/Orange County.
To guide this effort, Caltrans has formed several focused subcommittees, including Traffic
Management, Air Gap Issues, Railroad Crossing Labor Discharge, and Emergency
Services. These groups meet biweekly to share updates and coordinate with partner
agencies throughout the project's development.
A key initiative underway in the Traffic Management Subcommittee, in collaboration with
the Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, and the City of Los Angeles, is planning the
installation of CCTV cameras in areas affected by the project. Though still in early
planning stages, this effort has strong support. These cameras are expected to enhance
traffic flow, assist with the enforcement of truck routes, and improve public safety during
the bridge closure and detours.
Caltrans is also working on street improvements between Interstate 110 (I-110) and Pier
A to help traffic move more smoothly along the detour route. In addition, Caltrans is
working on expanding Freeway Service Patrol coverage on both the state highway
system and local streets to respond more effectively to incidents involving all types of
vehicles, including those requiring heavy-duty towing.
The full bridge closure during construction is expected starting in fall 2026 through winter
2027/2028.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Clearwater Project (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts)
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) operate and maintain the Joint
Outfall System (JOS), the main sewer system that collects and treats wastewater from
over 5 million people in the Los Angeles basin, including the South Bay. The largest
wastewater treatment facility in the JOS, the A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility
(formerly known as the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant) in Carson, uses two large
tunnels to convey water to the ocean, which are 60 and 80 years old. In Rancho Palos
Verdes, LACSD maintains two above-ground sanitary sewer trunk lines that run along
Palos Verdes Drive South, which convey wastewater from much of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula to the treatment facility.
In 2006, LACSD began a multi-year planning and environmental review effort identifying
the need for a new tunnel to ensure the reliability of the JOS and provide sufficient future
capacity. The new tunnel will address concerns related to aging infrastructure, earthquake
standards, and preventing overflow.
12
In 2012, the Sanitation Districts' Board of Directors approved the Clearwater Project
Master Facilities Plan, which includes a new 7-mile long tunnel from Carson to San Pedro
that is constructed underneath public streets. The graphic below shows the pathway of
the new and existing tunnels.
Image: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Following approval of the Clearwater Project in 2012, LACSD began the design process
and obtained geological data by taking soil samples deep below streets and other public
rights-of-way. Between 2012 and 2018, LACSD focused on designing the new tunnel and
obtaining the necessary easements and permits for construction.
Construction on the $630 million project began in 2019 in Carson and is expected to finish
in 2027 at Royal Palms Beach in San Pedro. The project began at the Warren Facility
with the construction of an access shaft. This shaft is used throughout the project as the
entry/exit point for construction workers, tunnel materials (e.g., liner segments and
excavating soil), and equipment. A noise barrier, approximately 20 feet high, is erected
between the site and nearby sensitive receptors.
On July 9, 2025, a portion of the tunnel collapsed at approximately the 5-mile mark more
than 370 feet underground beneath Western Avenue just south of Weymouth Avenue in
San Pedro (Attachment O), temporarily trapping 31 workers inside. All were able to safely
exit the tunnel and be lifted from the shaft entrance where some were evaluated and
treated for minor injuries. The incident halted construction and prompted calls for
investigations from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn and Los Angeles City
13
Redondo Beach
City of
Palos Verdes
Estates
City of Rancho
Palos Verdes
.(o-,,,,.,
City of e,"q-
Torrance
Unincorporated
. Palos Ve rdes
Peninsula
Unincorporated -
Westfield/Academy
Hills
City of
Rolling Hills
Estates
o,s
City
of Rolling
Hills
Harbor Gateway
§ Los
i :anng~~;r~
City of
Carson
Los
Angeles
-Wilmington
Councilmember Tim McOsker, who represents San Pedro, Harbor City, and Harbor
Gateway in the 15th Council District.
As of late October 2025, rescue and recovery operations to enter the tunnel to inspect
and determine the status of the tunnel boring machine were expected to continue for
many weeks. Drilling to verify the geology and traffic control are ongoing along Western
Avenue just south of Weymouth Avenue, with work expected to continue regularly for the
next several months (Attachment P). These activities may be affected by winter weather
and rain, with same-day decisions made on whether drilling will occur. Project updates
are available at clearwater.lacsd.org.
All construction work at Royal Palms Beach has been halted due to the discovery of
Indigenous artifacts at the site during digging and preparation work. It is unknown when
work will resume.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive and file this second 2025 Border Issues Status
Report.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify additional development projects along the City’s borders for inclusion in
future Border Issues Status Reports.
2. Take other action, as deemed appropriate by the City Council.
14
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER: 34
DATE ADOPTED: 09/04/01 (Amended 10/18/16 and 4/20/21)
SUBJECT: Border Issues
POLICY:
It shall be the policy of the City Council that it shall be briefed from time-to-time,
but not less than biannually, regarding “Border Issues” that have the potential to
adversely impact residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. “Border Issues”
consist of individual projects that are likely to have direct impacts on City residents
on their own, as well as projects that, together with other projects, could create
cumulative impacts to City residents. The procedure for addressing such issues
shall be as follows:
1)When City Staff receives notices or other information regarding proposed
projects that are located outside of the City’s borders but with the potential to
impact City residents, City Staff shall report such information to the City Council
as described in Section No. 3 below. Such proposed projects shall include, but
not be limited to, proposed land use development projects, events, or special
uses in the neighboring cities and communities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills
Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, San Pedro, Lomita and unincorporated L os
Angeles County.
2)Reports to the City Council on any such “Border Issue” proposed project shall
include a description of the proposed project and the current status of the
proposed project.
3)Updates on Border Issues shall be provided to the City Council from time -to-
time via the City Manager’s Weekly Administrative Report, and at least
biannually as an item on a City Council meeting agenda. These updates shall
also be provided to the general public and interested parties via the City’s
Border Issues Status Report listserv and on the Border Issues Status Report
page (http://www.rpvca.gov/781/Border-Issues-Status-Report) on the City’s
website.
4)Upon receipt of notices or other information regarding potential Border Issues,
Staff may take one or any combination of the following actions:
A)Determine that no potential impacts would result to City residents and
take no further action regarding the item;
A-1
City Council Policy No. 34
Border Issues
Page 2
B)Determine that potential impacts may result to City residents and
coordinate with other City departments to identify what these impacts
are, and to provide comments to the public agency, project proponent
and/or property owner regarding these impacts and Staff’s
recommendations to address them; or,
C)Determine that significant adverse impacts may result to City residents
and present the Border Issue to the City Council to possibly establish a
City position on the proposed project and give specific direction to Staff.
5)Unless otherwise directed by the City Council, Staff will have the ability to take
one or more of the following actions:
A)Respond to any CEQA notices;
B)Attend any public hearings, workshops or any other informational
meetings on the proposed project; or,
C)Meet with representatives of the lead agency proposing the project.
6)Projects shall remain on the status report until the item s are deemed closed.
A-2
City Council Staff Report – November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates – 1
George F. Canyon Nature Center Project
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KIRSTEN GRAHAM, PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER
SUBJECT: AWARD OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT TO SS+K CONSTRUCTION
INC. FOR GEORGE F CANYON NATURE CENTER PROJECT - PHASE
ONE
OVERVIEW
The following is a request for the City Council to award a Public Works Contract for the
George F Canyon Nature Center Project to SS+K Construction Inc. in the amount of
$3,720,743.00, plus a 10% contingency of ($372,074.30) for a grand total of
$4,092,817.30.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The George F Canyon Preserve and Nature Center in Rolling Hills Estates, jointly
operated by the City and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, serves as a
hub for environmental education, community engagement, and access to the canyon’s
native habitats. Fully envisioned, a new state-of-the-art Nature Center will replace the
existing facility, expanding the space to over 3,000 square feet with flexible indoor and
outdoor areas, interactive exhibits featuring local flora, fauna, and live animals, a viewing
deck, an outdoor classroom, and improved trail access. Designed with sustainability in
mind, the project incorporates photovoltaic panels, EV charging stations, stormwater
capture systems, and California native and drought-tolerant landscaping. Although
educational and outreach programs continue to be offered and supported by Palos
Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, the original modular building constructed in the
1990s has exceeded its service life and does not meet current building and accessibility
standards and was closed in Fall 2024.
Over the past several years, staff have advanced planning for the new Nature Center
through architectural, engineering, and environmental design phases, including plan
check review completed by Willdan Engineering. In August 2024, the project was formally
bid for construction. The City received two bids, both of which exceeded $5 million and
were rejected by the City Council as not financially feasible. Since that time, staff have
worked closely with the project architect Rosling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc.
(RNTA) and project manager, Transtech Engineers, to refine the project approach, while
also exploring other funding opportunities. At City Council direction, the project was then
CC AGENDA
NOVEMBER 18, 2025
ITEM NO. 8A
B-1
City Council Staff Report – November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates – 2
George F. Canyon Nature Center Project
divided into phases to allow the City to focus on the main Nature Center building as the
primary construction phase, while deferring the outdoor classroom deck and canyon
walkway to a future phase once additional funding is secured.
The Phase One project represents the initial component of a multi-phase reconstruction
effort. This first phase includes construction of the new Nature Center building and
associated site work, grading, utilities, and landscaping around the building pad. Future
phases will include additional outdoor education features such as the amphitheater and
classroom spaces.
In August 2025, staff presented a project update and City Council approved proceeding
with bid solicitation for Phase One of the Nature Center Project (main building construct,
excluding the walkway and outdoor classroom) and authorized staff to pursue financing
options to close an estimated $1.1 million funding gap.
The project was advertised for public bid on September 12, 2025, and bids were received
and opened on October 29, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. with six responsive bids.
Bid Results
BIDDER TOTAL BID AMOUNT
SS+K Construction, Inc. $3,720,743.00
Foundation Builders Corp. $3,992,269.70
Newman Midland Corp. $4,119,004.00
Loghmani & Associates, Inc. $4,120,250.00
CALTEC Corp. $4,400,000.00
MLC Constructors, Inc. $4,485,507.00
Bid Analysis
The City’s consultant for this project, Transtech Engineers, Inc., conducted a
comprehensive bid review of all submittals, verifying mathematical accuracy, license
status, bid bond validity, and compliance with the project specifications. The analysis
confirmed that SS+K Construction, Inc. submitted all required bid documents and that
both the contractor and all listed subcontractors hold active California contractor licenses
and current DIR registrations. The firm also meets the self-performance and
subcontractor participation requirements specified in the contract documents.
Following the bid opening, the City received a bid protest from Newman Midland Corp.,
the third-lowest bidder, regarding alleged omissions and pricing irregularities in SS+K
Construction’s bid. The City and its consultant, Transtech Engineers, reviewed the protest
in detail and determined that the issues raised did not constitute material irregularities or
grounds for disqualification. The City Attorney’s office also reviewed the bid protest, which
was found to lack merit. The protest was therefore denied, and SS+K Construction, Inc.
remains the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
Based on this evaluation, SS+K Construction, Inc. was determined to be the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder, with a total bid amount of $3,720,743.00, which is 11
B-2
City Council Staff Report – November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates – 3
George F. Canyon Nature Center Project
percent lower than the average bid of $4,139,629.00 received from all six bidders and 8
percent below the Engineer’s Estimate of $4,000,000.00. These results reflect a
competitive and reasonable proposal for the Phase 1 project scope.
Reference checks from comparable public agencies confirmed that SS+K Construction
has delivered high-quality work, maintained clear communication, and completed projects
on schedule.
A detailed Bid Analysis Report prepared by Transtech Engineers, Inc. is provided as
Attachment B.
On-site Construction Project Management
Staff is currently refining the proposal with Transtech Engineers, Inc. for on-site
construction management and materials testing services, including the provision of
hazardous materials (asbestos and lead) testing and soils/materials testing. Staff are
estimating a budget of $300,000 for this task order, which will be finalized after the City
holds the pre-construction meeting and receives a detailed schedule from the awarded
contractor. Staff expect to present the task order for City Council authorization in
December or January.
Funding Summary
Professional services costs, including architectural and engineering fees, budgeted or
expended to date total $824,523. This amount also includes consultant services for bid
document preparation, project and construction management, payroll certification,
inspection services, and ongoing architectural firm costs. Following the award of the
construction bid, additional professional services will be needed to support construction
management.
Based on the bid received, the estimated construction cost for Phase One, which covers
all contractor-related expenses, is $3,720,743, with a contingency of $372,075.
Furnishings, equipment, and interpretive design are expected to cost approximately
$850,000, with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy contributing a significant
portion toward the educational components.
Phase One with October 2025 bid
Estimated Costs Amount
Professional Services $ 824,523
Total Estimated Construction Cost w/ no alternatives $ 3,720,743
Contingency $ 372,075
Estimated on-site Construction Management $ 300,000
Furnishings/Education $ 850,000
Total Project Cost $ 6,067,341
*Includes costs currently incurred and contracted
B-3
City Council Staff Report – November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates – 4
George F. Canyon Nature Center Project
The Phase One project is funded through a combination of local and grant sources as
summarized below:
Grants Amount
City Park Facility Fees budgeted or expended to date $ 387,000
CA State Dept Parks & Rec (Sen. Allen) $ 1,200,000
LA County- Supervisor Hahn commitment $ 500,000
Prop 68 - Per Capita Program $ 177,952
Prop 68 - Urban Area $ 5,040
Rolling Hills Partnership (Prop 68) $ 177,952
Rolling Hills Partnership (Prop 68-urban area) $ 1,156
Measure A $ 318,482
Estimate PVPLC contribution $ 850,000
Allocated City contribution (2025/26 Measure W) $ 120,000
Allocated City contribution (Park Facilities Fees) $ 1,200,000
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Grant $ 424,200
Total Funds Allocated/Granted $ 5,361,782
The remaining balance needed to fund the first phase of the Nature Center building
(excluding the outdoor classroom and walkway) is estimated at $705,559, down from the
initial estimate of $1.1 million. To address this funding gap, at the meeting of August 26,
2025, City Council approved the allocation of reserve funds, with an alternative financing
option available if needed.
City staff continue to seek private donations and have submitted a Los Angeles County
Measure A Competitive Grant Request for $4 million If awarded, this grant would support
Phase One by closing the funding gap, covering the cost of educational exhibits managed
by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, and offsetting a portion of the
expenses currently supported by the City’s Park Facilities Fees. In addition, this funding
would allow us to complete Phase Two, which includes the outdoor learning pavilion and
the ramp/gateway to the canyon. The grant award announcement is expected in Spring
2026.
If approved by the City Council, the Public Works Contract will be awarded to SS+K
Construction Inc. Staff will execute the construction agreement and issue the Notice to
Proceed once all required bonds and insurance are received. Construction is expected to
begin in early 2026 and is anticipated to last approximately 12 months.
FISCAL IMPACT
As stated above, there is an estimated $5,361,782 in allocated funds for the project, which
includes City restricted funds and reimbursable grants. The City currently has $1,200,000
in Park Facilities Fees allocated in the next two fiscal year budgets (FY 2025-26 =
$600,000 and FY 2026-27 = $600,000) to support the project. Staff will return at mid-year
with a budget adjustment to fully accommodate expenditures and incorporate all funds
that will support the full scope of Phase One of the project.
B-4
City Council Staff Report – November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates – 5
George F. Canyon Nature Center Project
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The agenda and staff report for this item were posted and noticed as required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the bid from SS+K Construction Inc. in the
amount of $3,720,743.00, plus a 10% contingency ($372,074.30) for a grand total of
$4,092,817.30.
Attachments:
A. Bid Summary
B. Bid Analysis from Transtech Engineering
C. Bid from SS+K Construction Inc.
B-5
City Council Staff Report- August 26, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates –
George F Canyon Nature Center Project Update
1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 26, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALEXA DAVIS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
FERNANDO ESTRADA, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
SUBJECT: GEORGE F CANYON NATURE CENTER PROJECT UPDATE
OVERVIEW
The following report provides an update on the George F Canyon Nature Center Project,
including the status of design and bidding efforts, current cost estimates, secured and
anticipated funding sources, and options for addressing the remaining project funding
gap. Staff is requesting City Council direction to proceed with rebidding the main Nature
Center building as Phase One of the project and identifying potential funding mechanisms
to ensure timely progress of the project while preserving grant commitments.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several years, staff has advanced planning for the new Nature Center
through architectural, engineering, and environmental design phases, including plan
check review completed by Willdan Engineering. In August 2024, the project was formally
bid for construction. The City received two bids, both of which exceeded $5 million and
were rejected by the City Council as not financially feasible. Since that time, staff has
worked closely with the project architect and project manager, Transtech Engineers, to
refine the Project approach, while also exploring other funding opportunities. The project
has been divided into phases to allow the City to focus on the main Nature Center building
as the primary construction phase, while deferring the outdoor classroom deck and
canyon walkway to a future phase once additional funding is secured.
The phased approach keeps the Project on track, reduces immediate funding
requirements, and provides flexibility to construct the added elements as resources
become available. Concurrently, staff has actively pursued additional funding
opportunities, including coordination with the Pepper Tree Foundation Fundraising
Committee, and continued applications for grant programs. The phased rebid strategy
positions the City to advance the Project sooner, while maintaining eligibility and
compliance for existing grant commitments, most critically the $1.2 million award from the
California Department of Parks and Recreation.
CC AGENDA
AUGUST 26, 2025
ITEM NO. 9A
C-1
City Council Staff Report- August 26, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates –
George F Canyon Nature Center Project Update
2
Based on the 2024 bid results, the anticipated construction cost for the main Nature
Center building (excluding the walkway and outdoor classroom) is approximately $4.3
million, with an additional $500,000 contingency. Actual construction costs remain subject
to escalation given current market conditions. Together with furnishings, equipment, and
interpretive design at $500,000, and $850,000 expended or budgeted for professional
services. The total project cost is estimated at $6.15 million.
Estimated Costs Amount
Professional Services* $850,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost (building only) $4,300,000
Contingency $500,000
Furnishings/Education $500,000
Total Project Cost $6,150,000
*Includes some costs already incurred
Funding Status
To date, more than $5 million has been secured or allocated through state and county
grants, Park Facilities Fees, and community partnerships, as summarized below:
Grants/Allocated Funds Amount
City Park Facility Fees budgeted or expended to date $387,000
CA State Dept Parks & Rec (Allen)
Time-sensitive grant, set to expire in Spring 2026. Extension
is likely if project progress is demonstrated. Up to 80% can
be advanced to be expended within six months. If an
extension is approved, the remainder would be reimbursed
upon project completion.
$1,200,000
LA County-Hahn commitment
Funds will be available upon the execution of an
agreement and must be expended within one-year of
approval.
$500,000
Prop 68 - Per Capita Program
Funds are secured and must be expended by 2028. $177,952
Prop 68 - Urban Area $5,040
Rolling Hills Partnership (Prop 68) $177,952
Rolling Hills Partnership (Prop 68-urban area) $1,156
Measure A
Ongoing annual allocation, with flexibility on timing. This
allocation increases approximately $50K per year if prior
years remain unspent.
$318,482
Estimate PVPLC contribution
Commitment toward furnishings, interpretive design, and
educational programming.
$500,000
Allocated City contribution (2025/26 Measure W) $120,000
C-2
City Council Staff Report- August 26, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates –
George F Canyon Nature Center Project Update
3
• Allocated to fund stormwater pollution
prevention requirements. Allocated City contribution (Park Facilities Fees)
City Council approved an allocation in the amount of
$1.2M over the current and next fiscal year. Upon
completion and occupancy of the recently approved
Residences at Peninsula Center Project (Vestar), the City
will receive an additional $1.35 million in Park Facilities
Fees, which could be applied toward the project. Other
future development projects may generate up to an
additional $3M, but those funds are not guaranteed and,
if approved, will be received over a longer term.
$1,200,000
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC)
Newly awarded and secured for specific project elements. $424,200
Total Funds Allocated/Granted $5,011,782
The Nature Center Project is fully designed, engineered, and has completed plan check.
All consulting, architectural, and engineering work is finalized, and the Project is now
shovel-ready. To date, the City has secured and allocated more than $5 million in funding
through grants, contributions, and local resources, with strong commitments from
regional, state, and community partners. The remaining balance needed to fund the
Nature Center building (excluding the outdoor classroom and walkway) is estimated at
$1.1 million.
To address the current funding gap of approximately $1.1 million, staff has identified
three viable financing options: pay-go funding, debt financing, or hybrid approach
between pay-go funding and debt financing.
Option 1: Pay-go funding will require the use of General Fund reserves. Prioritizing pay-
go over debt is consistent with the City’s Budget Policy. The City can also utilize pay-
go and still maintain its 25% General Fund reserve policy. Unlike debt, pay-go funding
does not have a cost of borrowing but does forgo any potential interest earnings.
Option 2: Debt financing will require a direct placement loan from a commercial bank
given the small size of the financing, and will require a lease-leaseback structure, where
the lease payments secure the debt and are payable from the General Fund. Assuming
the current market rate of 4% over 15 years, annual debt service is approximately
$110,000, for total debt repayment of approximately $1.65 million. The ultimate
borrowing rate will be set and fixed at the time of executing the loan agreement. The
debt financing process will take approximately three months to complete.
PHASE ONE
Estimated Project Cost (building only) $6,150,000
Total Funds Allocated/Granted $5,011,782
Funding gap $1,138,218
C-3
City Council Staff Report- August 26, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates –
George F Canyon Nature Center Project Update
4
Option 3: Given the need to move the project forward and to maintain current grant
funding, the City can adopt a Reimbursement Resolution to preserve financing flexibility.
The Reimbursement Resolution will allow the City to proceed with the Project and utilize
pay-go as needed. Subsequently, the City may reimburse itself for prior expenditures
with the use of debt financing if desired. This layered approach provides the City with
flexibility to move the Project forward without risk of losing the $1.2 million California
Department of Parks & Recreation award.
Mark Young, Managing Director of KNN Public Finance LLC, serves as the City’s
Municipal Advisor, and will be available to discuss these financing options in detail.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The agenda and staff report for this item were posted and noticed as required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to proceed with soliciting bids for
Phase One of the Nature Center Project (main building construct, excluding the walkway
and outdoor classroom) and authorize staff to pursue financing options to close the
remaining funding gap.
C-4
City Council Staff Report – March 24, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates – 1
San Gabriel and Lower LA Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Grant Resolution and Agreement
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROSA PINUELAS, COMMUNITY SERVICES SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2607 AND APPROVAL OF GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN GABRIEL AND LOWER LOS ANGELES
RIVERS AND MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY FOR THE NEW NATURE
CENTER AT GEORGE F CANYON PROJECT
OVERVIEW
Resolution No. 2607 and the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains
Conservancy Agreement for grant funding for the New Nature Center at George F Canyon
are provided for City Council’s consideration.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
In June 2018, California voters approved the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate,
Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act Of 2018, also known as Proposition
68. Proposition 68 authorized the state to issue $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to
fund projects related to state and local parks, environmental protection, restoration, water
infrastructure, and flood protection. The San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy (RMC) administers these funds through competitive grants.
On July 21, 2025, the RMC Board approved the City’s grant application for the New
Nature Center at George F Canyon. The grant will cover project elements that advance
habitat restoration, improve water quality and ensure inclusive public access as well as
a portion of professional services.
Upon approval of the grant application, RMC requested the City receive authorization
from their governing body in the form of a resolution certifying approval of the authority to
file applications for grant funds and designate an authorized representative to execute all
necessary program documents. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved all
documents. Staff recommends the City Council designate the City Manager as the
authorized representative and approve execution of the Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the Resolution and the Agreement are the next steps required to access the
grant funds to be used for the Nature Center project, in the amount of $424,200.
CC AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
ITEM NO. 8C
D-1
City Council Staff Report – September 9, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates –
San Gabriel and Lower LA Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Grant Resolution and Agreement
2
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The agenda and staff report for this item were posted and noticed as required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2607, certifying the approval of
the application for Proposition 68 grant funds, providing additional certifications as
required under the grant program, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Agreement between the City and the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy.
Attachments:
A-Resolution No. 2607
B-San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Grant Agreement
C-Grant Agreement – Exhibit A
D-2
City Council Memorandum – June 24, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates –
Task Order – MBI: Brickwalk Residences Project
MPSA – Cotton Shires & Associates: Geotechnical Peer Review
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JUNE 24, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WHITNEY BERRY, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: TASK ORDER FOR MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., TO
PREPARE A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AND A MASTER PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COTTON SHIRES & ASSOCIATES TO
PERFORM PEER REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR
THE BRICKWALK RESIDENCES PROJECT
OVERVIEW
Staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a Task
Order with Michael Baker International, Inc., to prepare a Supplemental EIR for the
Brickwalk Residences Project, in a not-to-exceed amount of $485,512, approved as to
form, by the City Attorney; and to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Master
Professional Services Agreement with Cotton Shires & Associates to perform third party
peer review of geotechnical information, in a not-to-exceed amount of $78,775 for the
Brickwalk Residences Project, subject to approval as to form, by the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2024, Rolling Hills Capital, LLC, submitted an SB 330 Preliminary
Application 1 proposing a mixed-use development across four buildings on a 10.42-acre
site located at 655-815 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road (“Brickwalk
Residences Project”). The proposed project includes 454 residential units, 10,229 square
feet (SF) of commercial space and 881 parking spaces. The project would remediate the
steeply sloped hillside that experienced a landslide failure in 1997. The project proposes
to rely on a 45% density bonus granted under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) 2
when 14% of its base units are provided to Very Low-Income (VLI) households.
Accordingly, the project proposes to provide 44 units for VLI households. City staff and
other jurisdictions with authority over the project, such as the LA County Fire Department,
have been reviewing the project.
1 The SB 330 Preliminary Application vests ordinances, policies and standards, including fees, in effect at the time
of filing the application.
2 Government Code §65915
E-1
City Council Memorandum - June 24, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates –
Task Order – MBI: Brickwalk Residences Project
MPSA – Cotton Shires & Associates: Geotechnical Peer Review
2
One key step in the entitlement process for development projects such as this is
environmental review. The proposed project must comply with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and include an analysis of its potential
environmental impacts. Based on a preliminary review of the proposed project consistent
with Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines 3, the City has determined that a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR), tiering off the General Plan EIR,
should be prepared for this project consistent with Section 15163 of the CEQA
Guidelines 4. The General Plan EIR anticipated tiering and streamlining uses of the
document for future projects 5. The EIR must meet the legal requirements of a complete,
legally accurate and adequate, unbiased, and objective statement of the direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. To this end, City staff issued a Request
for Proposals from qualified environmental consulting forms to prepare a Supplemental
EIR for the Brickwalk Residences Project.
Given that the project site faces significant geological challenges and experienced a
landslide failure in 1997, it is imperative to have the geological issues of the site and
geotechnical feasibility of the project reviewed and analyzed by subject matter experts.
The City has determined that a third-party peer review of project geotechnical information
should be performed for the Brickwalk Residences Project.
DISCUSSION
Supplemental EIR
On January 14, 2025, City staff issued a Request for Proposals from qualified
environmental consulting forms to prepare a Supplemental EIR for the Brickwalk
Residences Project. Staff received one proposal, from MBI, by the original deadline. At
the request of the applicant, who expressed concerns about the lack of competitive
pricing, City staff solicited additional proposals by extending the deadline and contacting
additional firms directly. City staff also eliminated the geotechnical peer review
requirement from the RFP and instead decided to contract separately for third party peer
review of the project’s geotechnical information. Subsequently, staff received five
proposals by the revised April 7, 2025, deadline with the following fee proposals:
Table 1. Original Fee Proposals
Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E
Original Fee $548,002 $448,310 $431,431 $229,448 $96,600
City staff, including the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director,
evaluated all proposals and identified the top two proposals. Staff interviewed both firms
and discussed specific revisions to scope tasks and clarified City needs. Subsequently,
the revised fee proposals were as follows:
3 California Code of Regulations, Title 14 §15060
4 California Code of Regulations, Title 14 §15163
5 Link to General Plan EIR:
https://www.rollinghillsestates.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/19562/637704245770430000#page=65
E-2
City Council Memorandum - June 24, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates –
Task Order – MBI: Brickwalk Residences Project
MPSA – Cotton Shires & Associates: Geotechnical Peer Review
3
Table 2. Revised Fee Proposals
Firm A Firm B
Revised Fee $485,512 $452,822
Staff recommend MBI as the most responsive and responsible consultant team that
meets all City requirements for providing this service. MBI’s demonstrated technical
expertise, familiarity with local planning issues, demonstrated budget management and
proposed project team are all factors in staff’s recommendation. The stated approach to
preparation of the Supplemental EIR for this project is to “work collaboratively with City
staff to prepare a CEQA document that is legally defensible, aids the City in the decision-
making process, and meets the City’s needs in terms of schedule and budget.”
MBI’s proposal is provided as Exhibit A to the Task Order (Attachment A). Staff
recommend that this Task Order be approved subject to recommendations of the City
Attorney.
Geotechnical Third-Party Peer Review
Following the 1997 landslide, the project site was the subject of several geotechnical
studies by multiple consultants. A formal plan to remediate the landslide was pursued by
the property owner between 1997 and 2000 and then abandoned. In the early 2000s,
other development proposals were considered for the property, including due diligence-
level geotechnical investigations by at least two firms. In 2013, the City contracted Cotton
Shires & Associates to perform third-party geotechnical review of the site and previous
development proposal. Following the heavy rains in Winter 2023-24, the slide area
experienced additional failures that required abatement action, and thus new
geotechnical investigations are required to assess the current conditions of the site and
its adequacy to support the proposed development.
On May 30, 2025, City staff received a proposal from Cotton Shires & Associates to
perform third party peer review of geotechnical information for the Brickwalk Residences
Project. The scope of services includes review of the applicant-provided geotechnical
feasibility report as well as the Geology Section of the Draft Supplemental EIR. The City
Attorney is reviewing the Master Professional Services Agreement (MPSA) and will
approve as to form, prior to execution of the agreement. The proposal is provided as
Exhibit A to the MPSA (Attachment B).
FISCAL IMPACT
Supplemental EIR
The not to exceed cost for the proposed services with MBI is $485,512 and is subject to
the City’s 15% de minimis administrative overhead fee. The cost of these environmental
review services would be paid entirely by the applicant. Services will be provided on a
time and materials basis in accordance with the proposal in Attachment A.
E-3
City Council Memorandum - June 24, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates –
Task Order – MBI: Brickwalk Residences Project
MPSA – Cotton Shires & Associates: Geotechnical Peer Review
4
Geotechnical Peer Review
The not to exceed cost for the proposed services with Cotton Shires & Associates is
$78,775 and is subject to the City’s 15% de minimis administrative overhead fee. The
cost of the third-party peer review services would be paid entirely by the applicant.
Services will be provided on a time-and-expenses basis in accordance with the schedule
of charges provided in Attachment B.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The agenda and staff report for this item were posted and noticed as required; no further
outreach was conducted.
RECOMMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Task Order with Michael Baker
International, Inc., to prepare a Supplemental EIR for the Brickwalk Residences
Project, in a not-to-exceed amount of $485,512, approved as to form, by the City
Attorney; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Master Professional Services
Agreement with Cotton Shires & Associates to perform third party peer review of
geotechnical information, in a not-to-exceed amount of $78,775 for the Brickwalk
Residences Project, subject to approval as to form, by the City Attorney.
Attachments:
A. Task Order for Michael Baker International, Inc., to prepare a Supplemental
EIR for the Brickwalk Residences Project.
B. MPSA for Cotton Shires & Associates proposal to perform third party peer
review of geotechnical information for the Brickwalk Residences Project
E-4
City Council Staff Report – November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates
Brickwalk Project Update
4929-1408-6521 v1
1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEANNIE NAUGHTON, COMM. DEVELOPMENT/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DONALD M. DAVIS, CITY ATTORNEY
KATRINA KAWAGOE, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: CEQA LEGISLATION UPDATE AND REVISIONS TO CONSULTANT
CONTRACTS FOR THE BRICKWALK RESIDENCES PROJECT
OVERVIEW
The Legislature recently enacted Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 as urgency
measures which, upon approval by the Governor, went into effect on July 1, 2025. This
legislation included significant changes to the scope of CEQA review, particularly with
respect to in-fill housing projects in urban areas, and applies retroactively to pending
housing development applications such as the Brickwalk Residences Project. Because
this legislation effectively exempts the Brickwalk Residences Project from the application
of almost all of the previously disclosed and approved scope of environmental review
under CEQA, staff wanted the City Council and the public to be aware of this change in
law, which also requires revision to the scope of work of certain consultant contracts
previously approved by the City Council pertaining to the environmental review of the
Project.
BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2024, Rolling Hills Capital, LLC, submitted an SB 330 Preliminary
Application1 proposing a residential mixed-use development across four buildings on a
10.42-acre site located at 655-815 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road
(“Brickwalk Residences Project” or “Project”). The proposed Project, as revised, currently
includes 454 residential units, 10,249 square feet of commercial space and 935 parking
spaces. The Project would remediate the steeply sloped hillside that experienced a
landslide failure in 1997. The Project also proposes to rely on a 45% density bonus under
the State Density Bonus Law2 which applies when 14% of the base units are provided to
Very Low-income (VLI) households. As a result, the Project proposes to provide 44 units
for VLI households in order to obtain this density bonus.
1 An SB 330 Preliminary Application vests ordinances, policies and standards, including fees, in
effect at the time of filing the application.
2 Government Code § 65915.
CC AGENDA
NOVEMBER 18, 2025
ITEM NO. 8C
F-1
City Council Staff Report –November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates
Brickwalk Residences Project Update
4929-1408-6521 v1
2
Based on the initial review of the proposed Project under Section 15060 of the CEQA
Guidelines,3 the City determined that the appropriate procedural path for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was the preparation of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), tiering off the recent programmatic General Plan
Update EIR, consistent with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines.4
On April 23, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract
with Fehr & Peers to prepare a transportation study that would include analysis of both
Project CEQA-related impacts (Vehicle Miles Traveled or VMT) and non-CEQA-related
impacts (Level of Service Standards or LOS).
In early 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals from qualified environmental
consulting firms to prepare a Supplemental EIR for the Brickwalk Residences Project and
staff ultimately recommended to the City Council, Michael Baker International (MBI) as
the most responsive and responsible consultant team that met all City requirements for
providing this service. At its meeting of June 24, 2025, the City Council authorized the
City Manager to execute a Task Order under its existing Master Professional Services
Agreement with MBI for preparation of a Supplemental EIR.
Additionally, given that the Project site experienced landslide failure in 1997 and presents
significant geological challenges, it was deemed critical to retain the expertise of a
qualified geotechnical firm to review and analyze the geological issues existing on the site
and to peer-review the applicant’s submittal related to geotechnical feasibility of the
Project. Accordingly, at the same June 24, 2025 Council meeting, the City Council
authorized the City Manager to contract with Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. (CSA),
who have extensive experience with the subject site, to conduct geotechnical third-party
peer review for the Project.
On June 30, 2025, the Governor approved Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and Senate Bill (SB)
131, which, as urgency measures, went into effect immediately on July 1, 2025, and
applied retroactively to pending housing development applications such as the Brickwalk
Residences Project. AB 130 added a new statutory exemption from CEQA for a broad
array of in-fill housing projects and SB 131 provides a similar exemption where all but a
single eligibility criteria are satisfied and limits CEQA review to that single condition.
After careful review of this new statutory exemption (and significant discussion with the
applicant), staff and the City Attorney’s office determined that the Project appears to
qualify for the new AB 130 CEQA exemption but out of an abundance of caution and
because of a potential ambiguity regarding one of the new exemption’s qualifying criteria
related to biological resources, staff proposed, and the applicant has voluntarily agreed,
to undertake a narrowly focused environmental review of potential Project impacts to
habitat for certain protected species under the “near miss” provisions of SB 131, which
3 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15060.
4 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15163.
F-2
City Council Staff Report –November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates
Brickwalk Residences Project Update
4929-1408-6521 v1
3
limits environmental review for projects that narrowly miss qualifying for specified CEQA
exemptions but for one condition to an analysis of the potential impacts that may be
caused solely by that single condition.
The passage of AB 130 and SB 131 and the resulting reassessment of the application of
CEQA to the Project, as discussed below, led to the determination that changes are also
needed to be made to the applicable scope of work for City consultants MBI, CSA, and
Fehr & Peers.
DISCUSSION
A. Application of AB 130 and SB 131 to the Project
Prior to AB 130, a project proposing “in-fill development” (i.e., development on a site within
city limits of no more than five acres surrounded by urban uses) was potentially
categorically exempt from CEQA if certain enumerated conditions were met. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15332 – the “Class 32 exemption”). The Brickwalk site, at over ten acres,
did not fall under the Class 32 exemption, which is why the City was preparing a
Supplemental EIR. AB 130 added a new statutory exemption from CEQA for certain in-
fill housing projects that exempts a broader array of in-fill housing projects than the
existing Class 32 exemption (e.g., sites up to 20 acres in an urban area). (Public
Resources Code (PRC) § 21080.66.) If a project meets all applicable criteria in PRC
section 21080.66 as well as the criteria listed in companion Government Code section
65913.4(a)(6), then it qualifies for the AB 130 CEQA exemption.
Staff reviewed the applicable criteria of the new AB 130 CEQA exemption and determined
that the Project satisfied all such criteria with the possible exception of one provision found
in Government Code section 65913.4(a)(6)(J):
Not located within a habitat for protected species identified as candidate,
sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully
protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973, the California Endangered Species Act, or the Native Plant
Protection Act.
Staff’s concern regarding these criteria stems from the fact that the Project site is within
an area that has been designated since 2007 as critical habitat for the coastal California
Gnatcatcher which is listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered
Species Act. This potential for development to result in a significant impact on the coastal
California Gnatcatcher or its habitat was disclosed and addressed in the General Plan
Update EIR which imposes the following Mitigation Measure (MM-BIO-1) on any
development on the Project site:
The City of Rolling Hills Estates shall require applicants of future
development projects that require discretionary grading approval by the
Planning Commission within portions of the City that are included within
F-3
City Council Staff Report –November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates
Brickwalk Residences Project Update
4929-1408-6521 v1
4
USFWS-designated critical habitat for coastal California Gnatcatcher, or are
within close proximity to known occurrences of protected species, such as
those identified on Figure 4.3-1, found in Section 4.3, Biological Resources,
of the Draft PEIR, to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall minimally include a
reconnaissance level field survey of the project site for the presence and
quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development.
These resources include, but are not limited to, protected/special status
species or their habitat, sensitive habitats such as wetlands or riparian
areas, and jurisdictional waters.
If sensitive or protected biological resources are absent from the project site
and adjacent lands potentially affected by the project, the biologist shall
submit a written report substantiating such to the City of Rolling Hills Estates
before issuance of a grading permit by the City, and the project may
proceed without any further biological investigation. If sensitive or protected
biological resources are present on the project site or may be potentially
affected by the project, then a qualified biologist shall evaluate impacts to
sensitive or protected biological resources from development and produce
a biological resources impact assessment. The impact assessment may
include focused plant and animal surveys or jurisdictional delineations to
determine a future development project’s impact to biological resources,
along with corresponding project-specific mitigation measures, as
necessary. To minimize impacts, the City of Rolling Hills Estates will require
applicants to design projects to avoid impacts to sensitive or protected
biological resources to the greatest extent feasible. Further, if sensitive or
protected species are present on the project site, then the applicant shall
consult with the appropriate oversight agency, such as CDFW or USFWS,
as necessary.
As the Project site has been developed and disturbed in the past, including the activities
related to stabilizing the hillside, which until recently was covered with plastic to reduce
water intrusion, and because neither the text of AB 130 nor its legislative history provides
clear direction on how to address a situation where a project is located in an area
designated as critical habitat for a special status species but may not in fact have such
habitat (or at least habitat of value) due to prior development and site disturbance, staff
has been reluctant to apply the AB 130 CEQA exemption to the Project.
After discussing the issue with the applicant, staff and the applicant arrived at a
compromise approach under companion bill SB 131. SB 131 provides that housing
projects that nearly qualify for a statutory CEQA exemption or categorical CEQA
exemption but fall short due to a “single condition” are eligible for a streamlined
environmental review process whereby these “near-miss” projects are subject only to
review of the specific potential environmental effects that may be caused by that single
condition and not the full panoply of 20 resources areas required to be studied under the
typical CEQA checklist. (See Public Resources Code § 21080.1(b)(1).) Here, because
F-4
City Council Staff Report –November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates
Brickwalk Residences Project Update
4929-1408-6521 v1
5
at the most, the Project may not meet the “not located within habitat for a protected
species” criteria that would qualify the Project for the full AB 130 exemption, this single
condition makes the Project eligible for streamlined CEQA review under SB 131’s “near
miss” provision.
What this means in practical terms is that the City will likely prepare an Addendum (or a
similar document) to the General Plan Update EIR, which as noted above, already
identifies a potentially significant impact from grading/development in gnatcatcher critical
habitat areas like the Project site and imposed Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 to
address/alleviate those impacts to a less than significant level. This additional
environmental review will focus on whether the Project will result in any new or more
severe impacts to the gnatcatcher (or any other protected species) than those already
identified in the General Plan Update EIR. If so, additional mitigation measures will be
imposed; and if not, the City will simply impose MM-BIO-1 on the Project.
B. How Certain Environmental Factors Typically Addressed Through CEQA Will
Still Be Addressed During the Project Review Process
The adoption and retroactive application of AB 130 and SB 131 to the Project effectively
preempts the City from requiring review of the environmental factors set forth in the
“CEQA Environmental Checklist Form” (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G), with the
exception of the limited review of impacts associated with habitat for special status
species discussed in Part A above. Notably, this includes the topics
“Transportation/Traffic” and “Geology and Soils.” These issues will still be addressed as
part of the Project review process as described below, just not under CEQA.
1. Transportation/Traffic
The AB 130/SB 131 CEQA exemption removes the requirement that the Project
undertake a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, which is the sole traffic methodology
currently permitted under CEQA to assess a project’s transportation impacts. The Project
remains subject to an analysis using level of service (LOS) standards since that
requirement is imposed under the City’s General Plan and is not impacted by the new
legislation. The City of Rolling Hills Estates requires that projects analyze LOS for non-
CEQA related impacts, in compliance with Policy 3.2.1 of the Mobility Element of the 2040
General Plan, which requires that the City “Balance the need to continue to provide
efficient traffic flow with multimodal safety and sustainability goals.” These requirements
are satisfied through the preparation of a Transportation Impact Study that provides a
non-CEQA transportation assessment, that includes: 1) fieldwork/data collection for the
site’s surrounding road network; 2) evaluation of existing traffic and intersection levels of
service (LOS); 3) estimation of the Project’s trip generation rates; 4) calculation of
capacity (LOS) for opening year with and without the Project; 5) review of the proposed
parking supply and comparison against the City’s requirements; 6) review of proposed
internal circulation and site access, including bicycle and pedestrian circulation and
facilities; and 7) identification of potential construction impacts that may arise due to lane
and/or street closures, hauling routes, and operation of construction vehicles on public
F-5
City Council Staff Report –November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates
Brickwalk Residences Project Update
4929-1408-6521 v1
6
roadways. Any recommended strategies to address traffic-related impacts, such as
lengthening of turning lane queues, optimization of signal timing, or installation of signals
at non-signalized intersections, will be based on qualitative data, professional analysis,
and best practice industry standards added as conditions of approval to the Project.
2. Geology and Soils
In what appears to have been a significant oversight on the part of Legislature, the
AB 130 exemption review criteria only enumerated sites delineated on an earthquake
fault zone map (i.e., Alquist-Priolo) as being ineligible for the new AB 130 statutory CEQA
exemption. The Legislature did not include consideration of projects within delineated
landslide or seismic hazard zones as ineligible for exemption. The Project site is not within
an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, but it is within mapped landslide and seismic
hazard zones due to the well-known geologic issues on the site. As such, the Project will
not be reviewed under CEQA for these issues, but they must and will be addressed under
the City’s building and safety codes as well as the City’s General Plan Safety Element.
While detailed building plans are often deferred until after a project is approved
and entitled, the Brickwalk team understands City and public concerns about the Project
site’s instability and prior landslide activity and interest in addressing the geologic issues
of the site’s development, and has agreed to undertake a detailed geologic investigation
to confirm the feasibility of the proposed Project plans prior to City consideration of the
application. This effort is not only prudent from a safety standpoint, but it is also a sound
practical and financial approach, because if a post-approval investigation determined
aspects of the Project could not be constructed as approved, the applicant would need to
come back and seek amendments to the Project approvals.
At present, the applicant’s geologic consultants (Hudson Geotechnics), have
submitted a preliminary geotechnical report that is being reviewed by CSA. It is the City’s
expectation that Hudson Geotechnics, and the City’s geologic consultants, CSA, and
Building Official, Willdan, will engage in an iterative geotechnical review process that
ensures that all relevant issues are disclosed and addressed when the Project is
presented for Planning Commission and City Council consideration.
C. Proposed Revisions to Consultant Contracts
Fehr & Peers
Given that the Project is proposing approximately 100 residential units that will be
accessed from Indian Peak Road and is immediately adjacent to Crenshaw Boulevard,
which are both rights-of-way under the purview of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV),
City staff conferred with RPV staff for input into study intersections to be included in the
Transportation Impact Study. As a result of these discussions, two intersections are
proposed to be added to the original scope of review: 1) Indian Peak Road/Crenshaw
Boulevard and 2) Crestridge Road/Crenshaw Boulevard, for a total of eight study
intersections. Two Tasks are to be removed from the original proposal: 1) Task 2 – CEQA
F-6
City Council Staff Report –November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates
Brickwalk Residences Project Update
4929-1408-6521 v1
7
Analysis and 2) Task 13 – Consultant Coordination, which included coordination with MBI
for integration of the VMT analysis into the Supplemental EIR. The resulting revised
proposal includes a not-to-exceed amount of $71,910, including direct costs for the traffic
count data and a labor budget contingency of $9,467. This represents a reduction of
$6,754 from the original contract amount of $78,664.
Michael Baker International, Inc. (MBI)
MBI’s original contract, approved in June 2025, included a not-to-exceed budget of
$485,512 to prepare the Supplemental EIR. The amended proposal will significantly
reduce the scope of work from a Supplemental EIR to the anticipated preparation of an
Addendum to the General Plan Update EIR (or similar document), providing an evaluation
of the Project’s potential impacts on habitat for protected species against criteria outlined
in CEQA Guidelines section 15164,5 for a not-to-exceed amount of $39,506. This
represents a reduction of $446,006 from the original contract amount of $485,512.
Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. (CSA)
CSA’s original contract included peer review of applicant-provided geotechnical feasibility
information submitted as part of the anticipated Geology Section of the Supplemental
EIR, for a not-to-exceed amount of $78,775. The amended proposal includes: 1) site visit
and background data review; 2) peer review of the applicant-provided geotechnical
feasibility report, which will be submitted along with the Parcel Map and will include close
coordination with the applicant’s geotechnical team; and 3) meetings to provide technical
information during the decision-making/public meeting process. The revised proposal
includes a not-to-exceed amount of $73,600, inclusive of work already performed since
June 2025. This represents a reduction of $5,175 from the original contract amount of
$78,775.
FISCAL IMPACT
The not-to-exceed cost for services for Fehr & Peers ($71,910), MBI ($39,506), and CSA
($73,600) are subject to the City’s 15% administrative overhead fee. The cost of these
professional services will be paid entirely by the applicant. Services will be provided on a
time and materials basis (MBI) and time and expenses basis (CSA and Fehr & Peers), in
accordance with the respective schedules of charges. Staff had budgeted anticipated
expenditures and revenues for FY 2025/26 based on the original contract amounts and
will subsequently prepare revised budget amendments, which staff will provide as part of
the mid-year budget review in early 2026.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
5 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15164.
F-7
City Council Staff Report –November 18, 2025 City of Rolling Hills Estates
Brickwalk Residences Project Update
4929-1408-6521 v1
8
The agenda and staff report for this item were posted and noticed as required, and the
Project applicant team was directly provided a link to the report; no further outreach was
conducted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a revised Task Order with Michael
Baker International, Inc. to prepare an anticipated Addendum to the General
Plan Update Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Brickwalk
Residences Project, in a not-to-exceed amount of $39,506, subject to approval
as to form by the City Attorney;
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a revised Task Order with Fehr & Peers
to prepare a Transportation Impact Study for the Brickwalk Residences Project,
in a not-to-exceed amount of $71,910, subject to approval as to form by the City
Attorney; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a revised Task Order with Cotton,
Shires & Associates, Inc. to perform geotechnical review services, in a not-to-
exceed amount of $73,600, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
Attachments:
A. Proposal for Revised Task Order with Michael Baker International, Inc., to
prepare an anticipated Addendum to the General Plan Update EIR for the
Brickwalk Residences Project
B. Proposal for Revised Task Order with Fehr & Peers, to prepare a
Transportation Impact Study for the Brickwalk Residences Project
C. Proposal for Revised Task Order with Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. to
perform geotechnical review services for the Brickwalk Residences Project
F-8
3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 | Long Beach, CA 90806 MBAKERINTL.COM
November 7, 2025
Ms. Katrina Kawagoe, Senior Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
RE: PROPOSAL FOR THE PREPARATION OF A NEAR-MISS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
ADDENDUM FOR THE BRICKWALK RESIDENCES PROJECT
Dear Ms. Kawagoe,
Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) is pleased to submit this proposal to support the City of
Rolling Hills Estates (City) with the preparation of a Near-Miss Addendum to the City’s 2040 General Plan
Update Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU PEIR) for the proposed Brickwalk Residences
Project (project), pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the CEQA provision in Senate Bill (SB) 131. SB 131 applies to housing development projects that
narrowly fail to qualify for certain CEQA exemptions due to a single disqualifying condition. In such “near-
miss” instances, SB 131 limits CEQA review to those environmental effects caused solely by that
condition and waives the need for analysis of project alternatives, cumulative impacts, and growth-
inducing effects. In the case of the proposed project, it would have qualified for a statutory exemption
pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 130, codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
21080.66, if the project site were not located within critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher
and did not contain potential habitat for overwintering colonies of the monarch butterfly.
Accordingly, based on discussions with City staff and the City Attorneys, Michael Baker anticipates that
a near-miss addendum to the GPU PEIR is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project. The
near-miss addendum will document the project’s near-qualification for the AB 130 exemption and will
solely analyze the project’s potential impacts on habitat for protected species identified as candidate,
sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species
protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, the California Endangered Species Act, or the
Native Plant Protection Act pursuant to the provision of PRC Section 21080.66(a)(6), specifically the
requirement specified in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(J). The analysis will be based on the
Biologist’s Statement of Habitat Letter prepared for the project site by South Environmental.
The near-miss document will evaluate the project’s potential impacts on habitat for protected species
against the following criteria (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164) to determine if an addendum to the
GPU PEIR is appropriate or whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR is necessary:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which would require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162(a)(1));
Attachment A - 1 of 5
F-9
Michael Baker We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Katrina Kawagoe, Senior Planner
Re: Proposal for the Preparation of a Near-Miss General Plan Update EIR Addendum for the Brickwalk Residences
Project
November 7, 2025
Page 2
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2)); or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known
with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete
(pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)), shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Our proposed scope of work, schedule, and fee to prepare the near-miss addendum to the GPU PEIR
for the proposed project are described below.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1: Meetings and Project Management
Michael Baker will engage in regular communications with City staff, as necessary. This is anticipated to
include emails and virtual meetings to discuss the completion of the addendum, as well as administrative
tasks, such as invoicing and preparing progress memos.
Deliverables: As-needed virtual meeting attendance and monthly invoicing with progress memo
Task 2: Draft Addendum and Analysis
Michael Baker will prepare a near-miss addendum to the GPU PEIR for City review. The addendum will
include an introduction summarizing the original project (i.e., General Plan) and the dates of actions taken
by the City to adopt the General Plan, including certification of the associated Final PEIR. Key findings
of the GPU PEIR as related to sensitive habitat will be identified. The purpose and scope of the addendum
will also be explained. The addendum is anticipated to consist of the following sections:
Overview: This section will provide an overview of the environmental review and approval required
for the proposed project.
Attachment A - 2 of 5
F-10
Ms. Katrina Kawagoe, Senior Planner
Re: Proposal for the Preparation of a Near-Miss General Plan Update EIR Addendum for the Brickwalk Residences
Project
November 7, 2025
Page 3
Purpose of the Addendum and Statutory Background: This section will discuss CEQA compliance
and background and history. This section will summarize impacts and mitigation measures that were
previously identified related to sensitive habitat, as well as the criteria that must be met to qualify for
an addendum to the GPU PEIR, as identified above.
Project Description: This section will detail features of the proposed Brickwalk Residences Project.
Environmental Impact Analysis: This section will begin with an evaluation of the project’s eligibility for
an AB 130 statutory exemption. Based on preliminary analysis, this evaluation is expected to verify that
the project would satisfy all requirements of this exemption except for the single condition that the
project site may be habitat for protected species as the site is partially located within critical habitat for
the coastal California gnatcatcher and may contain potential habitat for overwintering colonies of the
monarch butterfly. Michael Baker will build on the City’s preliminary AB 130 analysis and assist the City
with the required tribal notification and consultation. Based on the number of tribes who responded and
consulted with the City on the GPU PEIR, our scope assumes consultation with up to two tribes.
Following the AB 130 statutory exemption evaluation, this section will provide a single-issue evaluation
of the project’s potential impacts on habitat for protected species per SB 131. In doing so, this section
will summarize the conclusions of the GPU PEIR regarding special-status species habitat and
qualitatively evaluate the proposed project to compare its potential environmental effects to those of the
GPU. Any previous mitigation measures that are applicable to the project related to special-status
species habitat will be identified. This evaluation will be based on the Biologist’s Statement of Habitat
Letter prepared by South Environmental. Michael Baker’s senior biologist will conduct another round of
peer review of the letter to confirm that comments on the letter have been adequately addressed.
Determination Statement to Support an Addendum: If supported by the analysis, Michael Baker will
provide a determination statement that none of the circumstances identified above (pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162) have been breached and that the addendum will satisfy CEQA
requirements for the proposed modification.
Deliverables: One electronic copy of the draft addendum (one round of City review)
Task 3: Final Addendum
Michael Baker will respond to one set of review comments of the draft addendum by City staff and will
prepare the final addendum.
Deliverables: One electronic copy of the final addendum
Task 4: Public Hearing Attendance
The Michael Baker project director and/or project manager will be available to attend one public hearing
to provide support to the project team should it be warranted. Additional public meeting attendance and
any other additional meetings can be provided, if requested, on a time-and-materials basis.
Deliverables: Attendance by Michael Baker’s project director and/or project manager at one public hearing
Attachment A - 3 of 5
F-11
Ms. Katrina Kawagoe, Senior Planner
Re: Proposal for the Preparation of a Near-Miss General Plan Update EIR Addendum for the Brickwalk Residences
Project
November 7, 2025
Page 4
SCHEDULE
Michael Baker can proceed immediately upon issuance of a notice to proceed pursuant to the
Professional Services Agreement between the City and Michael Baker. Michael Baker can submit the
draft addendum within three weeks of authorization to proceed assuming that that comments on the
Biologist’s Statement of Habitat Letter provided to South Environmental have been adequately
addressed.
FEE
Michael Baker’s fee to complete the scope of work described herein is $39,506.
ASSUMPTIONS
For budgetary purposes, our proposal assumes that a near-miss addendum to the GPU PEIR will be the
appropriate CEQA document for the project. However, Michael Baker makes no presumptions regarding
the appropriate CEQA document for the project since such a determination cannot be definitively made
until the environmental analysis is complete. Should a higher-level CEQA document be deemed
necessary, we would work with the City to seek mutually agreeable scope, schedule, and budget
augmentation.
Michael Baker assumes that the project description will not substantively change during the assignment.
Should the project description change during the course of the work, additional Michael Baker staff time
may be necessary beyond the established budget to revise/update the document and the analysis.
Should such a scenario arise, we would work with the City to seek mutually agreeable budget
augmentation.
Michael Baker assumes that no technical studies beyond the Biologist’s Statement of Habitat Letter will
be required to complete the CEQA documentation for the project. If additional technical studies become
necessary, Michael Baker would be available to conduct the studies per the mutual agreement of the City
and Michael Baker.
Michael Baker has included one City review of an administrative draft version of the addendum. Should
multiple reviews be requested by the City, additional Michael Baker staff time may be necessary beyond
the established budget. Should such a scenario arise, we would work with the City to seek mutually
agreeable budget augmentation.
Tasks Fee
1. Meetings and Project Management $9,430
2. Draft Addendum and Analysis $20,616
3. Final Addendum $6,548
4. Public Hearing Attendance $2,912
Total Estimated Budget $39,506
Attachment A - 4 of 5
F-12
Ms. Katrina Kawagoe, Senior Planner
Re: Proposal for the Preparation of a Near-Miss General Plan Update EIR Addendum for the Brickwalk Residences
Project
November 7, 2025
Page 5
CLOSURE
Michael Baker appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal. Our proposed scope of work and
corresponding fee have been developed to meet the City’s needs and to satisfy the CEQA requirements
for the proposed project. However, should the services proposed herein exceed or fall short of your
expectations, Michael Baker would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to review your concerns,
make the appropriate modifications to the scope of work, and revise the proposed fee accordingly.
Michael Baker stands ready to proceed with the proposed scope of work upon the City’s authorization. If
you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to John Bellas at (562) 200-7170
or jbellas@mbakerintl.com or Madonna Marcelo at (213) 627-1036 or madonna.marcelo@mbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
John M. Bellas Madonna Marcelo
Associate Vice President Senior Project Manager/
CEQA Technical Director Principal Environmental Planner
Attachment A - 5 of 5
F-13
~ ~
100 Oceangate, Suite 1425 Long Beach, CA 90802
October 28, 2025
Jeannie Naughton, AICP
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Subject: Contract Amendment for Traffic Impact Study for Brickwalk Residences Project,
Rolling Hills Estates
Dear Jeannie:
Fehr & Peers is submitting this contract amendment to revise the scope of services anticipated in the
original scope of services attached to the Master Professional Service Agreement dated April 29,
2024, between City of Rolling Hills Estates (“City”) and Fehr & Peers (“Consultant”) for the Traffic
Impact Study for Brickwalk Residence Project (“the Project”).
Scope of Services Modification
Additional Scope of Services
The following additional tasks to the scope of services are included in this amendment:
Phase 1 – Traffic Count Data Collection
Per discussions with City staff, two additional intersections will be studied, resulting in eight study
intersections in total as part of this analysis. Fehr & Peers will collect new traffic counts at the two
additional intersections during two time periods including the weekday morning (7:00 to 10:00 AM)
and evening peak periods (4:00 to 7:00 PM). The two additional intersections include:
• Palos Verdes Drive & Crenshaw Boulevard
• Crestridge Road & Crenshaw Boulevard
Phase 2 – Transportation Study
• Task 4 – Existing Traffic Evaluation: Fehr & Peers will conduct intersection capacity calculations
for weekday AM and PM peak hours at two intersections listed above in addition to the six
intersections identified in the scope of services previously submitted, resulting in eight study
intersections in total.
• Task 7 – Traffic Evaluation: Fehr & Peers will perform capacity (LOS) calculations for each of the
eight study intersections for the two Opening Year (2031) scenarios (without project and with
project conditions) instead of the six intersections in the scope of services previously submitted.
• Task 12 – Meeting Attendance: Four additional virtual meetings are included in this scope of
services modification, resulting in eight virtual meetings in total. Attendance at additional
meetings, work sessions, and public hearings that are beyond the scoped eight meetings will be
completed on a time-and-expense basis based on client authorization.
Attachment B - 1 of 2
F-14
Fehr&Peers
October 28, 2025 | 2
Removed Scope of Services
The following tasks are removed from the scope of services previously submitted, according to
directions from City staff:
Phase 2 – Transportation Study
• Task 2 – CEQA Analysis
• Task 13 – Consultant Coordination
Budget
The estimated budget for the scope of services defined in this proposal is based on our normal hourly
billing rates, plus reimbursement for direct expenses. The fixed fee cost to complete the revised
scope of services is estimated at $71,910 including direct costs for the traffic count data. This fee
includes a labor budget contingency of $9,467.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Muggridge on (213) 261-3064 or
j.muggridge@fehrandpeers.com.
Sincerely,
FEHR & PEERS
John Muggridge, AICP
Principal
Dylan Di, ENV SP
Engineer/Planner
Attachment B - 2 of 2
F-15Fehr&Peers
Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office
646 University Avenue 6417 Dogtown Road 699 Hampshire Road, Suite 102
Los Gatos, CA 95032-4416 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361
(408) 354-5542 (209) 736-4252 (805) 370-8710
www.cottonshires.com
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
November 10, 2025
SC5014P
By email to: katrinak@rollinghillsestates.gov
Katrina Kawagoe, Senior Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
SUBJECT: Revised Proposal for Geotechnical Peer Review Services
RE: Brickwalk Residences Project
655-815 Deep Valley Drive, 924 & 950 Indian Peak Road
Rolling Hills Estates, California
Dear Ms. Kawagoe:
Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) is pleased to provide the City of Rolling
Hills Estates with this revised proposal for geotechnical peer review services for the
proposed Brickwalk Residences Project. Based upon our discussions with the City over
the past two months , we understand that the requested peer review services will include
review of the applicant-provided geotechnical feasibility report, which will be conducted
for the purposes of: 1) evaluating the feasibility of the project with regard to the tentative
parcel map that we understand is required for the project; and 2) evaluating the
feasibility of permanent removal of the Restricted Use Area that currently exists on a
portion of the project site. Future phases of work will include review of additional
geotechnical reports that will be provided during the permitting process for the project.
In the sections that follow we present background information, our understanding of the
project, our proposed scope of work, estimated costs, and schedule for the initial phase of
completing feasibility report review with regard to the tentative parcel map.
BACKGROUND
In December 2013, CSA was retained by the City of Rolling Hills Estates to
perform a third-party geotechnical peer review of a previously proposed Brickwalk
project located at 655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road. This
extensive work culminated with the preparation and submittal of our “Phase I Draft
Report—Initial Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Third Party
Geotechnical Review of Proposed Private Development Project”, dated April 22, 2014. CSA
Attachment C - 1 of 8
F-16
Katrina Kawagoe, City of Rolling Hills Estates November 10, 2025
Page 2 SC5014P
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
subsequently observed a fault exploration trench excavated by the previous applicant’s
consultant on January 6, 2015. The draft peer review report was subsequently finalized
as “Phase I and Partial Phase II Report – Initial Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluation, Third Party Geotechnical Peer Review of Proposed Private Development
Project” on March 30, 2015. CSA presented our findings to the Brickwalk Geologic Peer
Review City Council Subcommittee on April 28, 2015 and to the City Council on June 23,
2015. We have had little involvement since this work in 2014-2015, other than requests
for information.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
We understand that the currently proposed Brickwalk Residences involves a
previously developed hillside site area of 10.42 acres, with the project site generally being
bounded to the north by Deep Valley Drive, to the south by Crenshaw Boulevard, to the
southwest by Indian Peak Road, to the west by recently developed land (649 Deep Valley
Dr.) and to the east by existing commercial development. The proposed project is
depicted in an architectural plan set (57 sheets) prepared by AC Martin dated October 14,
2024. The proposed project area sits astride the south flank of a geomorphic feature
colloquially known as the Silver Spur Graben and has steep slopes with approximately
100 feet of vertical relief across the property. A critical factor for redevelopment of this
site is expected to be further evaluation of the Silver Spur Graben shear feature. Our past
reviews identified that additional data are needed that will produce convincing evidence
that this feature is either: a) an extension of the potentially active Cabrillo fault (which is
treated as an Active fault based on planning policy); b) a landslide-related feature
resulting from large scale deep-seated ancient landsliding on the north flank of the Palos
Verdes Peninsula, or c) both (i.e., fault- and landslide-related).
A significant portion of the project area is underlain by a large recent landslide
that initially moved in February, 1997 and has been periodically active over the past 28
years. We understand that renewed movement of the landslide occurred in 2023 and
caused some damage to the 655 Deep Valley Drive building. The proposed development
is a residential mixed-use project that will span across five lots and will include 454
residential units and 10,229 square feet of commercial space across four buildings
ranging from 7 to 8 stories tall. The project will require significant grading, Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls, and deeply tied-back retaining walls to accommodate
composite cuts up to 60 feet vertically and to permanently mitigate the existing landslide.
We understand that a new parcel map will be required for the proposed project.
The project applicant has produced a 560-page Geotechnical Feasibility Report prepared
by Hudson Geotechnics, Inc. (HGI), dated October 10, 2024. The site and vicinity have
been extensively studied from a geotechnical perspective since the early 1960’s, including
Attachment C - 2 of 8
F-17
Katrina Kawagoe, City of Rolling Hills Estates November 10, 2025
Page 3 SC5014P
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
significant exploration and studies by multiple consultants following the 1997 landslide,
and approximately 12 geotechnical reports prepared for the previously proposed project
that we reviewed in 2014-15. HGI recommends performing additional exploration and
geotechnical instrumentation for the proposed project and these efforts appear to be
directed at further characterization of the existing landslide mass.
We understand that our initial tasks will include peer review of the Geotechnical
Feasibility Report (HGI, 2024) and determining whether it 1) adequately demonstrates
feasibility of the project relative to the required tentative parcel map, and 2) adequately
demonstrates the feasibility of permanently removing the Restricted Use Area that exists
on a portion of the site, and which is based on currently existing adverse geotechnical
conditions.
Based upon the above background and understanding, we propose the following
scope of work tasks:
SCOPE OF WORK
A. Site Visit and Background Data Review – Our senior reviewers will conduct a site
reconnaissance to observe the current site conditions for comparison with our
previous (2015) understanding of site conditions. Background data in our files,
including current aerial imagery, regional geologic maps, and other information will
be reviewed. An extensive database of past geotechnical information, including
reports, boring logs, laboratory soil testing, and subsurface instrumentation for
groundwater and slope movement monitoring was previously compiled as part of
our 2014-15 peer review. This information, as well as engineering geologic cross-
sections we prepared as part of our 2014-15 peer review appears to have been
significantly relied on in the Geotechnical Feasibility Report (HGI, 2024) and we
understand that no additional subsurface exploration has been performed. We will
ask that the City identify any new adjacent developments constructed over the past
10 years that may yield information useful to the geotechnical understanding and
modeling of the subject project site (including the relatively new development
bounding the site on the west at 649 Deep Valley Drive). Any geotechnical reports for
such adjacent projects should be provided by the City to assist our review of the
subject project.
B. Peer Review of Geotechnical Feasibility Report – CSA will perform a comprehensive
review of the Geotechnical Feasibility Report prepared by Hudson Geotechnics, Inc.
(HGI, 2024) along with the proposed development plans and tentative parcel map.
This review will be performed to evaluate the report contents, findings, conclusions
and recommendations for conformance with applicable guidelines, codes, and
Attachment C - 3 of 8
F-18
Katrina Kawagoe, City of Rolling Hills Estates November 10, 2025
Page 4 SC5014P
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
standards of practice. Emphasis will be placed on the consultant’s evaluation of
geotechnical hazards and potential constraints, and whether the recommended
geotechnical mitigation design(s) are feasible and can be safely constructed on the
tentative parcel map as proposed. We will review and consider feasibility-related
comments and identified data gaps from our past peer review (CSA, 2015),
recognizing that the currently proposed project is a significantly different design and
that certain issues may be potentially addressed as a result of the new project design.
The work product of the peer review will consist of a written review letter and
accompanying illustrations if necessary. We may issue peer review technical
comments that need to be addressed prior to the City’s approval of the tentative
parcel map.
At this time it is difficult to estimate the extent of additional geotechnical studies that
may be needed to respond to the peer review comments at the feasibility level;
however, we may recommend that additional subsurface exploration, geotechnical
instrumentation, laborataory testing, and/or geotechnical analyses need to be
performed to establish project feasibility. As noted above, HGI has recommended in
their report that at least six additional instrumented borings be performed for the
purposes of additional landslide characterization. For the purposes of the time and
cost estimate for this proposal, we will assume that one additional peer review of the
project geotechnical consultant’s response to comments will be performed.
Supplemental review tasks (not budgeted herein) could include observation of
additional subsurface exploration, review of additional reports, and may also require
an additional timeframe for monitoring if additional geotechnical instrumentation is
installed. Should these supplemental tasks arise, we will need to request additional
budget authorization from the City.
C. Meetings – We anticipate that at least two meeting s with the project geotechnical
consultant will needed during and at the completion of Task B. We also anticipate
that the City may request our participation in up to two approval body meetings
(Planning Commission, City Council). Time will be budgeted accordingly based on
these assumptions.
We will consult with City staff on an ongoing basis and at critical milestones or findings.
These communications will be via telephone, email, or Zoom/Teams meetings online if
necessary.
FUTURE PEER REVIEW PHASES
Assuming that the project moves forward from the planning entitlement phase
(i.e., tentative map approval), we expect that the project geotechnical consultant will
Attachment C - 4 of 8
F-19
Katrina Kawagoe, City of Rolling Hills Estates November 10, 2025
Page 5 SC5014P
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
perform a design-level geotechnical investigation in support of the project design, to
address data gaps, provide specific geotechnical design recommendations for project
components (i.e., grading, foundations, retaining walls, surface and subsurface drainage,
etc.), and to provide specific geotechnical design recommendations for mitigation
elements of the project (i.e., landslide mitigation and other geotechnical hazards as
identified). At this time it is difficult to estimate the peer review effort that will be
required for these reviews, as well as the timing and nature of the submittals (e.g., project
phasing(?), grading plans, foundation plans, tieback wall plans and associated
geotechnical reports and reviews). We recommend establishing peer review budgets
with the City as these items arise.
FEES
We will invoice the City for our services on a time-and-expenses basis in
accordance with the attached Schedule of Charges. We estimate that our fees for Tasks
A through C above will not exceed $73,600.00, and we will not exceed this amount
without prior written authorization. If we are requested to attend additional meetings
beyond the assumptions made herein, these will be invoiced on a time-and-expenses
basis in accordinace with our attached Schedule of Charges after obtaining authorization
from the City for such services.
SCHEDULE
CSA has already commenced review of the HGI report based on prior
authorization from the City. We estimate needing an additional 3 weeks to complete the
initial peer review of the current Geotechnical Feasibility Report, relative to the tentative
parcel map . A meeting with the Project Geotechnical Consultant (HGI) is likely to be
needed during and at the completion of this phase of work.
AGREEMENT
If you agree with the Scope of Work, Schedule, and Fee outlined above, as
well as the attached Schedule of Charges, Limitations, and Terms, please sign one
copy of this proposal and return it to our office. We anticipate that the City will
request that we execute a Professional Services Agreement in a form acceptable to the
City, which we will be pleased to review and consider.
Attachment C - 5 of 8
F-20
Katrina Kawagoe, City of Rolling Hills Estates November 10, 2025
Page 6 SC5014P
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
We look forward to providing you with the professional services discussed above.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
`
Michael B. Phipps, PG, CEG
Principal Engineering Geologist
Patrick O. Shires, GE
Senior Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Approved and Authorized By Date
MP:POS/st
Attachments: CSA Schedule of Charges, Limitations and Terms (2 Pages)
Attachment C - 6 of 8
F-21
C ~Qiy~ c.. v
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES, LIMITATIONS AND TERMS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Page 1 of 2)
January 2025
Personnel Charges
Senior Principal Engineer/Geologist/Geophysicist $ 360/hr.
Principal Geologist/Engineer $ 305/hr.
Supervising Geologist/Engineer $ 245/hr.
Senior Geologist/Engineer $ 220/hr.
Senior GIS Specialist $ 200/hr.
Senior Staff Geologist/Engineer $ 190/hr.
Staff Geologist/Engineer $ 170/hr.
Field/Laboratory Technician $ 145/hr.*
Clerical/Accounting $ 105/hr.
Equipment, Mileage and Copying Charges
Downhole/Culvert Camera Inspection Equipment $ 300/day
Drone System $ 245/day
Inclinometer System $ 245/day
Piezometer Data Acquisition System $ 130/day
Total Station Surveying Equipment $ 370/day
GPS Surveying Equipment $ 475/day
Compaction Testing Moisture/Unit Weight Gauge $ 180/day
Rope Climbing Safety Equipment $ 305/day
Multi-Channel Seismograph System and ReMi $ 360/day
NearMap Aerial Photographs $ 220/site
Vehicle Mileage (or Current IRS Approved Rate) $ 0.70/mi.
Aircraft Mileage (or Current GSA Approved Rate) $1.75/mi.
Photocopying (B&W-Color) $0.25-0.60/copy
Engineering (Large Format) Copier $ 0.65/ft.2
Computer Assisted Color Plotting $ 16/sq.ft.
Expert Witness Consultation Charges
Expert witness testimony for court appearances and binding arbitrations shall be
charged on a daily basis (minimum one-half day increments) at a rate of $4,960
per day. Deposition testimony shall be charged at a rate of $620 per hour
(minimum one-hour charge). Preparation time for depositions or court
appearances shall be charged on a time-and-expenses basis in accordance with
the Personnel, Equipment, Mileage, Copying and Expense charges listed herein.
Laboratory Testing and Geophysical Services Charges
Laboratory testing and geophysical services shall be charged on a time-and-
expenses basis in accordance with the Personnel, Equipment, and Expense
charges listed herein. Outside testing/services shall be charged at cost plus 15%.
Laboratory samples shall be stored for 60 days after the date of final report
submittal unless special arrangements and fees are agreed upon for longer
storage.
Prevailing Wage Charges
* Please contact Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) to discuss the use of
CSA field and/or laboratory personnel on public works or other projects subject
to Prevailing Wage requirements. Higher hourly rates may apply.
Expense Charges (Receipted Costs Plus 15%)
• Travel expenses including air fare, lodging, vehicle rental, etc. (either
actual receipted costs plus 15% for meals or a flat subsistence charge of
$85 per diem for overnight stay shall be charged in addition to the
lodging cost)
• Excavation subcontractors, outside laboratory testing and expendable field
supplies (inclinometer casing, piezometers, stakes, paint, etc.).
• Reproduction of drawings
• Photograph printing
• Special fees, permits, insurance, etc.
• Special mail service (air, electronic, courier, etc.)
• Special equipment rental
• Special consultant fees
Limitations and Terms for Professional Services
AGREEMENT – This Schedule of Charges, Limitations and Terms for Professional Services as an attachment to a signed Proposal or Client Contract constitutes an
“Agreement” between COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (CSA) and the Client. Client has authorized commencement of the work under this
Agreement by signing the “Approved by” section of the Proposal or Contract. The Agreement is hereby incorporated and made part of the Contract between the
parties. In consideration of the mutual Agreement set forth herein and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as to the following:
Invoicing and Payment – Client shall pay CSA compensation as outlined in the Proposal or at the rates determined in the above Schedule of Charges and
according to the payment terms below. If the work extends into subsequent calendar years, the Schedule of Charges in effect for the year the work was conducted
shall prevail unless otherwise agreed to in the contract for the work. Invoices may be prepared and submitted by CSA on a monthly basis or when the work is
completed, at CSA’s option. Payment is due upon receipt and is past due thirty (30) days from date of invoice. A service charge of 1.5% per month, or the
maximum amount allowed by law, will be charged on past due accounts greater than sixty (60) days past due. Payments by Client will thereafter be applied first to
accrued interest and then to the principal unpaid balance. Any attorney fees, court costs, or other costs incurred in collection of delinquent accounts shall be paid by
the Client. If payment of invoices is not current, CSA may suspend performing further work at no liability to CSA.
Relationship between CSA and Client – CSA is retained by the Client to investigate and to consult with the Client regarding the Project, as defined in the
Proposal. Client shall provide CSA in writing with all information relevant to the Project and shall advise CSA of any condition known to Client that may affect
CSA’s performance under this Agreement. CSA’s services are for the benefit of the Client, but Client recognizes that the extent of those services is limited by the
time-frame chosen and the funds expended by the Client for the investigation. CSA has no responsibility for the work product of any independent consultants
required for the Client’s Project, nor for completeness, adequacy, or quality of said independent consultants’ work, or specialty work.
Information Provided by Client – CSA and the Client shall discuss and agree upon the information needed for rendering of services hereunder. The
Client agrees to provide to CSA all such information as agreed to be necessary. With respect to such information, the Client understands and agrees that CSA will
rely solely upon the Client to ensure the accuracy and completeness thereof, as the Client recognizes that it is impossible for CSA to assure the accuracy,
completeness and sufficiency of such information.
Ownership of Documents and Proprietary Information – This proposal and all documents, including, but not limited to, drawings, specifications,
computer disks, reports, calculations, and estimates, prepared by CSA in connection with this Agreement (“CSA Confidential Information”) are instruments of
service and are intended for the sold use of the recipient hereof, and may not, except as otherwise described herein, be disclosed, distributed, or disseminated in any
form without the prior written consent of CSA. The CSA Confidential Information is and shall remain the sole property of CSA. Client may distribute documents
generated by CSA in connection with CSA’s services under this Agreement to third parties, provided that said third party agrees in writing to be bound by the
confidentiality and ownership of documents provisions of this Agreement. The terms of this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
Attachment C - 7 of 8
F-22
CSA SCHEDULE OF CHARGES, LIMITATIONS AND TERMS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Page 2 of 2)
Property and Liability Insurance -- COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. is a California Corporation protected by Worker's Compensation
Insurance (and/or Employer's Liability Insurance), and by General Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage, and will furnish certificates thereof
upon request. We assume the risk of damage to our own supplies and equipment. If your contract or purchase order places greater responsibilities upon us or
requires further insurance coverage, we, if specifically directed by you, will procure additional insurance (if commercially reasonably available) to protect us at your
expense, but we shall not be responsible for property damage from any cause, including fire and explosion, beyond the amounts of coverage of our insurance.
Standard of Care and Professional Liability -- In performing professional services, CSA shall use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstances by members of our profession of the same discipline in similar locations at the time the services are performed. CSA offers no warranty,
expressed or implied, in this Agreement, by our proposal for consulting services, by our furnishing oral opinion or written reports, or by our inspection or services.
However, should we or any of our professional employees be alleged to have been, or found to have been, negligent in the performance of professional services, you
agree that the maximum aggregate amount of your recovery against us and/or said professional employees shall be limited to $50,000 or the amount of the fee paid
us for professional services as computed under the SCHEDULE OF CHARGES, whichever amount is greater. Moreover, client agrees to indemnify us against
damages in excess of $50,000 or the amount of our fee, whichever amount is greater, arising from suits brought against us by third parties, in connection with our
services performed on your project.
Notices -- All notices in writing to be given hereunder by either party to the other party shall be served by letter or sent by email.
Assignment -- Neither this agreement nor the benefits or obligations under this Agreement shall be sold, assigned or transferred by either party to any
third parties including subsidiary or affiliated companies without the prior written approval of the other party, with such approval not to be unreasonably withheld by
either. In the event the approval is given by either for assignment or transfer, such an approval shall not relieve either from any liability and/or responsibility under
the Agreement.
Termination/Cancellation -- Client and CSA will have the right to terminate this Agreement for reasonable cause by giving ten (10) days prior written
notice. After termination, CSA will be reimbursed for services rendered and necessary expenses incurred to the termination date upon submission to Client of
detailed supporting invoices. The obligations of Paragraphs 3 (Information Provided by Client), 4 (Ownership of Documents and Proprietary Information), and 6
(Standard of Care and Professional Liability) remain in effect after termination.
Change in Scope of Work -- If, during the performance of the work under this Agreement, it is determined that the scope of work has expanded or
changed such that additional expenditures are required, the client shall be notified and approval from the client shall be received prior to the performance of the
additional services.
Dispute Resolution -- CSA and Client recognize that disputes arising under this Agreement are best resolved at the working level by the parties directly
involved. Both parties are encouraged to be imaginative in designing mechanisms and procedures to resolve disputes at this level. Such efforts shall include the
referral of any remaining issues in dispute to higher authority within each participating party’s organization for resolution. Failing resolution of conflicts at the
organizational level, CSA and Client agree that any remaining conflicts arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to non-binding mediation
unless CSA and Client mutually agree otherwise. If the dispute is not resolved through non-binding mediation, then the parties may take other appropriate action
subject to the other terms of this Agreement. Neither party shall hold the other responsible for damages or delay in performance caused by acts of God, strikes,
lockouts, accidents or other events beyond the reasonable control of the other party, its employees or agents. Should litigation or arbitration occur between the
parties relating to the provisions of this Agreement, all litigation or arbitration expenses, collection expenses, witness fees, court costs and attorneys’ fees reasonably
incurred by the prevailing party shall be paid by the non-prevailing party.
Governing Law -- The validity, performance, and construction of this Agreement, and the relationship between Client and CSA shall be governed and
interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of California, United States of America, without regard to its choice of law rules. This Agreement shall be
construed as to its being fair and not strictly for or against either party.
Jobsite Safety – Neither the professional activities of CSA, nor the presence of CSA employees and CSA subconsultants at a construction site, shall
relieve the contractor and any other entity of their obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence,
techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending or coordinating all portions of the Work of construction in accordance with the contract
documents and any health of safety precautions required by any regulatory agencies. CSA and its personnel have no authority to exercise any control over any
construction contractor or other entity or their employees in connection with their work or any health or safety precautions. The Client agrees that the general
contractor and its various subcontractors are solely responsible for jobsite safety, and warrants that this intent shall be made evident where appropriate in the Client’s
agreements with other contractors. If the Client is a Contractor or Subcontractor on the Project, the Client also agrees that the Client, CSA, and CSA’s consultants
shall be indemnified and shall be made additional insureds under the client’s general liability insurance policy; in other cases, the Client agrees to arrange for this
indemnification and additional insureds under the General Contractor’s general liability insurance policy.
Field Exploration -- Unless otherwise agreed, the client shall furnish right-of-entry on land for planned field operations. The client shall also provide
CSA with locations and depths of buried utilities and structures. CSA shall take responsible precautions to minimize damage to land from use of equipment, but our
fee does not include cost of restoration of damage resulting from our exploration operations. CSA shall not be liable for damage or injury arising from damage to
subterranean structures (pipes, tanks, telephone cables, etc.) which are not called to our attention and correctly shown on plans furnished to us.
Miscellaneous – In the event of any litigation or proceeding involving CSA and Client, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable legal
fees, expert fees, and normal employee rates and associated costs from the non-prevailing party. Failure by Client to object to any of the terms and conditions
contained in this Agreement before the commencement of services by CSA will be deemed an acceptance of such terms and conditions. Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary in this Agreement, CSA and Client agree that neither party shall be liable for any special, indirect, consequential, lost profits, or punitive damages. If
any term, condition, or provision of this Agreement is found unenforceable by a court of law or equity, this Agreement shall be construed as though that term,
condition, or provision did not exist, and its unenforceability shall have no effect whatsoever on the rest of this Agreement.
Attachment C - 8 of 8
F-23
November 3, 2025
Lomita Begins New Chapter in Process of Taking Ownership of US Navy
Baseball Fields
The City of Lomita has begun the process of taking ownership of approximately 6 acres of land, including youth sports fields, in partnership with the United
States Department of the Navy. Located at 26800 S. Western Avenue, the transfer of land was made possible by support from Congressman Ted Lieu and
Congresswoman Nanette Barragan through congressional legislation under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2025, passed in December 2024.
For Lomita, a city of only 1.9 square miles and a population of about 20,000, the newly acquired land will nearly double the amount of recreation space
available, marking a significant milestone.
“The Navy Fields are a part of Lomita’s story, and we are thankful the Navy and Congressional Representatives supported this land transfer,” said Mayor Mark
Waronek. “A gift like this for our community comes with the responsibility to ensure we continue to provide safe and attractive open spaces for all of our
community to enjoy for generations to come.”
Mayor Pro Tem Cindy Segawa joined Mayor Waronek in celebrating the opportunity.
“This new park land will become a critical asset to our community,” said Segawa. “It is very exciting to acquire this much park space, but it is a canvas upon
which we need to develop to a high standard that our residents deserve.”
While the City celebrates this milestone, City leaders recognize the work ahead. The City will need to identify resources to reconstruct major components to
bring the park up to date with modern recreation and building standards. Some of the improvements include reconstruction of the bleachers, fencing,
restrooms, electrical systems and the snack bar. The City will be identifying investment priorities and timelines in the coming months to diligently invest in
the new park land.
City Manager Andrew Vialpando emphasized that careful planning will be essential.
“With a modest operating general fund of $16 million to serve the entire City, taking over a 6-acre facility will undoubtedly require prudent community
planning, financial coordination, and strong regional partnerships,” said Vialpando. “We are grateful to the Navy and our Congressional leaders for entrusting
Lomita with this important legacy.”
Facebook Feed Latest News
Lomita Breaks Ground on Two Major
Infrastructure Projects
Lomita Begins New Chapter in Process of
Taking Ownership of US Navy Baseball
Fields
Introducing Lomita CARES: Community
Upcoming Events
HOLIDAY HOME
DECORATING CONTEST
Monday
24
NOV
11
DEC
LETTERS TO SANTA
Monday, City Hall
01 - 23
DEC
HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING
Tuesday, Lomita City Hall
02
DEC
English
Ask Lomita
ABOUT LOMITA GOVERNMENT CITY DEPARTMENTS COMMUNITY BUSINESS
I WANT TO...
Sign Up for Our e-Newsletter Careers Contact Us Special Events Alert South Bay Sign Up City Calendar
G-1
, I
WILMINGTON
Project eyed to replace refinery
Proposal for Phillips 66 sites includes retail, community,
industrial and sports facilities
BY KRISTY HUTCHINGS
KHUTCHINGS@SCNG.COM
By the end of 2025, a key part of the South Bay’s legacy and historical relationship with the
oil industry will shutter.
Phillips 66 announced earlier this year it would shut down its massive refinery complex
spanning Carson and Wilmington.
The decision sparked mixed reactions, with many expressing concern over the economic
ripple effects — both locally and nationally — given the facility’s role as one of the country’s
largest fuel providers and a major employer in the region. Others questioned what would
become of the sprawling site once operations officially cease.
But now, a pair of companies hired by Phillips 66 has introduced a potential vision for the
future of the Wilmington portion of the company’s refinery — a massive mixed-use project,
featuring retail, outdoor space, indoor sports complexes, and much more, dubbed Five
Points Union.
Plans for the project, which is still in its early stages and is years away from completion,
were submitted to the city of Los Angeles for approval in July, according to Heather
Crossner, Cattellus-Deca’s senior vice president. Catellus-Deca LLC is a joint venture
between Emeryville-based Catellus and San Francisco-based Deca, two leading real estate
development firms hired by Phillips 66 to lead the project.
That initial application, Crossner said in a Friday statement, is available for public review
and comment. Two public meetings to solicit public feedback were already held in August.
“This process, which initiates the city’s environmental review, will take several more years
to complete and include many additional opportunities for public input,” Crossner said.
Five Points Union, meanwhile, would span a whopping 440 acres of land in Wilmington that
is occupied by Phillips 66’s refinery in Wilmington and the adjacent Rancho LPG property
that’s been a public safety concern in the community for decades because it houses liquid
butane tanks.H-1
“While Phillips 66 does not own the (Rancho LPG) property, in direct response to
community requests, Phillips 66 worked with the Rancho LPG owners to incorporate the
property into the project’s redevelopment plans,” a company Oct. 6 news release said.
“Upon approval of the Five Points Union project, the Rancho LPG site will be redeveloped
along with the rest of the project.”
While the Carson portion of Phillips 66’s refinery, about 5 miles away from the Wilmington
site, will also shutter and be redeveloped in the future, that property isn’t part of the larger
Five Points Union proposal.
The Five Points Union project, officials said, was developed with plenty of community
engagement and feedback. Catellus-Deca had hundreds of conversations with community
groups, neighborhood councils, nonprofits, schools, parents, students and residents in
Wilmington that would be affected by the project, Crossner said.
“The project stands out not just for its scale, but for how deeply community voices have
shaped its identity,” said Crossner in the company news release. “From the outset, the Five
Points Union team asked local residents, stakeholders, and organizations for their wish-list
of uses for the properties. Hundreds of these conversations informed the Five Points Union
Project now being proposed.”
And with that feedback in mind, the plans for Five Points Union are indeed grand and
focused on providing Wilmington with essential economic, community, cultural and
outdoor space the neighborhood has historically lacked.
The development, as proposed, would feature a 400,000-square-foot Town Center for shops,
restaurants and cafes adorned with outdoor spaces such as playgrounds and walking paths,
the company said. One of the playgrounds, according to a community presentation, would
also include an homage to Smilin’ Jack, the iconic jack-o’-lantern painted on a Phillips 66
storage tank to celebrate Halloween each year since the 1950s.
The Town Center would also feature “flex space” to accommodate pop-up events and
farmers markets alongside community meeting and work space, a local artist showcase, a
grocery store and more.
Five Points Union would also create new places for sports, including two soccer fields and a
60,000-square-foot indoor sports complex on land adjacent to Ken Malloy Park.
“I’ve witnessed firsthand how deeply our community has needed safe, accessible spaces
where youth and families can gather, grow, and thrive,” Toberman Neighborhood Center
CEO Lupe Rivera said in the news release. “Union Project represents a transformative
opportunity to fill long-standing gaps in recreational and social resources, while creating an
environment that inspires hope, connection, and possibility.”
H-2
Five Points Union would also make some changes to how pedestrians experience two major
corridors: Anaheim and Gaffey streets. Anaheim Street, the company said, would be
reconstructed and set back from the street and get new trees for shade, while Gaffey Street
would get a new sidewalk to make it easier for pedestrians to access Ken Malloy Park and
surrounding areas.
“Both corridors will be improved into walkable, welcoming, and pedestrian- friendly
streetscapes along the project’s frontages,” the company said.
Five Points Union would also see the construction of a Commerce Center directly behind the
proposed Town Center and connected to the Port of Los Angeles. The Commerce Center, the
company said, would feature eight industrial buildings ranging from about 230,000 square
feet to 1.5 million square feet to support goods movement in and out of the port.
The Commerce Center, the company said, would be set back from Anaheim and Gaffey
streets, and truck traffic into it would be limited to a single point, which would be accessible
via a new underpass beneath the 110 Freeway, which is also part of the development. That
new underpass, which would provide trucks access to John S. Gibson Boulevard and the 110,
would prevent trucks from entering residential streets and neighborhoods.
This center, the company said, would be a major driver for the local economy and could
create thousands of jobs.
“The Five Points Union Project can serve as a major catalyst for local economic
empowerment and job creation for our residents,” Wilmington Chamber of Commerce CEO
Monica Garcia said in the news release. “This redevelopment is a chance to redefine
Wilmington’s profile and make it a destination for visitors and businesses.”
But it will be years before the project comes to fruition, with much work to be done before
construction could even start on the refinery’s old resting place.
Catellus-Deca’s submission of the project proposal to the city of L.A. is just the start and will
trigger an environmental review process, Crossner said, which will take several years to
complete.
And once the environmental review is complete, there’s still the matter of demolishing the
existing refinery structures, remediating the land it sat on for more than a century, and
constructing the massive facility from nothing.
“Following comprehensive environmental review, community input and approvals from the
City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, removal of
the refinery, cleanup and redevelopment would begin and take several years to complete,”
the company said.
H-3
Remediation of the land, it seems, will be the biggest challenge for any redevelopment
project. Refinery pollution and land contamination has long been a concern for people
living in refinery-adjacent communities such as Carson and Wilmington, which are some of
the most environmentally burdened communities in the country, according to the South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
And though Phillips 66 does have mechanisms in place aimed at protecting residents’
health and safety, the issue is still significant.
Last year, for example, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Phillips 66 for
illegally dumping close to 800,000 gallons of toxic wastewater from the Carson facility into
the Los Angeles County sewer system.
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board, meanwhile, has had its eye on the Carson
refinery since 1994, when a troubling discovery was made beneath the facility — a 13-foot
deep “lake of oil.” Since then, Phillips 66 has been ordered to continue remediation efforts
by pumping out the toxic waste and treating contaminated water.
Toxic levels of dangerous chemicals have also been found in the groundwater and soil,
creating a large plume spanning the majority of the property and producing benzene, a
known carcinogen, in addition to gasoline chemicals.
And, in 2021, the water board required the reporting of PFAS, also known as forever
chemicals because it’s impossible to remove them from the environment. Phillips 66
reported PFAS well above the EPA’s maximum levels, according to data compiled by the
California State Water Resources Control Board, likely from foam used to fight fires at the
refinery.
Phillips 66 has since switched to non-PFAS firefighting foam, though it’s a bit of a moot
issue since the refinery is set to close in the near future.
The company, meanwhile, has repeatedly outlined its commitment to fixing the problems it
has caused, with Catellus-Deca noting that remediation is a major part of the Five Points
Union development plan.
“Phillips 66 is committed to addressing environmental impacts from historic operations,”
Crossner said. “Future redevelopment of the property will facilitate and accelerate
additional cleanup across the property. Over the next several years, cleanup plans for future
redevelopment areas and groundwater will be developed and reviewed by the (L.A.)
Regional Water Quality Control Board.”
Despite the challenges, the proposed development could be life-altering for Wilmington
and the surrounding communities, which have borne the brunt of environmental pollution
in the Southland for decades.
H-4
“This project will bring real change to our area — new jobs, new energy, and a renewed
sense of community,” Wilmington Neighborhood Council secretary Fabiola Garcia said in
the announcement. “As a lifelong resident, I have waited for something like this that
residents can be proud of and that will bring positive change to our community.”
For more information about Five Points Union, go to fivepointsunion.com.
H-5
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025
FROM: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ - CERTIFICATION OF
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO THE SAN
PEDRO WATERFRONT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT (LOS ANGELES HARBOR
DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR PORT PERMIT NO. 190529-080;
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2005061041)
SUMMARY:
Staff requests certification of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
for the West Harbor Modification Project (Project) prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.,
21166; CEQA Guidelines, § 15162).
The Proposed Project is located within the San Pedro Public Market (SPPM) site and at
a parking lot at 208 E. 22nd Street. The proposed Project would construct a 6,200-person
capacity amphitheater and lawn area and parking lot with up to 2,600 additional spaces
for the greater San Pedro Waterfront development. In addition, the proposed Project
includes a 175-foot-diameter Ferris wheel, which differs from the 100-foot-diameter Ferris
wheel that was included in and analyzed in the 2016 SPPM Addendum.
In this action, the Board of Harbor Commissioners (Board) will need to independently
review and consider the adequacy of the Final SEIR and, if deemed adequate under
CEQA, certify the SEIR and adopt a Findings of Fact (Findings), Statement of Overriding
Considerations (SOC) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). With
the application of mitigation measures and lease measures, the proposed Project would
result in significant new impacts to noise and transportation.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board:
1.Certify the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the San Pedro
Waterfront Environmental Impact Report for the West Harbor Modification Project (a)
has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Public Resources Code §21000 et
seq.), with the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et. seq.), and the City
I-1
I A 1 11 ,
THE PORT
OF LOS ANGELES
Executive Di rector's
Report to the
Board of Harbor Commissioners
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 10
SUBJECT: FINAL SEIR FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
of Los Angeles California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; (b) was presented to
the Board for review and the Board considered the information contained in the Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prior to approving the proposed Project;
and (c) reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Los Angeles
Harbor Department, and that all required procedures have been completed;
2. Adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations;
3. Find that, in accordance with the information contained in the Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Project will have new significant
environmental effects on the environment related to transportation and noise as
defined by Public Resources Code Sections 21068 and 21082.2, and the State
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Sections 15064, 15064.4, 15064.5,
and 15382;
4. Find that in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed Project, which substantially lessens or avoids one or more of the significant
adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report;
5. Find that all information added to the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
after public notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for public review but before certification, merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes
insignificant modifications in an adequate Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
and recirculation is not necessary;
6. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as required by Public
Resources Code, Section 21081.6. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures and project features
adopted to avoid or lessen significant effects on the environment, pursuant to and
identifies the responsibilities of the City for Los Angeles Harbor Department, as lead
agency, to monitor and verify project compliance with those mitigation measures and
project features;
7. Approve the proposed Project identified in the Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report including all feasible mitigation measures and project features with
consideration of the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
8. Direct the Waterfront Real Estate Division to incorporate by reference the Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report, mitigation measures, project features, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program into any and all lease agreements or assignments
encompassed in the approved Project;
I-2
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 10
SUBJECT: FINAL SEIR FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
9. Authorize the Environmental Management Division to post a Notice of Determination
with the Los Angeles County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse; and
10. Adopt Resolution No. _______________.
DISCUSSION:
Background/Context – West Harbor (Applicant) is developing the area identified in the
proposed Project as part of the larger San Pedro Waterfront (SPW) Project, for which the
Final EIR was certified in 2009. The proposed Project would involve modifications to
proposed redevelopment of a portion of the former Ports O’ Call Village area, as described
in the 2009 SPW Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/EIR. In May 2016, the City of
Los Angeles Harbor Department (Harbor Department) prepared the 2016 SPPM
Addendum to address development of a smaller building area, the inclusion of a portion
of the Town Square originally evaluated in the 2009 SPW EIS/EIR, reconfiguration of the
waterfront promenade, extension of the term of the lease from 30 years to 50 years, and
possible modification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits. The 2016 SPPM
Addendum found that the SPPM Project, with incorporation of mitigation identified in the
2009 SPW EIS/EIR, would not result in any significant new impacts or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts that were analyzed in the 2009
SPW EIS/EIR. In November 2019, a second addendum to the 2009 SPW EIS/EIR was
prepared to extend the duration of the lease for an additional 16 years. In 2019, the
Applicant applied for Port Permit (Permit) (APP No. 190529-080) to the Harbor
Department expressing interest in modifying the development of the former Ports O ’Call
Village area. The proposed Project site is located on approximately 2.5 acres, within the
previously approved 6.4-acre Discovery Sea Amusement Area (as described in the 2016
SPPM Addendum), along with the proposed 20-acre overflow parking lot and Red Car
maintenance facility at 208 E. 22nd Street. Multiple comments were received on the Draft
EIR, with the majority being in support of the proposed Project. Please refer to item five
of the Environmental Assessment section below for a summary of environmental
concerns raised in the comments.
Project Objectives - The primary objectives of the Project are to:
• Enhance and revitalize the existing SPW area by including a substantially larger
outdoor concert Amphitheater and entertainment lawn venue and additional
attractions to draw visitors to the SPW area, thereby increasing the public visibility
of San Pedro in general and the waterfront specifically;
• Update previously adopted mitigation measures to reflect changes since their
consideration;
• Provide public access to the SPW through increased parking amenities and
pedestrian walkways;
• Provide for a variety of waterfront uses including recreational, commercial, and Port-
related waterfront uses; and
I-3
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 10
SUBJECT: FINAL SEIR FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
• Provide for enhanced visitor-serving commercial opportunities within the former site
of Ports O’ Call Village, complementary to those found in downtown San Pedro.
Project Description – The proposed Project involves development modifications to 2.5
acres of the previously approved 6.4-acre Discovery Sea Amusement Area in the
southern portion of the SPPM Project site located between the Los Angeles Harbor’s Main
Channel and Harbor Boulevard from Berths 73-Z to 83 within the Port of Los Angeles
(Port). The developer (Tenant) has proposed expanding the 500-seat outdoor
amphitheater to 6,200 seats, using the Amphitheater area as an entertainment lawn
venue for public and private events and as a passive open park space when not otherwise
programmed. In addition, the Tenant has proposed a 175-foot-diameter Ferris wheel,
which differs from the 100-foot-diameter Ferris wheel that was included and analyzed in
the 2016 SPPM Addendum. The Ferris wheel would be located on the northern portion
of the Project site, in the former City Park area currently referred to as North Park. The
proposed Project also includes improvements to the 20-acre overflow parking lot and the
demolition of the Red Car maintenance facility located at 208 E. 22nd Street.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
CEQA Responsibilities – The Harbor Department is the CEQA lead agency for the
proposed Project. As such, the Board is responsible for reviewing and considering the
Final SEIR (Transmittal 1) and, at its discretion, certifying that the Final SEIR has been
completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Los Angeles
City CEQA Guidelines; has been presented to the Board for review and the Board
considered the information contained in the Final SEIR, and that it reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Harbor Department. Certification of the Final
SEIR must precede the project approval. Project approval requires that the Board first
independently review and certify the Final SEIR as adequate; then adopt the Findings
and SOC for the proposed Project (Transmittal 2) and the feasibility of mitigation
measures and alternatives; and adopt a MMRP (Transmittal 3).
Scope and Content of Environmental Document – The Draft SEIR, released November
6, 2024, incorporates, as appropriate, information received on the Notice of Preparation
(NOP) for the proposed Project, assesses environmental impacts of the proposed Project,
and analyzes mitigation measures to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects.
The Final SEIR clarifies and amplifies the Draft SEIR, incorporates modifications and
corrections, contains responses to all public comments made on the Draft SEIR, and
contains records of the public process.
Intended Uses of the SEIR – The SEIR informs public agency decision-makers and the
general public of the significant environmental effects of the proposed Project and
recommends mitigation measures to minimize the significant effects. The SEIR assesses
the potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, related to the proposed Project. The
analysis in the SEIR supports future potential discretionary actions of the Board. For the
I-4
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 10
SUBJECT: FINAL SEIR FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
Harbor Department, these actions could include but are not limited to, issuance of coastal
development permits, issuance of engineering permits, and approval of Permit
amendments.
Environmental Documentation Process and Public Involvement – The proposed Project
was subject to the required environmental documentation process that included public
disclosure as required by CEQA. The procedural steps of the process are described
below.
1. Notice of Preparation (NOP) – In accordance with the Los Angeles City CEQA
Guidelines, Article VI, Section 1.5, and the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082,
the responsible agencies, participating City agencies, and other concerned parties
were consulted through an NOP released on April 14, 2022 and public scoping
meeting held on May 15, 2022 via Zoom. Six comments were received during the
scoping meeting, all in support of the proposed Project, and a total of twenty-three
written comment letters were received from various agencies and the public during
the comment period, which closed on June 15, 2022. Eighteen comment letters were
in support of the proposed Project.
Copies of the NOP were available for review online at www.portoflosangeles.org/ceqa
and at the Harbor Department’s Environmental Management Division office.
2. Draft SEIR – The Draft SEIR was released for public review on November 6, 2024.
The document was made available on the Port website and notices were mailed and
emailed to over 100 interested parties. The 45-day comment period was extended to
a 65-day comment period per public request and closed on January 10, 2025.
Public notices of availability stating that the Draft SEIR was available for review were
published in six newspapers: Los Angeles Times, Torrance Daily Breeze, Long Beach
Press Telegram, Random Lengths, Metropolitan News Enterprise, and HOY.
A public hearing was held on November 14, 2024 via Zoom to present the findings of
the environmental analysis and accept oral comments. Twenty-four oral comments
were received at the public hearing. A total of 232 written comments were received
from various agencies and the public during the 65-day public comment period, 174
of which were in support and 59 of which expressed concern about the Proposed
Project’s impacts.
3. Responses to Comments – As required by Public Resources Code Section 21092.5,
all public responsible and trustee agencies who commented on environmental issues
in the Draft SEIR were provided with proposed responses to those comments at least
10 days prior to the Final SEIR being submitted to the Board for certification.
I-5
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 6 OF 10
SUBJECT: FINAL SEIR FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
4. Final EIR – In accordance with the Los Angeles City CEQA Guidelines, Article I, and
the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088, comments received on the Draft SEIR
were evaluated. The comment letters, public meeting transcript, and responses to
comments, along with minor modifications to the Draft SEIR are presented in the Final
SEIR. The Final SEIR was completed in May 2025.
5. Findings and Conclusions – The Final SEIR transmitted herewith, identifies major
findings and conclusions, including a discussion of areas of environmental concern,
feasible mitigation measures, and unavoidable impacts. The discussion below
summarizes the proposed Findings and SOC for the Board’s consideration.
Areas of Environmental Concern – Through the public review process, 204 comment
letters were received during the public review period and 24 comments were
presented at the public hearing held on November 14, 2024. This section summarizes
the key areas of environmental concern expressed by commenters and the Harbor
Department’s resolution of the issues. Detailed responses to all comments received
on the document are included in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments, of the Final
SEIR.
Air Quality Impacts – Commenters criticized the Draft SEIR’s analysis of Air Quality
impacts from the use of Fireworks. The comments stated that the use of Fireworks will
create air and water pollution. In response to these and similar comments, MM-NOI-
11 through MM-NOI-14 were altered to reflect a reduction in the use of fireworks from
25 shows up to 20 minutes in duration, to a total of 13 shows, eleven of which will be
up to 10 minutes in duration and two of which will be permitted up to 20 minutes in
duration, and to encourage the use of drone displays to replace fireworks shows.
Additionally, firework shows will be subject to the pollution reduction management
practices outlined in the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB)
General Fireworks Permit for firework discharge, which outlines acceptable firework
materials, discharge management, and cleanup requirements.
Biological Impacts – Commenters criticized the evaluation of noise impacts on local
marine wildlife including marine mammals and California Least Terns, as well as the
input of trash into the harbor because of events. The use of fireworks and amplified
sound were analyzed and determined to have potential for significant impacts on
marine mammals. As a result, the following project feature (PF) and mitigation
measures (MM) were included in the Final EIR to reduce noise impacts to wildlife: PF-
NOI-1, MM-NOI-3, MM-NOI-4, MM-NOI-8, MM-NOI-10 through MM-NOI-14, MM-BIO-
8 and MM-BIO-9. Additionally, the mitigation measures MM-BIO-7 and -10 will be
implemented to prevent trash from entering local waterways and impacting marine
wildlife.
Noise Impacts – Commenters criticized the evaluation of noise impacts related to
amphitheater operations and fireworks shows. Comments typically highlighted the
I-6
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 7 OF 10
SUBJECT: FINAL SEIR FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
frequency of proposed performances (100 shows annually) as well as the proposed
decibel limit of 100 dBA and local experiences with past performances in the harbor,
which occurred at a different location with less specialized sound systems. The Draft
SEIR analysis in Chapter 3.8, Noise provided sound modeling data that accounted for
the local topography, variations in atmospheric conditions, and proposed decibel
limits. As a result, PF-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-3 through MM-NOI-10 have been included
to reduce impacts on neighboring communities. Prior events taking place in the harbor
have had less stringent requirements due to their temporary nature. Events taking
place at the Amphitheater will be subject to the use of specialized sound-focusing
equipment, volume limits, penalties for violations, volume adjustments in response to
the complaint hotline, and curfews as outlined in the mitigation measures.
Commenters also expressed concern with noise generated by traffic increases due to
events. As a result, clarifying information regarding project trip distribution was added
to Chapter 3.8 of the SEIR and concluded that additional noise related to traffic would
not be significant.
Transportation Impacts – Commenters criticized the analysis of traffic impacts in
Chapter 3.9 - Transportation, which concluded that the project would have significant
and unavoidable impacts after the implementation of feasible mitigation. Comments
received were concerned with congestion due to event-related traffic, pedestrian
access, and effects on neighboring residential streets and alternate routes besides
Harbor Boulevard. Operational deficiency evaluations (i.e. level of service) for
intersections in the project vicinity have also been added for information purposes to
the Final SEIR as Appendix K. Additionally, MM-TRAN-1 will implement transportation
management strategies to reduce event-related traffic and promote bicycle and
pedestrian access and safety.
Use of Artificial Turf – Commenters criticized the proposed use of artificial turf rather
than natural grass for the Amphitheater lawn area. While an analysis of using artificial
turf did not identify any significant CEQA impact, an analysis of utilizing natural grass
as a potential substitute or replacement for the 50,000-square-foot amphitheater lawn
area was performed and is included in Appendix K should the Tenant decide to
incorporate natural grass in lieu of artificial turf. Significant impacts are not expected
as a result of implementing either artificial turf or natural grass in the Amphitheater
lawn area of the proposed Project.
6. Proposed Mitigation Measures – In accordance with the provisions of the Los Angeles
City CEQA Guidelines, Article I, the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and the
information contained in the SEIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project as recommended for approval in the form of feasible
mitigation which substantially lessen or avoid significant adverse environmental
impacts identified in the SEIR.
I-7
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 8 OF 10
SUBJECT: FINAL SEIR FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
Mitigation measures and Project features contained in the SEIR would be incorporated
as appropriate in permits, such as engineering specifications, engineering
construction permits, real estate entitlements, and/or coastal development permits for
the proposed Project. All mitigation measures, lease measures and any standard
conditions of approval can be found in the MMRP.
Unavoidable Significant Impacts - Significant impacts as a result of the proposed
Project that could not be reduced below a level of significance are described in the
Findings and SOC with findings for each impact. Impacts already determined to be
significant and unavoidable by the 2009 SPW EIS/EIR that apply to this Project will
remain significant and unavoidable, but the proposed Project was determined to not
create new or substantially more severe impacts when Project-specific mitigation is
applied for some impact areas, including Air Quality, Biological Resources, and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. With all feasible mitigation applied, the proposed Project
will still have significant new impacts to Noise and Transportation.
Environmental
Impact
Prior
Determination
(2009 SPW
EIS/EIR)
New MM
or PF
Added in
Final SEIR
Impacts of Proposed Project
(After Mitigation)
Air Quality Significant and
Unavoidable
Yes No new or substantially more severe
impacts would occur
Biological
Resources
Significant and
Unavoidable
Yes No new or substantially more severe
impacts would occur
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Significant and
Unavoidable
Yes No new or substantially more severe
impacts would occur
Noise Significant and
Unavoidable
Yes New significant impacts would
occur
Transportation Significant and
Unavoidable
Yes New significant impacts would
occur
Significant Impacts that can be Mitigated, Avoided, or Substantially Lessened – The
following significant impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance under
CEQA through implementation of mitigation measures as described in the Findings
and SOC:
• Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Public Services
• Tribal Cultural Resources
Additional changes added to the Final SEIR after the public review period are minor
and merely clarify, amplify, or make minor modifications.
I-8
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 9 OF 10
SUBJECT: FINAL SEIR FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
7. SEIR Certification and Project Approval – In light of these findings and conclusions,
staff recommends certification of the Final SEIR as prepared in accordance with
CEQA and implementing guidelines and recommends approval of the proposed
Project and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and lease measures.
8. Implementation of Mitigation – When making the CEQA findings required by Public
Resources Code Section 21081(a), a public agency shall adopt a reporting or
monitoring program in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 for
changes to the proposed Project which it has adopted or made a condition of Project
approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. A MMRP is
transmitted for Board consideration and adoption. In addition, should the Board elect
to approve the proposed Project, the mitigation measures and project features
contained in the SEIR would be incorporated as appropriate in permits, such as,
engineering specifications, engineering construction permits, real estate entitlements,
and/or coastal development permits for the proposed Project.
9. Record of Proceedings – When making CEQA findings required by Public Resources
Code Section 21081(a), a public agency shall specify the location and custodian of
the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which its decision is based. These records are in the care of the Director of
Environmental Management, City of Los Angeles Harbor Department, 425 S Palos
Verdes Street, San Pedro, California 90731.
10. Notice of Determination – In accordance with Los Angeles City CEQA Guidelines,
Article I, and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15094, a Notice of Determination
will be filed with the Office of Planning and Research and the County Clerk’s Office
after Project approval. Public Resources Code Section 21167(c) provides that any
action or proceeding alleging that an EIR does not comply with the provisions of CEQA
shall be commenced within 30 days after filing the Notice of Determination.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Certification of the Final SEIR and approval of the proposed Project is an administrative
action that would pave the path forward for implementation of the Project. Total cost
associated with the preparation of the environmental document to date is $899,000. This
expense is the financial responsibility of San Pedro Public Market, LLC under Agreement
No. 19-3706. San Pedro Public Market, LLC has reimbursed the Harbor Department
$673,000. The remaining balance due will be billed monthly per the Harbor Department’s
process.
CITY ATTORNEY:
Based on the information provided to it, the Office of the City Attorney has reviewed and
approved the subject FEIR as to form.
I-9
DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 PAGE 10 OF 10
SUBJECT: FINAL SEIR FOR THE WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
TRANSMITTALS:
1. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
2.Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
3.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
FIS Approval: _____ (initials)
CA Approval: _____ (initials)
LISA WUNDER DINA ARYAN-ZAHLAN, P.E.
Acting Director of Environmental Management Deputy Executive Director of Development
APPROVED:
EUGENE D. SEROKA
Executive Director
AUTHOR: S. Workman
APP No.: 190916-128
FILE: Y:\_ADMIN\_BOARD REPORTS\_CEQA\SPW- WEST HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT\Environmental_West Harbor Modification SEIR _Board Report_FINAL .docx
UPDATED: 6/16/2025 11:46AM - MRX
for
I-10
Los Angeles Harbor Department Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
West Harbor Modification Project
Final Subsequent EIR 2-11
SCH #2005061041
June 2025
LAHD acknowledges these comments and will include them in the Proposed Project
record for the Board of Harbor Commissioners to consider.
Response to Comment Letter City of Los Angeles–Council District 15
CD15-1 The commenter states that they are the Councilmember representing the 15th District
of the City of Los Angeles. The commenter also states that he believes that the
Proposed Project is key to the success of the redevelopment effort in the San Pedro
area. The commenter goes on to request that an additional receiver get added to the
Project scope, located between the Southwest Marine Facility and the United States
Coast Guard Dock, directly across from the Proposed Project in order to ensure
quality of life for residents and flora/fauna.
CD15-2 This comment expresses full support of the Proposed Project but that relevant
environmental factors must be addressed. Specifically, the comment requests that an
additional receiver be added to the Proposed Project scope, located between the
Southwest Marine Facility and the U.S. Coast Guard Dock, directly across from the
Proposed Project, because this area is used by marine wildlife. In response to this and
other comments about the area described, an additional receiver (Receiver Point 9)
has been added to the analysis of estimated noise levels for marine mammal receiver
points in Table 3.3-2 and Tables 3.3-3 of the Draft SEIR. At this new receiver
location, unmitigated combined noise levels (from the amphitheater and fireworks)
were estimated to be 100 dBZ (decibels relative to Z) and mitigated combined noise
levels were estimated to be 90 dBZ. In both cases, the noise is dominated by the
amphitheater. Because the mitigated noise level of 90 dBZ would be less than the
Level B harassment threshold of 100 dBZ for the species observed at the added
receiver location, there would be no new impacts at this location after mitigation. The
resulting updates to the Draft SEIR are described in Section 3.2 of this Final SEIR,
Changes to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.
CD15-3 LAHD acknowledges these comments and will include them in the Proposed Project
record for the Board of Harbor Commissioners to consider.
Response to Comment Letter City of Rancho Palos Verdes
CRPV-1 The commenter states that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has reviewed the Draft
SEIR and appreciates the extension of the public review and comment period until
after the holiday season. The comment states that ever since the plan for the 6,200-
seat amphitheater was announced, residents of the Eastview neighborhood (of
Rancho Palos Verdes) have shared concerns about potential noise impacts from
performances and fireworks displays at the proposed venue. This comment is
elaborated on and responded to further in response to comments CRPV-2 and CRPV-
4.This comment does not raise any specific issue regarding the adequacy of the
analysis contained in the Draft SEIR.
CRPV-2 The comment acknowledges that both favorable and unfavorable atmospheric
conditions were studied but goes on to state that only the noise-sensitive locations
J-1
Los Angeles Harbor Department
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
West Harbor Modification Project
Final Subsequent EIR 2-12
SCH #2005061041
June 2025
within the immediate surrounding area were studied and that the radius should be
expanded to assess noise impacts on the Palos Verdes Peninsula community. The
closest points in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are more than two miles from the
Proposed Project site and more than 2.5 miles from the Proposed fireworks launch
location. Although the noise analysis does not extend quite that far, it does extend
substantially farther than “the immediate surrounding area.” The amphitheater noise
mapping provided in the Draft SEIR covers an area of approximately 3.5 square
miles and extends more than a mile to the west where the majority of nearby noise-
sensitive receptors (e.g., homes) are located. The mitigated amphitheater noise levels
at the west edge of the mapped area are estimated to be between 42 and 55 dBA (A-
weighted decibels), depending on atmospheric conditions. These noise levels would
decrease further with the increased distance to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
CRPV-3 The comment supports the creation of a noise complaint hotline and/or website for
the amphitheater, penalties for noise violations, and requirements for a noise
monitoring station and sound-monitoring data reports but states that more
information is needed on how these mitigation measures will be enforced, including
the specific provisions and enforcement mechanisms included in contracts, permits,
or other agreements with amphitheater users. As stated in mitigation measure (MM-)
NOI-3, Tier 1 Events are defined as all public or private performance events with
amplified sound and intended audiences of more than 500 people including, but not
limited to, Tenant events, public events, leased events, rental events, and other third-
party events. Therefore, all such events would be subject to the controls mentioned
by the commenter–i.e., noise limits (MM-NOI-3), noise monitoring (MM-NOI-5),
noise reporting (MM-NOI-6), the noise complaint hotline (MM-NOI-7), and fines for
non-compliance (MM-NOI-9). All mitigation measures are included in the Proposed
Project’s Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, which will be attached to
the Project/amphitheater lease as conditions of operation. Consequently, these
requirements will also apply to all amphitheater users.
CRPV-4 The comment expressed concern not only about the long-term significant and
unavoidable noise impacts generated by the amphitheater, but also about the
proposed 25 offshore fireworks displays per year. The comment states that fireworks
trigger flashbacks in veterans and terror in pets and expresses support for a mitigation
measure requiring the fireworks be replaced with lighted drone displays. The
Proposed Project has been modified as a result of these and similar comments to
reduce the number of annual fireworks shows permitted from 25 to 13 and reduce the
run-time from 20 minutes to 10 minutes for eleven 11 of the events. Two 20-minute
shows would still be allowed per year. Mitigation has also been revised to prevent
“salute” concussive shell fireworks that are the most disruptive to sensitive groups.
Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-11, MM-NOI-12, and MM-NOI-13 from the Draft
SEIR have been updated to reflect the reduction in fireworks displays (MM-NOI-11
now restricts the total number of firework displays to 13 per year; MM-NOI-12 now
limits the duration of all fireworks displays to 10 minutes, except for two 20-minute
shows per year; and MM-NOI-13 now eliminates the use of “salute” fireworks). The
J-2
Los Angeles Harbor Department
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments
West Harbor Modification Project
Final Subsequent EIR 2-13
SCH #2005061041
June 2025
resulting updates to the Draft SEIR are described in Section 3.2 of this Final SEIR,
Changes to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.
Response to Comment Letter Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC-1 The comment states that Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received
the Draft SEIR and provided a brief description of the Proposed Project.
DTSC-2 The comment states that the 208 E. 22nd Street Parking Lot is within the boundaries
of the Gatx Annex Terminal – San Pedro Site, which continues to have
contamination above screening levels in the post-treatment soil. As such, DTSC
recommends that any excavation within the boundaries of the 208 E. 22nd Street
Parking Lot that goes deeper than 1 foot below ground surface follow details from a
Soil Management Plan (SMP); and since there currently is no SMP, DTSC
recommends that one be prepared and submitted to DTSC for review.
DTSC is correct that there is not currently a SMP for the Proposed Project; however,
page 3.6-19 of the Draft SEIR includes mitigation measure (MM-) HAZ-1 which
requires preparation of an SMP. Further, MM-HAZ-1 requires that the SMP include
protocols, measures, and techniques for the proper handling, management, and
disposition of affected soils found on site and in any areas of offsite work during site
preparation and grading activities at the 208 E. 22nd Street Parking Lot. Because the
SMP that is requested by DTSC is already required by MM-HAZ-1, the Draft SEIR
remains adequate.
DTSC-3 LAHD acknowledges these comments and will include them in the Proposed Project
record for the Board of Harbor Commissioners to consider.
Response to Comment Letter County Board of Supervisors - Hahn,
Janice
COUNTY-1 The comment expresses support for the Proposed Project and conveys satisfaction
that the Draft SEIR has provided mitigation measures to address environmental
issues as needed. LAHD acknowledges this comment and will include it in the
Proposed Project record for the Board of Harbor Commissioners to consider.
2.3.1.2 Organizations
Response to Comment Letter AdventResources
ADVENT-1 The comment expresses support for the Proposed Project. LAHD acknowledges this
comment and will include it in the Project record for the Board of Harbor
Commissioners’ consideration.
AGCS-1 The comment expresses support for the Proposed Project. LAHD acknowledges this
comment and will include it in the Project record for the Board of Harbor
Commissioners’ consideration.
J-3
DEVELOPMENT
San Pedro waterfront venue is approved
L.A. harbor commission OKs plans Thursday for 6,200-seat
outdoor music amphitheater
BY DONNA LITTLEJOHN
DLITTLEJOHN@SCNG.COM
Hit that drum roll, San Pedro.
A packed room cheered and applauded as the Los Angeles harbor commission on Thursday
unanimously approved plans for a 6,200-seat outdoor waterfront amphitheater, which is
expected to draw top-tier musical acts from throughout the L.A. area.
The amphitheater represents yet another addition to the port town’s new West Harbor
development, which will provide a fresh-generation vibe on top of San Pedro’s authentic,
multiethnic working class roots.
It all brought Dan Salas, the founder and operator of Harbor Breeze Cruises, which operates
out of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, almost to tears.
“I was born in Wilmington,” Salas said in public remarks Thursday, adding he went to work
at age 12 on Berth 79. “I’m here full of gratitude.”
Salas was one of the first to sign a lease for the new, still-under-development waterfront with
a hybrid electric harbor cruise boat.
“We’ve done this! We’re going to do this,” Salas said. “We’re going to put this (waterfront)
on the map!”
Others said the concert venue will provide jobs and music opportunities for a new
generation whose parents and grandparents had their Ports O’ Call in the 1960s.
“I’m 22 years old, a musician, and I love hearing the stories about the old Utro’s, Walkers,”
said Rudy Rios, referring to longtime restaurants and hangouts that have since closed. “But
there’s not that much for my age as we come into adulthood. This amphitheater and the
whole West Harbor development is going to be amazing for the youth and generations to
come.”
K-1
The construction timeline for the amphitheater is about 14-16 months, depending on how
long permits take.
The final environmental impact report drew some edits, such as reducing the number of
requested shows, which would include fireworks, to five per year and the amount of time
those programs would last. It also noted that, ultimately, factors of noise levels and traffic
could not be fully mitigated but that sound monitors and other aids could be used.
Overall events will be limited to 100 per year.
Elise Swanson, CEO and president of the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce, said that
organization has worked for years on the West Harbor project, and the amphitheater would
provide a key component that would also bring a boost to the downtown restaurants and
shopping district.
West Harbor, which is set to open in 2026, replaces the popular Ports O’ Call, which was
demolished several years ago.
Along with the amphitheater, which will be built at the southern end of the West Harbor
waterfront. a 175-foot tall Ferris wheel will be built at the northern end of the attraction. The
Ferris wheel will take a year to fabricate, and two to three months to erect and start
operations. That means an estimate of 14 to 15 months from the order date.
“Today marks a pivotal milestone,” Swanson said. “This will transform our waterfront into a
world-class (attraction). Our businesses in the downtown have been crying out for
increased foot traffic and this amphitheater will bring it.”
Developers Eric and Alan Johnson, of Jerico Development, have agreed to clean up
measures for the fireworks, and will take a closer look at artificial turf issues versus natural
grass, and are still considering both. When asked about that issue, Eric Johnson told the
board that natural turf included rain and mud hazards.
The West Harbor developers will continue studying and evaluating the turf surface options
for the amphitheater and park space.
“We thank the Port of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners for
their thoughtful and thorough evaluation of the West Harbor Modification Project,” Eric
Johnson said after the meeting. “We appreciate all members of the community who took the
time to make their voices heard. We are also grateful to so many others, including the City
Council office and the county supervisor’s office for their support and the enthusiasm they
have expressed for our plans to make West Harbor a must-visit destination and a regional
economic driver.”
Neighborhood council representatives were active throughout the process and commented
during the meeting.
K-2
Dean Pentcheff of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council said that while concerns
remained, he was thankful for the concessions the developers made. He also said that, in the
end, he thought it would “end up an amazing project for this town. Our duty is to address
the problems.”
The issues that kept “cropping up,” Pentcheff said, were “fireworks, plastic grass, sound and
traffic.”
“On sound,” Pentcheff said, “there are unavoidable impacts” the community will have to
deal with.
“Progress does come with costs, you know that and we know that,” he said. “We look forward
to working with you.”
Mona Sutton, a small business owner active in many of the groups that have worked through
those concerns, said the challenges will be worth what is gained.
“We need this project,” she said. “Sound mitigation has been one of the main issues.
“But (those questions) have been asked and answered and I have every bit of trust in Jerico
(development) company,” Sutton said. “We need this for our small businesses and we are
desperate to be a firs-class destination.”
The theater will be managed by the Nederlander Organization, which ran the Greek Theater.
Outer Harbor concerts in the past and large-scale events like L.A. Fleet Week have proven
that San Pedro can handle a large influx of visitors, some speakers said on Thursday. Those
events also have benefited downtown businesses and restaurants. New mid-rise
developments have also brought new residents into the community who will provide natural
patrons.
“Nederlander has been open to discussion” in working with the community, said 25-year
San Pedro resident Linda Alexander. “We’re very eager for this project. It’s always been a
town for ‘potential.’ Now we’re about to achieve it.”
K-3
HARBOR AREA
Phillips 66 says it will close oil refinery
More than 600 jobs at stake at company’s facilities in Carson
and Wilmington
BY KRISTY HUTCHINGS
KHUTCHINGS@SCNG.COM
Phillips 66 announced Wednesday it will close its Los Angeles-area refinery next year, idling
600 employees and 300 contractors who work at two sprawling facilities that straddle
Wilmington and Carson in the port region.
A statement cited uncertainty about the “sustainability” of the facility going forward.
“We understand this decision has an impact on our employees, contractors and the broader
community,” Mark Lashier, chairman and CEO of Phillips 66, said in a written statement.
“We will work to help and support them through this transition.”
The refinery includes a crude-oil processing facility that operates on 235 acres in Carson
and a separate 424-acre facility in Wilmington where the processed oil is finalized into
“finished products.”
The two facilities are linked by a roughly 5-mile pipeline.
“With the long-term sustainability of our Los Angeles Refinery uncertain and affected by
market dynamics,” Lashier said, “we are working with leading land development firms to
evaluate the future use of our unique and strategically located properties near the Port of
Los Angeles.”
Phillips 66, which operates 12 refineries across the United States and Europe, made $7
billion from its operations in 2023, according to a company report.
“Phillips 66 remains committed to serving California and will continue to take the
necessary steps to meet our commercial and customer demands,” Lashier added.
Phillips plans to close the facility in the fourth quarter of 2025, but the company will “work
with the state of California to supply fuel markets and meet ongoing consumer demand.”
“The company will supply gasoline from sources inside and outside its refining network as
well as renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuels from its Rodeo Renewable Energy
L-1
Complex in the San Francisco Bay area,” according to Phillips.
The announcement, meanwhile, came just days after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new bill
into law, which aims to prevent gas prices from spiking suddenly when refineries go offline
for unplanned refinery outages.
That piece of legislation is just one of many energy-related bills Newsom has signed into
law in recent months, all of which have been heavily opposed and criticized by the oil
industry.
Newsom also a signed a trio of oil-related bills into law in September, all three of which aim
to more strictly regulate oil drilling, abandoned oil well remediation, and the public health
impacts of the oil industry on neighborhoods.
But Al Ortiz, a Phillips spokesperson, said in a Wednesday statement that the decision was
not related to the new state legislation.
“The uncertainty is in reference to the refinery’s low profitability compared to other assets
in our portfolio,” Ortiz said. “The timing of this announcement is based on consideration of
multiple factors including the long-term sustainability of our Los Angeles Refinery and
market dynamics, as well as future options for the site as part of Phillips 66’s ongoing
review of its portfolio of assets.”
Ortiz also noted that Phillips doesn’t have any additional information to share about the
property’s future just yet.
“We will have more information to share when that time comes,” Ortiz said. “In the
meantime, we intend to work closely with our redevelopment firms and the local community
to determine the best future use of this land that is appropriate given the site’s history.”
Some environmental advocates, meanwhile, were critical of the decision Wednesday and
unsure whether the refinery’s closure will have positive impacts on the community later
down the line.
“This is just most likely a strategic move for Phillips,” said Janet Gunter, an environmental
activist in San Pedro. “No doubt another company will buy this and keep it in operation,
which will not help the safety factor for residents.”
Gunter underscored that the refinery is in an earthquake rupture zone and on landslide and
liquefaction areas.
“They may also use this to lobby against the much needed environmental regulatory
controls,” Gunter added.
L.A. City Councilman Tim McOsker, whose district includes the Wilmington area, called the
closure “significant,” but said it “opens the door to exciting opportunities for new jobs,
L-2
improved air quality, and innovative economic benefits in the years to come.”
“Phillips 66 shared with me their commitment to assist their employees on this transition,”
McOsker said in a statement. “I have also reached out to the city’s Economic and Workforce
Development Department, and we are prepared to assist workers affected by this change. We
will be working closely with Phillips 66, their employees, and our community to make sure
that we’re supporting all who are impacted.”
County Supervisor Janice Hahn said a key priority will be supporting workers affected by
the closure.
“We need to focus on these workers,” Hahn said in a statement. “I am going to direct our
L.A. County Department of Economic Opportunity to work with these workers to connect
them with job training and anything they need to get good paying new jobs.”
Lucia Moreno-Linares of Wilmington, a former member of the Port of Los Angeles harbor
commission, said the facility’s closure would certainly have “an impact” because Phillips is
a major employer and fuel provider for the region.
“I can’t imagine all the ramifications there will be,” Moreno-Linares said. “I understand
business decisions have to be made. I hope we can be a part of the winding down process.”
For Gina Martinez of the Wilmington Neighborhood Council, the news brought mixed
reactions.
“I really have ambivalent feelings,” she said. “It truly is the end of an era. The refinery has
provided livelihoods for so many in the area for generations, and they have been in the
community for so long. I am concerned about any displaced workers and what resources will
be available to them.”
But she added she was also “excited about what new economic opportunities will come to
Wilmington as a result of the closure.”
There was also some nostalgia over what is something of a seasonal landmark in the Harbor
Area: “I will miss Smiling Jack (a giant jack-o-lantern painted on a large tank every
Halloween heralding the company’s candy giveaway) and that delicious caramel popcorn.”
Staff writer Donna Littlejohn, City News Service and The Associated Press contributed to
this report.
L-3
Notice of Preparation for Five Points Union Project Page 1 of 6
The City of Los Angeles (City) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Five
Points Union Project (Project). In accordance with Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the City has prepared this Notice of Preparation to provide the public, nearby residents and
property owners, responsible agencies, and other interested parties with information regarding the Project and
its potential environmental effects. The EIR will be prepared by outside consultants under the supervision of the
City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning.
The City requests your written comments as to the scope and contents of the EIR, including mitigation measures
or project alternatives to reduce potential environmental impacts from the Project. Comments must be submitted
in writing according to directions below. If you represent a public agency, the City seeks written comments as to
the scope and content of the environmental information in the EIR that are germane to your agency’s statutory
responsibilities in connection with the Project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the City when
considering your permit or other approval for the Project.
Two Public Scoping Meetings, one in English and one in Spanish, will be held to receive input as to what
environmental topics the EIR should study. No decisions about the Project will be made at the Public Scoping
Meetings. Additional project details, meeting information, and instructions for public comment submittal are listed
below.
PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING ON-SITE USES: The Project Site is located within the Wilmington-
Harbor City and San Pedro Community Plan areas of the City. The Project Site is 444 acres in size and generally
bounded by West Anaheim Street to the north, the Interstate 110 Harbor Freeway (I-110 Freeway) to the east,
an undeveloped parcel adjacent to Westmont Dr. and existing industrial buildings to the south, and North Gaffey
Street to the west. A 10.21-acre portion of the Project Site is located north of West Anaheim Street and bounded
by Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park on the west, north, and east. The Project Site also includes a small, 0.08-
acre outparcel that is on the east side of the I-110 Freeway. (See attached Project Location Map)
August 14, 2025
Puede obtener información en Español acerca de esta junta llamando al (213) 847-3686.
ENVIRONMENTAL CASE NO.: ENV-2025-3744-EIR
PROJECT NAME: Five Points Union Project
PROJECT APPLICANT: Catellus-Deca, LLC
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1480-1660 West Anaheim Street, 2110-3500 North Gaffey Street, 1501 West
John S Gibson Boulevard, and three parcels without formal addresses
(APNs 7412-015-003, 7412-022-011, 7412-024-003, and 7412-025-008),
Los Angeles, 90731
COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS: Wilmington-Harbor City and San Pedro
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 15 – McOsker
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: August 14, 2025 – September 12, 2025
SCOPING MEETING: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 (English) and Thursday, August 28, 2025
(Spanish) at 5:30 PM. See below for additional information.
M-1
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
Notice of Preparation for Five Points Union Project Page 2 of 6
The Project Site is located in an urbanized area where maritime and goods movement operations associated
with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the predominant land use and are surrounded by an expansive
industrial zone to the southeast. Other uses in the greater project vicinity include industrial uses, commercial
uses, petrochemical facilities, cargo container terminals, rail yards, warehouse and logistics facilities, and related
infrastructure, recreational facilities, as well as residential uses.
The Project Site is currently developed with the 414-acre Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery (Phillips 66 Los
Angeles Refinery Wilmington [LARW]), 19-acres of storage of liquefied petroleum gas (located at 2110-2240
North Gaffey Street), a 10-acre vacant parcel located to the north of West Anaheim Street across from LARW,
and one small vacant parcel located on the southeastern portion of the Site and to the east of the I-110 Freeway.
Primary vehicular access to the LARW is provided by West Anaheim Street. There are a total of 724 trees on
the LARW site, 95 trees on the liquefied petroleum gas site, and 145 trees on the 10-acre parcel located north
of the LARW site (north of West Anaheim Street).
The Project Site is included on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites Cortese List (Government Code
Section 65962.5).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project proposes the redevelopment of the 444-acre Project Site through the
Five Points Union Specific Plan (Specific Plan), comprised of a commercial and recreational development (Town
Center) on the northern portion of the site, and an industrial development (Industrial Center) on the southern
portion of the site.
The Town Center would include 337,000 square feet of retail and food service uses (including sit down and drive-
through restaurants, grocery store, and a major retailer), a 60,000 square foot indoor sports facility, and other
community serving uses such as a 500 square foot police substation and a 5,000 square foot community
meeting/work room, totaling 402,500 square feet of floor area, with building heights up to 65 feet. The Town
Center would include surface parking and 27 acres of publicly accessible outdoor areas, including three acres
of sports fields, two playgrounds, and more than 3.5 miles of walking paths. A new approximately one-mile long
sidewalk would also be installed along North Gaffey Street.
The Industrial Center has two development options, the Reduced Outdoor Storage Option and the Additional
Outdoor Storage Option. Both Options have the same overall uses, massing, site access, and site layout, but
vary in the allocation of indoor and outdoor industrial uses within the southern-most portion of the Industrial
Center. Building heights would be permitted up to 115 feet.
Under the Reduced Outdoor Storage Option, the Project would include the development of up to 5,982,100
square feet of industrial uses; 184,000 square feet of ancillary office uses generally located within the ground
floor and mezzanines of the industrial buildings; up to 402,500 square feet of commercial and recreational uses;
and approximately 24 acres of outdoor storage uses such as trailer parking and container storage that would be
integrated with, and support, the industrial uses, for a total floor area of 6,568,600 square feet. (See Illustrative
Site Plan Reduced Outdoor Storage Option)
Under the Additional Outdoor Storage Option, Building 8, located on the southeastern portion of the Industrial
Center, would be reduced by 664,000 square feet to provide for an increase in the outdoor storage areas from
24 acres to 52 acres. Under this Option, the total floor area would be 5,904,600 square feet. (See Illustrative
Site Plan Additional Outdoor Storage Option)
The Project would provide vehicular and pedestrian access improvements, including a new truck tunnel, located
near an existing truck tunnel beneath the I-110 Freeway connecting the southeast portion of the Project Site to
John S. Gibson Boulevard. Surface parking for vehicles and truck trailers, and landscaped areas would be
provided.
M-2
Notice of Preparation for Five Points Union Project Page 3 of 6
Approximately 199,700 square feet of existing floor area would be removed, along with the removal of existing
large-scale bulk liquid storage tanks, refinery process units, other refinery-related equipment and structures, and
equipment related to the storage of liquefied petroleum gas. Demolition and removal activities would be followed
by remediation of the Project Site and then construction of new buildings and site improvements.
Table 1
Proposed Developmenta
Project Component/Land Use Reduced Outdoor Storage Option
(sf/ac/mi)
Additional Outdoor Storage
Option
(sf/ac/mi)
Industrial Center
High-Cube Fulfillment Center—Sort 2,000,000a sf 2,000,000a sf
High Cube Fulfillment Center—Non-Sort 3,982,100a sf 3,318,100a sf
Office—Ground Floor Accessory to
Industrial Uses
104,000 sf 104,000 sf
Office—Mezzanine Accessory to
Industrial Uses
80,000 sf 80,000 sf
Total Industrial Building Floor Area 6,166,100 sf 5,502,100 sf
Town Center
Commercial/Retail (including 500 sf police
substation)
270,000 sf 270,000 sf
Foodb 67,500 sf 67,500 sf
Community Work/Meeting Space 5,000 sf 5,000 sf
Indoor Sports Facility 60,000 sf 60,000 sf
Total Commercial/Recreational Uses 402,500 sf 402,500 sf
Total Floor Area 6,568,600 sf 5,904,600 sf
Outdoor Storage Areas 24 ac 52 ac
Community Outdoor Areas
Outdoor Sports Fields 3 ac 3 ac
Active and Passive Outdoor Areas
within Town Center
27 ac 27 ac
Walking Paths within Town Center 3.5 mi 3.5 mi
ac = acres
mi = miles
sf = square feet
a The Specific Plan would allow for the exchange of high-cube fulfillment center sort square footage and associated
ancillary ground floor office uses to non-sort square footage on a one-to-one basis in order to respond to future market
demands.
b The Project includes a total of 337,500 square feet of commercial/retail development within the Town Center. In both
Options, this includes 270,000 square feet of non-restaurant commercial/retail uses (including grocery store). The
remaining 67,500 square feet of commercial/retail uses may be developed as either restaurant uses or non-restaurant
commercial/retail uses. To provide a conservative environmental analysis, all 67,500 square feet will be analyzed as
restaurant uses to account for the greater trip, water, and other utility demands of restaurant uses as compared to other
non-food service commercial/retail uses.
Source: Catellus-Deca, LLC, 2025.
M-3
Notice of Preparation for Five Points Union Project Page 4 of 6
REQUESTED ACTIONS:
1. General Plan Amendment to the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan to change the Open Space
and Heavy Industrial land use designations and the San Pedro Community Plan to change the Light
Industrial and Heavy Industrial land use designations and to add a Footnote to each respective
Community Plan establishing the proposed Five Points Union Project Specific Plan as the land use
regulatory document for the Project Site, and to include the Five Points Union Zone as a corresponding
zone to the proposed land use designations;
2. Vesting Zone Change from A1-1XL-O, [Q]M3-1, M3-1VL, and M2-1VL (Wilmington-Harbor City
Community Plan), and [Q]M3-2D-CPIO and [Q]M2-2D-CPIO (San Pedro Community Plan) to the Five
Points Union Zone; and a corresponding Code Amendment to add the Zone;
3. A Community Plan Implementation Overlay (CPIO) Amendment to the San Pedro CPIO to remove the
Project Site from the San Pedro CPIO Boundary;
4. Establishment of a Specific Plan to regulate development within the Project Site;
5. Establishment of a Signage Supplemental Use District to regulate signage within the Project Site;
6. A Coastal Development Permit for related roadway improvements a portion of which may be in the
California Coastal Zone;
7. A phased Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the Project Site into 29 lots; and a haul route for the
export of up to 1,250,000 cubic yards and up to 1,000,000 cubic yards of import of soil;
8. Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq.;
9. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report; and
10. City of Los Angeles discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals that are or may be required,
including but not limited to temporary street closure permits, grading permits, excavation permits, haul
route approvals, street tree removal approvals, foundation permits, retaining walls, sign permits, water,
electricity, and other utility approvals, approvals for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements,
and Specific Plan Project Compliance and administrative clearances.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT: The proposed Project could have potentially
significant environmental impacts in the following topic areas, which will be addressed in the EIR: Aesthetics,
Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, 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 and Vibration, Population and Housing, Public Services (Fire,
Police, Schools, Parks, and Libraries), Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and
Service Systems (Solid Waste, Water, Wastewater, Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications), and
Wildfire.
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING: Two Public Scoping Meetings, one in English and one in Spanish, will be held in
an online virtual format to share information regarding the Project and the environmental review process. City
staff, environmental consultants, and Project representatives will be available during this meeting which will begin
with a presentation. The City encourages all interested individuals and organizations to attend this meeting. After
the Public Scoping Meeting has ended, a copy of the prerecorded presentation can be requested by contacting
the Staff Planner listed below. A separate more detailed instructions page is included in this communication. No
M-4
Notice of Preparation for Five Points Union Project Page 5 of 6
decisions about the Project will be made at the Public Scoping Meetings. A separate public hearing for
entitlement requests will be scheduled after the completion of the EIR. The date, time, and virtual location of the
Public Scoping Meetings are as follows:
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING- ENGLISH
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025
Time: 5:30 PM
Virtual Location: Visit https://planning-lacity-org.zoom.us/j/84659046216 or by phone dial US: +1 213
338 8477 or +1 669 900 9128, and enter Webinar ID: 846 5904 6216 followed by #. When prompted
for a participant ID, please press #.
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING-SPANSIH
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2025
Time: 5:30 PM
Virtual Location: Visit https://planning-lacity-org.zoom.us/j/85033249246 or by phone dial US: +1 213
338 8477 or +1 669 900 9128, and enter Webinar ID: 850 3324 9246, followed by #. When prompted
for a participant ID, please press #.
FILE REVIEW AND COMMENTS: The enclosed materials reflect the scope of the Project. The environmental
file is available for public review at the City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, 221 North Figueroa
Street, Room 1350, Los Angeles, CA 90012, during office hours Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. To review
the file, please contact the Staff Planner listed below to schedule an appointment. A copy of this notice and the
Project Description prepared for the Project may be viewed with the environmental file or online at
https://planning.lacity.gov/development-services/eir. Type the Project name or environmental case number into
the search box.
The City will consider all written comments regarding the potential environmental impacts of the Project and
issues to be addressed in the EIR. If you wish to submit comments, please reference the Environmental Case
No. above, and submit them in writing by Friday September 12, 2025, no later than 4:30 p.m.
Please direct your comments to:
Mail: Kathleen King
City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning
221 North Figueroa Street, Room 1350
Los Angeles, CA 90012
E-mail: kathleen.king@lacity.org
ACCOMMODATIONS: As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los
Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability. Sign language interpreters may be provided upon
request. Other services, such as translation between English and other languages, may also be provided upon
written request submitted a minimum of seven (7) working days in advance to: per.planning@lacity.org. Be sure
to identify the language you need English to be translated into, and indicate if the request is for oral or written
translation services. If translation of a written document is requested, please include the document to be
translated as an attachment to your email. As stated above a Public Scoping Meeting will be held in Spanish on
Thursday August 28, 2025.
M-5
Notice of Preparation for Five Points Union Project Page 6 of 6
VINCENT P. BERTONI, AICP
Director of Planning
Kathleen King
Major Projects Section
Department of City Planning
(213) 847-3624
Attachments:
Project Location Map
Illustrative Site Plan Reduced Outdoor Storage Option
Illustrative Site Plan Additional Outdoor Storage Option
Illustrative Town Center
Conceptual Rendering Town Center
Scoping Meeting Instructions English and Spanish
M-6
Terminal Island
V
e
n
t
u
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
L
o
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sherman Oaks
Calabasas
Malibu
Santa Monica
Santa Clarita
Chatsworth
Warner Center
Granada Hills
Porter Ranch
Mission Hills
Sun Valley
North Hollywood
Woodland Hills Encino
Culver City
Pasadena
Hollywood
Beverly Hills
Inglewood
HuntingtonPark
LosAngeles El Monte
Montbello
Whittier
Santa Fe Springs
Downey
Monterey Park
La MiradaParamountCompton
CerritosGardena
CarsonTorrance Lakewood
Rancho PalosVerdes
San Pedro
Long Beach
US101
US101
US101
210INTERSTATE
210INTERSTATE
10INTERSTATE
10INTERSTATE
605INTERSTATE
710INTERSTATE
605INTERSTATE
105INTERSTATE
5INTERSTATE
5INTERSTATE
5INTERSTATE
5INTERSTATE
405INTERSTATE
405INTERSTATE
405INTERSTATE
405INTERSTATE
90CALIFO
91CALIFORNIA
47CALIFORNIA
110CALIFORNIA
110CALIFORNIA
107CALIFORNIA
1CALIFORNIA
1CALIFORNIA
1CALIFORNIA
1CALIFORNIA
2CALIFORNIA23CALIFORNIA
27CALIFORNIA
118CALIFORNIA118CALIFORNIA
126CALIFORNIA
126CALIFORNIA
14CALIFORNIA
27CALIFORNIA
2CALIFORNIA
2CALIFORNIA
90CALIFORNIA
42CALIFORNIA
213CALIFORNIA 39CALIFORNIA
60CALIFO
72CALIFORNIA
134CALIFORNIA
170CALIFORNIA
19CALIFORNIA
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
q
u
e
d
u
c
t
Pacific
O
c
e
a
n
North Hollywood
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
12 6 0 12
n
Baldwin Park
La Puente
HaciendaHeights
West Covina
Project
Site
110
110
213
47
W A naheim St
W A
n
a
heim
S
t
Verm
o
n
t
A
v
e
Verm
o
n
t
A
v
e
Palos Verdes DrPalos Verdes Dr
Westmont DrWestmont Dr
Summerland AveSummerland Ave
Capito
l
D
r
Capito
l
D
r
N
G
a
e
y
S
t
Project
Site
Project Location Map
Source: Eyestone Environmental, 2025.
110110
M-7
f J/
/
. .
/
l
··-··-··-·
I . . \ 1:.-•■-■■-._. ··-·· . .
-----~~~~-l---'"i..:.:,;··~~ •• '
·,
• .
\ . .
:I
\
.
N
So
u
r
c
e
:
W
a
r
e
M
a
l
c
o
m
b
,
2
0
2
5
.
Il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
–
O
p
t
i
o
n
1
,
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
M-8
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
0
N
So
u
r
c
e
:
W
a
r
e
M
a
l
c
o
m
b
,
2
0
2
5
.
Il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
–
O
p
t
i
o
n
2
,
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
M-9
' ' \
\
\ ,,-----,_ \/ ---, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
0
N
So
u
r
c
e
:
R
I
O
S
,
2
0
2
5
.
Il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
–
Tow
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
M-10
l i· r
---j -----1 .
0
So
u
r
c
e
:
A
O
,
2
0
2
5
.
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
R
e
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
-
V
i
e
w
o
f
Tow
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
u
r
i
n
g
F
a
r
m
e
r
’
s
M
a
r
k
e
t
M-11
Five Points Union Project Scoping Meeting—English
RE: Zoom Meeting Instructions for Five Points Union Project Scoping Meeting—1480–1660
West Anaheim Street, 2110–3500 North Gaffey Street, 1501 West John S Gibson Boulevard, and
three parcels without formal addresses (APNs 7412-015-003, 7412-022-011, 7412-024-003, and
7412-025-008), Los Angeles, 90731
How to participate in the Virtual Public Scoping Meeting
Thank you for participating in the Virtual Public Scoping Meeting. In this meeting you will learn
more about The Five Points Union Project (ENV-2025-3744-EIR) and have an opportunity to ask
questions about the Project as well as provide input as to what environmental topics the
Environmental Impact Report of the Project should study. For this Virtual Public Scoping Meeting
we will be using Zoom as our virtual platform. To participate you will need access to a computer,
tablet, smartphone, or telephone. Please follow the instructions below to participate.
1) Join the meeting via your computer, smartphone, or tablet. You may use the link on the Notice
of Preparation or go to zoom.us and enter the Webinar ID 846 5904 6216.
2) Or, join the meeting via phone dial: US: +1 669 900 9128 or +1 213 338 8477, and when
prompted, enter the Webinar ID 846 5904 6216 followed by #. When prompted for a participant
ID, please press #.
3) Listen to the presentation.
4) Ask Questions: After the presentation has ended, raise your hand via the raise hand button on
the Zoom platform (or press *9 on your phone). Staff will call out each person wishing to speak
and will unmute you for the duration of your comment or question.
5) Submit Public Comment after the meeting to Department of City Planning staff through regular
mail or e-mail. Please follow instructions on the Notice of Preparation.
Note: If you experience any technical difficulties during the meeting: Click the hand raise button
(if using a computer) or press *9 if using a telephone.
DEPARTMENT OF
CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OFFICE (213) 978 -1300
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONIQUE LAWSHE
PRESIDENT VACANT
VICE-PRESIDENT
MARIA CABILDO
CAROLINE CHOE
MARTINA DIAZ
PHYLLIS KLEIN
KAREN MACK
JACOB SAITMAN
ELIZABETH ZAMORA
City of Los Angeles
C ALIFORNIA
KAREN BASS
MAYOR
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM 525
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-4801
(213) 978-1271
VINCENT P. BERTONI, AICP
DIRECTOR KEVIN J. KELLER, AICP
EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHANA M.M. BONSTIN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR HAYDEE URITA-LOPEZ
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
ARTHI L. VARMA, AICP
DEPUTY DIRECTOR LISA M. WEBBER, AICP
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
M-12
1N-1
£ [¥)~@[¥)@~mew ~rnw \JD~□@~
CF@~ voorn [¥)00 □[L[L □[¥)~ ®® ~□vrn
PROJECT
SITE
•Includes Rancho LPG
•Industrial zoning for main
property, open space
zoning for northern lot
•History of industrial uses on
main property
•Ongoing remediation; will
continue and be
expanded
Ken Malloy
Harbor
Regional Park
FIVE
POINTS
N-2
75 Acres of Community Uses
The Town Center
~1 Mile of Street Frontage
N-3
I
I
l I
i :
I I I
I I I
\
' '
♦·----I -...._ -----I - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AHEIM COMMUNITY CO
Industrial
I
I
OUR COMMUNITY OUTREACH
TO DATE
•Presented to all 5 Neighborhood Councils and their PLUM Committees
•Met with staff and board members of local groups and nonprofits
•Flyered at numerous community events (First Thursday, 5k Run/Walks,
etc)
•Talked with parents at school coffees & students at LA Harbor College
•Coffees with individuals, including local artists and neighbors
•Door-knocked every home in eastern neighborhood and left flyers; hosting
a community lunch
N-4
TOP 10
Community
Priorities
What we heard and what we are delivering
1 2 3 4 5
N-5
Shopping, Food,
Major Retailer
Sports
Fields ... with
Restrooms!
Town Center Flex Space:
Farmer's Market
& Pop-ups
Community
Meeting & Work
Space
TOP 10
Community
Priorities
What we heard and what we are delivering
6 7 8 9 10
N-6
Playgrounds
& Walking Paths
Local Artist
Showcase
Crocery Store Make it Safe! Honor Smilin'
Jack!
Community Site Plan
N-7
Community Site Plan
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
N-8
Community Site Plan
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
N-9
Community Site Plan
Restrooms &
Concession
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
N-10
Community Site Plan
Town
Center
Restrooms &
Concession
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
N-11
Community Site Plan
Flex
Space Community
Meeting &
Work Space
Town
Center
Restrooms &
Concession
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
N-12
Community Site Plan
Flex
Space Community
Meeting &
Work Space
Play-ground
Play-ground
Town
Center
Restrooms &
Concession
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
N-13
Community Site Plan
Flex
Space Community
Meeting &
Work Space
Play-ground
Play-ground
Town
Center
Artists Showcase
Restrooms &
Concession
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
N-14
Community Site Plan
Flex
Space Community
Meeting &
Work Space
Play-ground
Walking Paths Play-ground
Town
Center
Artists Showcase
Restrooms &
Concession
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
Underpass Connection
to Ken Malloy Park
Ken Malloy Park Connection
N-15
Community Site Plan
Flex
Space Community
Meeting &
Work Space
Play-ground
Grocery
Walking Paths Play-ground
Town
Center
Artists Showcase
Restrooms &
Concession
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
Underpass Connection
to Ken Malloy Park
Ken Malloy Park Connection
N-16
Community Site Plan
Flex
Space Community
Meeting &
Work Space
Play-ground
Grocery
Police Substation
Walking Paths Play-ground
Town
Center
Artists Showcase
Restrooms &
Concession
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
Underpass Connection
to Ken Malloy Park
Ken Malloy Park Connection
N-17
Community Site Plan
Flex
Space Community
Meeting &
Work Space
Play-ground
Grocery
Police Substation
Smilin’ Jack!
Walking Paths Play-ground
Town
Center
Artists Showcase
Restrooms &
Concession
Sports Fields
Major Retailer
Shopping &
Food
Underpass Connection
to Ken Malloy Park
Ken Malloy Park Connection
N-18
Gateway Entrance
N-19
GATEWAY ENTRANCE
Dining & Arts Corner N-20
Garden
Retail/
Food
GATEWAY ENTRANCE
At Entry Driveway, Looking Southeast N-21
GATEWAY ENTRANCE
At Entry Driveway, Looking South into Site
GATEWAY ENTRANCE
At Entry Driveway, Looking South into Site N-22
Sports & Recreation Facilities
N-23
SPORTS & RECREATION
Indoor & Outdoor Facilities
Indoor Sports Facility
Snack Bar & Restrooms
Two Full Size Soccer
Fields
Ken Malloy
Park Connection
N-24I *
SPORTS & RECREATION
Soccer Fields N-25
SPORTS & RECREATION
Indoor Sports Facility N-26
TOWN CENTER & RECREATION
Looking West on Anaheim St.N-27
Town Center
N-28
TOWN CENTER
Gathering Space, Retail & Food *N-29I
Anaheim
Health Loop
Nature Discovery
Linear Park
Town Center
Seating
Retail/
Food
--Anaheim Street
Temporary Plaza
Extension Safety Bollards
Seasonal Local Art
Installations
TOWN CENTER
Community Space & Event Lawn N-30
TOWN CENTER
Plaza Extension N-31
TOWN CENTER
Farmers’ Market & Pop-Up Space N-32
TOWN CENTER
Flex Space & Community Activation N-33
TownCeht er
stepped Seafi ~,
Pedestriani
Town Center P
Extension
Town Center
Flex Space!
Family Play Slope Park
N-34
FAMILY PLAY SLOPE PARK
Playgrounds & Parks *N-35
~ ...... ,,,._
Local Creative 1
Nature Discovery
Trail
tr:\
Play Slides
Play Terrace
Family
Plaza
Accessible
Walk
Garden
FAMILY PLAY SLOPE PARK
Natural Play N-36
FAMILY PLAY SLOPE PARK
Natural Play N-37
Family Walking Paths
N-38
Family Walking Paths
N-39
FAMILY WALKING PATHS
Linear Park & Trails
Town Center Lawn
Town Center Seating
Nature Discovery
Linear Park
Accessible Walkway
N-40I
FAMILY WALKING PATHS
Linear Park & Trails N-41
FAMILY WALKING PATHS
Linear Park & Trails N-42
Grocery & Plaza
N-43
GROCERY & FOOD
Shopping & Food Options
Linear Park
Retail Anchor Plaza
Police Substation
N-44
G ocer Retail Retail Ret~il
Retail/
Food
GROCERY & FOOD
Shopping & Food Options N-45
Smilin’ Jack Gateway Park
N-46
GATEWAY PARK
Playgrounds & Open Space
Underpass Connection
to Ken Malloy Park
N-47
Play and _.\~---,l ,
Fitness Loop
Ken Malloy
Regional Park
GATEWAY PARK
Playgrounds & Open Space N-48
GATEWAY PARK
Smilin’ Jack Play Structure N-49
GATEWAY PARK
View from Atop Smilin’ Jack!N-50
EXISTING P66 REFINERY & RANCHO LPG SITE
N-51
PROPOSED NEW VISION
N-52
PROPOSED NEW VISION
N-53
PROPOSED NEW VISION
N-54
COMMERCE CENTER
•Eight industrial buildings provide
economic driver for this
project
•Specific Plan will allow
warehousing and manufacturing uses
•Largest buildings are
distant from Anaheim
•Buildings range in size from ~230k
sf to ~1.5M sf
N-55
BUILDING 4
GFA: ±947,100
TRUCK ACCESS
•Truck Access from John S.
Gibson Only
•Will utilize existing tunnel
under 110 Freeway, and
construct a new tunnel
adjacent
•Physical barriers will
prevent trucks from
using Anaheim or
Gaffey
N-56
INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS: :4 ;ASSENGER CARS:
◄
◄
..
►
TRUCK ACCESS
•Truck Access from John S.
Gibson Only
•Will utilize existing tunnel
under 110 Freeway, and
construct a new tunnel
adjacent
•Physical barriers will
prevent trucks from
using Anaheim or
Gaffey
N-57
BUILDI GS
GFA: ±856,000
BUILDI G 7
GFA: ±927,000
\\
RV BRIDGES Bl~
VEHICLE CIRCULATION LEGEND
INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS: ◄◄•·------•►
PASSENGER CARS: ◄◄--------►~
CAR
ACCESS
N-58
INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS: ◄-------.aa--...
...
aa.DINli•
GfA:.d47.100
aa.DINlill
Gf LU7.000
\ \
IULOIIG7
GIA: 1.000
.-,caa·
COMMERCE CENTER
•Significant setbacks
from Gaffey Street
410 FT
405 FT
240 FT
430 FT
280 FT
495 FT
200 FT
180 FT
N-59
BUILDING 1
GFA : ±579,000
BUILDING4
GFA: ±947,100
BUILDINGS
GFA: ± 750,000
BUILDING 2
GFA: ±399,000
BUILDINGS
GFA: ±1,477,000
BUILDING 5
GFA: ±856,000
BUILDING 7
GFA: ±927,000
Gaffey View –looking south from
Five Points N-60
Gaffey View –looking south from
Grocery N-61
<
Gaffey View –looking south from Commerce
Center N-62
Continue the Discussion!
Contact:
•heather.crossner@catellus-deca.com
310-692-4759
•rafael.garcia@catellus-deca.com
310-692-4359
N-63
... ..t,
CAT'ELLus·· ciec:a
LOS ANGELES
Waste project tunnel collapses
Construction halts in Wilmington; 31 workers rescued and
uninjured
BY CHRISTINA MERINO, ANDREA KLICK AND DONNA LITTLEJOHN
A worker looks down the shaft to the tunnel of the Clearwater Tunneling Project site in
Wilmington on Thursday. The project is being constructed to move wastewater from
Carson to San Pedro. Thirty-one workers, aided by rescuers, made it out safely after a
stretch of tunnel under construction collapsed in Wilmington on Wednesday. Dean
Musgrove — staff photographer
O-1
STAFF WRITERS
An investigation is underway to determine what led to a tunnel, under construction for the
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, to partially collapse in Wilmington on Wednesday
night — prompting the rescue of 31 employees and a halt to work for an undetermined
amount of time.
None of the employees had visible injuries, said Brian Humphrey, a spokesperson for the
Los Angeles Fire Department.
More than 100 firefighters responded around 8 p.m. near Figueroa Street and Lomita
Boulevard, including members of an urban search-and-rescue team. By 9:15 p.m., all of the
workers were safely out of the tunnel, Humphrey said.
The workplace site is east of the 110 Freeway and north of Pacific Coast Highway.
The tunnel, which measures 18 feet in diameter, is the $630 million Clearwater Tunneling
Project and is being constructed to move wastewater from Carson to San Pedro. It collapsed
about 5 to 6 miles south of the tunnel’s only access point, Humphrey said.
The workers had water up to their mid-thighs, said Interim Chief Ronnie Villanueva of the
Los Angeles Fire Department.
Of the 31 workers, 27 were trapped by the partial collapse of the tunnel, and then four others
went in to try to help them, Villanueva said.
“A section that they had already built had squeezing ground and had a partial collapse,” said
Robert Ferrante, lead engineer with the L.A. County Sanitation Districts. “It didn’t
completely fill the tunnel.”
That allowed the men to get through that area and get to a vehicle to get back to the shaft.
“There was only one way out at that time to get them back here to the shaft,” Ferrante said.
“It was very scary. We’re very fortunate no one was hurt, and the response was phenomenal
to get everyone checked out.”
Investigators believe some of the trapped workers pushed over a pile of loose soil between
12 feet and 15 feet tall to meet some of their co-workers on the other side and be shuttled
several at a time to the access point on the surface.
Workers were brought out of the tunnel in a cage hoisted up by a crane.
“These workers are highly skilled men,” said L.A. Councilman Tim McOsker, whose district
includes Wilmington. “This is a highly technical, difficult project and they knew exactly
what to do. They knew how to secure themselves; they knew how to get to the (vehicle) to
get them back.”
O-2
The workers were 400 feet below ground, operating a boring machine and working in shifts,
driving a vehicle to and from the machine, Ferrante said.
Before workers started escaping the tunnel collapse, worried family members had gathered
nearby.
Maria Orozco arrived to West Q Street and Figueroa Street and had her hands pressed
against her chest. Following behind was her daughter’s family from Los Angeles.
Orozco has three sons who are working on the project.
“I’m waiting for my sons,” she said in Spanish. “I need to know for sure if they’re safe; I
have three sons working here, and they’re not answering their phones.
“I was at church and today, it was my daughter’s turn to pray and I asked her to pray for my
sons,” she said. “I think in that moment was when they were facing this problem.
“During church, I don’t have my phone on but once I checked it I saw I had many missed
calls,” she said. “Then my daughter let me know that something was wrong. I really felt it in
my heart that something happened, that’s when she let me know that the tunnel had
collapsed.
“The truth is I’m feeling a lot of sadness at the moment, because I’m yet to know how
they’re doing,” she said.
Later, she said, “One of my sons called me to let me know that they had gotten out.”
The three sons live in Los Angeles, Long Beach and Signal Hill and all have families of their
own, she said. She has twins who are 35 and the youngest son who is 30.
“They have their own children as well who were worried,” Orozco said. “I want to see them, I
want to see them.”
Chief Villanueva reassured Orozco that all the workers were fine and were being seen by
paramedics.
“Don’t worry,” he told Orozco. “I saw all of them, and it looks like they’re all fine.”
The mother let out a sigh of relief.
Authorities said the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will investigate the
collapse, which is standard with workplace accidents, in addition to the Sanitation Districts
itself.
“We don’t have any information about the nature of the collapse yet,” said Michael Chee,
spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
O-3
“What I just got a report on is that 31 crew members were down in the tunnel,” he said.
“They have all been extricated safely. There are no significant or major injuries that I know
of.
“We understand that our crew that was working down in the tunnel boring machine, which is
approximately 5 miles heading towards the coast from this point, and it was designed to
build the tunnel about 7 miles long before it reached the coast.”
Mayor Karen Bass said she talked to workers and said they were relieved and had been
calling their families.
Planning for the tunneling project began as early as 2006. The aim was to replace two aging
underground wastewater pipes, which were installed in 1937 and in 1958. The project was
officially approved in 2021 and expected to take approximately three to four years to
complete.
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts is conducting one probe that will be done with
Flatiron West and Dragados USA, which are constructing what is called the Clearwater
Tunnel.
“The investigation will look at the safety, engineering and structural integrity of the tunnel
and has already begun,” the Sanitation Districts said in a statement. “Clearwater Tunnel
operations have been halted while this investigation takes place and there is no time frame
for how long the process will take.”
Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who also sits on the Sanitation Districts board,
said the agency “will do everything we can to prevent anything else like this from
happening again.”
Staff writers Mona Darwish, Kristy Hutchings and Nathaniel Percy contributed to this story.
O-4
Clearwater Project Update
October 27, 2025
Rescue and recovery operations to gain entry into the Clearwater Tunnel to inspect
and determine the status of our tunnel boring machine are expected to continue for
many weeks. Permission to re-enter our tunnel to conduct inspections and repairs is
under the authority of the State of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (DOSH), better known as Cal/OSHA. As of this last week of October, several
drilling attempts to verify the geology have been made, or are in progress, on Western
Avenue, just west of South Weymouth Avenue. Commuters will notice traffic control
in the southbound lanes to allow drilling to continue. This work is expected to last for
several weeks from Monday to Friday between the hours of 9AM and 3PM. Drilling
activity may last through the end of the year depending on weather and drilling condi-
tions. Some Saturday drilling may be necessary to help expedite the process and will
be posted and communicated on this page and our Clearwater social media. Drilling in
this area is directly above the breach in the tunnel and multiple boreholes are needed in
order for engineers to accurately assess the conditions at a depth of approximately 360
feet. We hope to use cameras and other advanced imaging systems to get an accu-
rate picture of tunnel conditions at this depth. This will allow us to submit our findings
to Cal/OSHA in order to gain permission to access the tunnel from its entry point in
Carson, which is the only way in or out of the tunnel. We want to make sure all safety
concerns are appropriately addressed.
All work at Royal Palms Beach is stopped. The California Office of Historic Preserva-
tion is in the process of compiling their findings related to the discovery of indigenous
artifacts at this site as a result of digging and preparation work for construction of the
Clearwater Tunnel arrival infrastructure. No construction work is currently being per-
formed and there is no timeframe or date set as to when it may resume. Updates or
changes will be posted here and our social media channels as soon as they are known.
P-1
....._ LOS ANGELES COUNTY
~ SANITATION DISTRICTS
~ Converting Waste Into Resources
CLEARWATER
PROJECT
clearwater.lacsd.org
ClearwaterProjectLA
📞 877-300-WATER
CONSTRUCTION/TRAFFIC UPDATE
No drilling will take place during the week of
Thanksgiving, November 24-30. Drilling and
traffic control will start again on Monday,
December 1, and is expected to continue
regularly for the next several months. These
activities may be affected by winter weather and
rain, with same-day decisions made on whether
drilling will occur.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
As of: November 24, 2025
Working Monday – Friday
Hours: 9:00 am to 3:30 pm
Duration: Ongoing & Continuous
Residents, businesses, and commuters
should expect traffic control from Monday to
Friday between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm whenever
conditions permit. Some Saturday drilling and
traffic control may also occur. For information
and details about this project please visit
clearwater.lacsd.org. Questions or concerns?
Please contact Maria Rosales-Ramirez at
mrosales@lacsd.org or (562) 908-4288, ext. 2311.
We appreciate your patience and cooperation
during this important recovery work.
W W e y m o u t h P l
W 7TH St
W 5TH St
S
W
e
y
m
o
u
t
h
A
v
e
S
D
o
d
s
o
n
A
v
e
S W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Location of
Drilling
Tunnel Path
1 Q-1
...._. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
~ SANITATION DISTRICTS
~ Converting Waste Into Resources