Loading...
CC - Item 3A - PH Zone Change 05-223~ • ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ., ~~ FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 28,.2008 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 05-223 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET BETWEEN EARLE AVENUE AND ROCKHOLD AVENUE (APN: 5371-013-801) SUMMARY First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley is proposing a satellite parking lot on an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue. The parking lot will provide 148 off-street parking spaces for members and guests, which will eliminate the need to park on public streets adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the Church. First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley is located at 3658 Walnut Grove Avenue, approximately two blocks east from the project site. Since the project area is located in the A-1 (Light Agricultural) zone, a zone change application is required to change the northern 2.56 acres of the 4.01 acre site to P (Automobile Parking). ~. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the, City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as recommended by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2008, and ADOPT Ordinance No. 867, thereby APPROVING Zone Change 05-223. ANALYSIS The Zone Change application is a request to change the current zoning designation of the northern 2.56 acres of a 4.01 acre site from A-1 (Light Agricultural) to P (Automobile Parking) for the development of a surface parking lot. The P zone is designed to support open air, temporary parking of transient automobiles. The proposed use of the site is consistent with the current land uses of the City of Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Matrix (Table. 2-2) of .the General Plan, all zones are permitted under the Public Facilities land use designation. The parking. lot would provide 148 additional parking spaces, including 145 standard spaces and three (3) handicapped accessible spaces. The Church intends to maintain the existing nursery tenant within the remaining southern 1.45 acres of the SCE site. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ~ • • City Council Meeting October 28, 2008 Page 2 of 2 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley would operate the parking lot on Sundays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., and on Friday evenings between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00. p.m. The Church would provide .shuttle services between the parking lot and the Church to reduce pedestrian traffic. When the parking lot is not in use, the vans would be stored at the Church. In order to provide nighttime safety and security lighting, 17 light standards are proposed ,throughout the parking area. The lights would be shielded and directed downward to minimize'the amount of light that extends off-site. In order to improve the overall aesthetics of the site, the applicant proposes to landscape approximately 10,362 square feet of the parking lot. A 15'-0" landscaped setback is proposed along Marshall Street and a 10'-0" landscaped setback is proposed along the east and west property lines of the parking lot. New fencing and block walls are also proposed throughout the site. On October 6, 2008, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing. At this public hearing, the Commissioners received comments in opposition to the project from residents who reside adjacent to the project site. Several comment letters were also received during the initial public review period, which have been included in Attachment C. Upon hearing all testimonies from the applicant and the public, the Commission recommended approval of this project to the City Council with additional project mitigation measures. The Planning Commission also made findings of environmental adequacy and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Prepared by: Sheri Bermejo Senior Planner. Sub e y: Br' S ki Assistant City Manager Attachment A: Ordinance 867 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 6, 2008 Attachment C: Memo to Planning Commission, dated October 2, 2008 Attachment D: Planning Commission Resolution 08 26 Attachment E: Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment F: Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment G: Findings Attachment H: Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 6, 2008 Attachment I: Architectural Plans • Ordinance No. 867 Zone Change 05-223 Page 1 of 7. ORDINANCE NO. 867 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-223, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM A-1 (LIGHT AGRICULTURAL) TO P (AUTOMOBILE PARKING) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SURFACE PARKING LOT ON THE NORTHERN 2.56 ACRES OF A 4.01 ACRE SITE LOCATED IN AN EXISTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT- OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET BETWEEN EARLE AVENUE AND ROCKHOLD AVENUE, AND COMMONLY-KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 5371-013-801, PER THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSOR'S CURRENT TAX ROLL. WHEREAS, First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley filed a Zone Change application to change the existing A-1 (Light Agricultural) zone to a P (Automobile Parking) zone for the development of a surface parking lot on the existing Southern California Edison right-of-way, located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue, and commonly known as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 5371- 013-801, per the Los Angeles County Assessor's .current tax roll, and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted Zoning Ordinance and associated maps, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, approval of Zone Change 05-223 would designate the northern 2.56 acres of the 4.01 acre property as P (Automobile Parking) allowing open air, temporary parking of transient automobiles; and WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 17, and Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes and sets standards for approval of zone change applications and governs development of private properties; and WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve zone change applications whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practices justify such action; and WHEREAS, City of Rosemead policy encourages consistency of its Zoning Code with the General Plan and promotes separation of conflicting land uses through good planning practices; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2008, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission considered Zone Change 05-223, for the development of a surface parking lot and ATTACHMENT A • Ordinance No. 867 Zone Change 05-223 Page 2 of 7 • recommended approval to the City Council after the Commission made findings that the proposed application with incorporated mitigation measures will not have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, public notices were posted in several public locations and mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on October 6,2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony, and after hearing all testimonies from the public and the applicant, the Commission recommended approval to the City Council of Zone Change 05-223; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2008 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08- 26, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 05-223; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008 the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to Zone Change 05-223; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them and hereby make the following determination: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will not have a potential significant environmental impact. This conclusion is based upon the Lead Agency's determination through the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration containing proposed mitigation measures that the project will not have a significant impact on the .environment per the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared according to CEQA guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own discretionary and independent judgment in reaching the above conclusion. The City Council, therefore, hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed zone change and parking lot project. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(v)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential adverse effects on wildlife resources or the habitat Ordinance No. 867 Zone Change 05-223 Page 3 of 7 upon which the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby finds that any presumption of adverse impacts has been adequately rebutted. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 735.5(a)(3), the City Council finds that the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat resources. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES that placing the northern 2.56 acres of the 4.01 acre site in the P (Automobile Parking) zone will provide an improved level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the existing neighborhood where the development is proposed. Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS that Zone Change 05-223 meets the City's goals and objectives as follows: A. Land Use: The General Plan designation will remain Public Facilities and will allow for the proposed parking lot to be consistent with City codes and land uses in the surrounding area. The general plan Public Facilities land use designation is designed to support public facilities, including educational facilities, parks, utilities and other governmental activities, as well as quasi-public uses, such as public utilities easements, private schools, and institutional activities. The proposed zoning of the site is consistent with the current land. uses of the City of Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Matrix (Table 2-2) of the General Plan, all zones are permitted under the Public Facilities land use designation. Furthermore, the existing right-of-way will continue to be used to support the existing electrical transmission towers, and the parking lot will support an institutional use. B. Circulation: A traffic assessment was completed by Katz Okitsu and Associates on June 20, 2008, which concluded that the new parking lot will not result in an increase in traffic that would cause congestion. The proposed parking lot will eliminate the need for Church members and guests to park along Marshall Street and Walnut Grove Avenue in close proximity to the Church during Sunday services and church events on Friday evenings. The parking lot will operate Sundays, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., and on Friday evenings between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Church will provide shuttle services between the SCE site and the Church site to reduce pedestrian traffic. C. Housing: The proposed project will not induce substantial new population growth nor displace existing housing units or people. The new parking lot will partially replace an existing wholesale plant nursery. The project site is designated Public Facilities in the General Plan. Since the site is located directly below high-voltage transmission lines and towers, the site is not suitable for residential development. • Ordinance No. 867 Zone Change 05-223 Page 4 of 7 D. Resource Management: The proposed development is located in a developed urban area, and as such, will not result in any impact upon natural resources. The development on the SCE site only consists of a surface parking lot, and therefore, public views would be unaffected. E. Noise: The project is not anticipated to have any significant noise impacts to adjacent residents with the exception of short-term construction noise impacts to construct the block wall along the east and west project boundaries. Construction activities will be required to comply with the Rosemead Municipal Code. Mitigation measures will also require that all construction equipment be equipped with mufflers, and that construction staging areas be located away from the closest homes to the east and west of the site. F. Public Safety: There will not be a significant increase in population or density as a result of the Zone Change for the construction of the parking lot, so the need for more public safety and public areas is not impacted. In order to provide nighttime safety and security lighting, 17 light standards will be installed throughout the parking area. The entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations. The paved parking lot will be designed to support fire trucks in the event of an onsite emergency. G. CEQA Compliance: The City as a "Lead Agency" has determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact, but implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will minimize identified significant impacts to a level of less than . significance. Hence, the City Council of the City of Rosemead hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this zone change and parking lot project. Any deviation from the use described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration may require additional environmental review, as required by law. Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 05-223 on the existing Southern California Edison right-of-way, located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue, and commonly known as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 5371-013-801, per the Los Angeles County Assessor's current tax roll. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 867 and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of • • Ordinance No. 867 Zone Change 05-223 Page 5 of 7 said provisions may be declared to be invalid. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 28th day of October, 2008. JOHN TRAN, Mayor ATTEST: GLORIA MOLLEDA, City Clerk C7 Ordinance No. 867 ; Zone Change 05-223 Page 6 of 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROSEMEAD I Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 867 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-223, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM A-1 (LIGHT AGRICULTURAL) TO P (AUTOMOBILE PARKING) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SURFACE PARKING LOT ON THE NORTHERN 2.56 ACRES OF A 4.01 ACRE SITE LOCATED IN AN EXISTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT- OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET BETWEEN EARLE AVENUE AND ROCKHOLD AVENUE, AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 5371-013-801, PER THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSOR'S CURRENT TAX ROLL. Ordinance 867 was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28t"day of October, 2008, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: GLORIA MOLLEDA, City Clerk • • ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN-AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2008 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 05-223 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN MARSHALL STREET AND OLNEY AVENUE (APN: 5371-013-801) Project Description First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley is proposing a satellite parking lot on an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue. The parking lot will provide 148 off-street parking spaces for Church members and guests, which will eliminate the need to park on public streets adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the Church. First Evangelical Church is located at 3658 Walnut Grove Avenue, approximately two blocks east from the project site. Since the project area is located in the A-1 (Light Agricultural) zone, a zone change application is required to change the northern 2.56 acres of the site to P (Parking) to allow automobile parking. The Rosemead Planning Commission initially reviewed Zone Change 05-223 along -with Conditional Use Permit 05-1034 on January 23, 2008. The original project consisted of a three-story multipurpose building which was to be located on the Church site, as well as a new parking lot under the Southern California Edison right-of-way. However, the project was continued to consider comments submitted from the Rosemead School District. Since that. time, the Church has revised the project scope to only propose a satellite parking lot in order to satisfy their immediate parking needs. Anew initial study has been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental Inalvsis An Initial Study was completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial study has found that there are potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed parking lot is implemented. The environmental factors that could be potentially affected by the project include Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise. However, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the identified si nificant environmental effects will be reduced to a level that is less_ than significant s determined by the Lead Agency. - ~ -~'~ ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 2 of 18 A Notice , of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed fora 20-day .public review and comment period on' September 16; 2008. The Mitigated Negative Declaration along with Agency comments, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as required by CEQA guidelines, is contained in this staff report for your convenience. If the Commission recommends approval of this project by the City Council, the Commission must also recommend the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Municipal Code Requirements Zone Change -Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted whenever the public necessity„ convenience, general- welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. A zone change must be found consistent with the Rosemead General -Plan. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 08-26 and that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council APPROVE Zone Change 05- 223 and ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit G, as well as staff's recommended mitigation measures, attached hereto as Exhibit B. p r~ C ~~ ,,;, w FIRST EVANGELICAL CHURCH OF SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (Southeast Corner of Walnut Grove and Marshall Street) Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 3 of 18 PROPOSED PARKING LOT SITE (South Side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue) PROPERTY HISTORY & DESCRIPTION The Church Site: First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley is located just north of the San Bernardino I-10 Freeway, on the southeast corner of Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street. The Church site consists of one parcel of land that totals approximately 45,983 square feet (.1.05 acres) of area. The Church also owns the property across the street at the northeast corner of Marshall Street and Walnut Grove Avenue, which is referred to as the North Campus. The ,North Campus currently provides a satellite surface parking lot for the Church. Although Rosemead Building Department records for this property only date back as far as 1969, Planning Department records indicate that the subject site was initially developed with school facilities as early as 1945. The Church was later added prior to the incorporation of the City of Rosemead. On November 16, 1965, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 6 to allow the use of the existing classrooms and buildings on the Church grounds for an affiliated parochial high school. On February 4, 1969, the Planning Commission approved Zone Variance No. 59 to allow for the expansion of the church and parking facilities with modified setbacks. At this time, several buildings were removed. Conditional Use Permit 97-725 was approved on September 15, 1997, for the operation ~ of an after- school program located on the premises of the existing facility. This Conditional Use Permit allowed a total enrollment of 35 students. More recently, on. May 1, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 97-725 (Modification) for an increase in enrollment to 200 students for the existing after-school program. -: Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 4 of 18 The "SCE Site" (Location of the proposed satellite parking lot): The SCE site is located approximately 500 feet west of the Church site. The SCE site spans the length of one block, from Marshall Street to Olney Street. The subject site consists of three (3) contiguous parcels of land totaling approximately four (4) acres. The site is developed with four (4) existing Southern California Edison transmission towers. Edison acquired the site in 1923. Two of the existing towers are developed with unmanned telecommunication facilities, which are operated and maintained by T-Mobile and Royal Street Communications. A wholesale plant nursery also currently occupies this site. The plant nursery has existed on the property since 1971. All three (3) of the parcels are relatively flat. For .project implementation, the existing wholesale. plant nursery will be required to reduce their existing operations and relocate to the southern 1.45 acres of the site. The existing high-voltage transmission towers will remain. PROJECT LOCATION MAP • • Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 5 of 18 . Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan for Public Facilities and on the zoning map it is designated for A-1 (Light Agriculture) zone. The sites are surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Public Facilities and Low Density Residential Zoning: A-1 (Light Agricultural) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: SCE Right-of-Way and Single=Family Residences South General Plan: Public Facilities and Low Density Residential Zoning: A-1 (Light Agricultural) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: SCE Right-of-Way and Single-Family Residences East General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: Single-Family Residences West General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: Single-Family Residences ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Proposed Satellite Parking Lot on the SCE Right-of-Way: The new parking lot will be located on an existing SCE right-of-way, approximately 500 feet west of the Church. The lot would provide 148 additional parking spaces, including 145 standard spaces and three (3) handicapped accessible spaces,. on the northern 2.56 acres of the site. The Church intends to maintain the existing. nursery tenant within the remaining southern 1.45 acres of the SCE site. For the development and proposed use of this property, a Zone Change application is required to change the existing A-1 (Light Agricultural) zone to a P (Automobile Parking) zone. The P zone is designed to support open air, temporary parking of transient automobiles. The proposed use of the site is consistent with the current land uses of the City of Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. According to the Zoning Ordinance/General Plan Consistency Matrix (Table LU-2) of the General Plan, all zones are permitted under the Public Facilities land use designation. The general plan Public Facilities land use designation is designed to support public facilities, including educational facilities, parks, utilities and other governmental activities, as well as quasi- public uses, such as public utilities easements, private schools, and institutional activities. The existing right-of-way will continue to be used to support the existing electrical transmission towers, and the parking lot will support an institutional use. s • Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 6 of 18 Site Plan: The entire SCE site totals approximately four (4) acres. Three (3) driveways will provide vehicular access to the site. One main driveway, measuring 30'-0" wide, will be located on Marshall Street for vehicular ingress and egress. A 16'-0" wide driveway, for egress only, will also be located on Marshall Street. A 30'-0" wide driveway, for ingress and egress, will be located on Olney Street, which will be reserved for SCE maintenance vehicles and police and fire access in the event of an emergency. Lastly, three (3) access ways, measuring 30'-0" wide, are proposed on the south end of the parking lot, which will provide access to Olney Street via the wholesale plant nursery. These access ways will also be utilized by SCE maintenance vehicles and, police and fire departments. The proposed parking lot will be developed around four existing Southern California Edison transmission towers, all of which are located on the northern portion of the site.. A 15'-0" X 5'-0" passenger shelter is proposed on the north side of the property, to accommodate a free shuttle service between the new parking lot and First Evangelical Church. The shelter will be set back approximately 85'-0" from Marshall Street. The applicant proposes to landscape approximately 10,362 square feet (0.23 acres) of the site. Careful attention has been given to plant selection to improve the visual character of the site. As shown on the conceptual landscape plan, included with Exhibit C, a 15'-0" wide setback is proposed along Marshall Street. This area will provide a landscaped buffer between the street and the proposed parking area. Plant selections for these areas include Noell Grevillea, French Lavender, Day Lillys, Coral Aloe, New Zealand Tea Trees, Westringia Rosemariniformis, Verbena and Lantana Montevidensis, and Marathon sod. A 10'-0" wide setback is proposed along the east and west sides of the site, which will provide a landscape buffer between the existing residences and the parking area. Four distinct colors of Oleander varieties have been chosen for this specific area, due to the plant's fast growth rate and ability to quickly green up a bare lot. A final landscape and irrigation plan will be required as a condition of approval, prior to the issuance of building permits. . The fencing materials currently surrounding the Edison site include chain-link, precision block and wood fencing. A combination of precision and split-face perimeter masonry walls, measuring six (6) feet in height, will be installed along the east and west property lines to reduce view impacts from the residential area.. A combination of split-face block and wrought iron fencing, measuring 6'-0" in height, is proposed along Marshall Street. A 6'-0" tall wrought iron fence will be installed along the south end of the site, between the parking lot and the plant nursery. In order to provide nighttime safety and security lighting, twenty-two (22) light standards will be installed throughout the parking area. The pedestrian-scale light poles measure 15'-0" tall and will be located along the perimeter of the parking lot and throughout the interior of the site. The lights will be shielded and directed downward to minimize the amount of light that extends off-site. As indicated in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, a photometric study was completed, and based on the results of the study, the intensity of the light from the project at the east and west property lines is less than 0.3 foot candles, which is comparable to medium to bright moon light. Therefore, it is • ! Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 7 of 18 anticipated that the proposed lighting will not have a significant impact on the adjacent residences. Staff has added. several additional recommended mitigation measures to address the aesthetics of the proposed parking lot. If the Church is not able to maintain the nursery tenant within the southern 1.45 acres of the site, the Church will be required to improve the area with, at minimum, new landscaping and block walls. Parking Lot Operation and Connectivity between Parking Lot and Church Site: First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley proposes to operate the parking lot on Sundays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., on Friday evenings between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., and special church and community events four to five times a year. The Church will hire a security guard who will be responsible for unlocking and locking the parking lot gates, as well as protecting the lot and its users during the hours of operation. The Church will provide shuttle services between the Edison site and the Church site to .reduce pedestrian traffic. Two vans will provide a pick-up and delivery service between the Edison site and the Church site at 15 minute intervals. The two van drivers and the security guard will communicate with mobile phones to monitor the van services and to make calls for emergency assistance if needed. When the parking lot is not in use, the vans will b~e stored at First Evangelical Church. Since the noise study, which was completed for the project, indicated that the noise from cars entering and exiting the site at 10:30 p.m. could exceed the City's noise standard of 45dB, a mitigation measure of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was created to limit Friday parking lot hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Furthermore, staff has recommended an additional mitigation measure to limit parking lot use to only . the proposed hours of operation on Sundays and Fridays only, as it would be difficult for the City to analyze potential impacts, as well as regulate, additional days and hours of operation that are not clearly specified. Parking and Traffic Assessment Based on the City of Rosemead Municipal Code, the current parking supply provided by the Church is inadequate. The current parking code requires Churches to provide one (1) space for every three (3) persons based on total occupancy permitted by the Uniform Building Code. First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley has an occupancy load of 787. Therefore a total of 263 parking spaces would be required to accommodate their members and guests. The Church currently provides a total of 136 parking spaces; the Church site contains 32 spaces and the North Campus parking lot located at the northeast corner of Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street contains 104: This results in a deficit of 127 spaces. . A traffic assessment was prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates on June 20, 2008. The study assessed the potential traffic and parking impacts due to the proposed parking lot at the SCE site. Traffic counts were conducted at the intersection of Walnuf Grove and Marshall Street, and at the existing four parking lot driveways at Marshall Street and Walnut Grove.. In addition, on-street and off-street parking surveys were conducted. The off-street parking sites that were studied included the existing parking lots which serve the Church. The on-street survey assessed the parking situation along Marshall • Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 8 of 18 • Street, both east and west of Walnut Grove Avenue, .and along Walnut Grove Avenue north of Marshall Street. The study concluded that the parking lot would not increase traffic or generate new trips. The assessment stated that currently during Friday evening services,. the parking demand from the Church appears to be accommodated by the existing parking lots, and that although some on-street parking was observed, no significant parking issues were identified: The study documented that the parking demand on Sunday morning was significantly higher, that both of the Church's existing lots were at or over capacity, and that there was significant on-street parking observed. Therefore, based on the study results, the new parking lot should alleviate some of the on-street parking demand on Sundays. However, it should also be noted that Church members are not required and may not use the SCE parking lot.. As recommended in the traffic assessment, staff has added an additional mitigation measure requiring the Church to post "Parking Lot Full" signs visible to drivers on Walnut Grove Avenue to advise and direct drivers to use the SCE lot when the existing lots are full. Neighborhood Community Meetings The applicant voluntarily held community meetings on September 3, 2005, and December 16, 2006, when the original project proposal consisted of both a larger parking lot and athree-story multipurpose building on the Church property. Since the Church has modified their project scope of work, no further community meetings have been. held. However, it is important to note that during these original community meetings, staff did receive valuable input and concerns expressed by one individual who owns a residential property adjacent to the proposed parking lot. Furthermore, during the first public review period for the larger project in January 2008, staff received both a letter of comment and a phone call from residents who reside adjacent to the Edison site. For reference, a copy of this original letter has been attached to this report .as Exhibit F. These individuals have expressed concerns including, but not limited to, safety, noise, pollution, traffic and visual impacts. In light of the neighborhood concerns, staff has recommended additional mitigation measures for the project. Staff has worked closely with Church officials, Edison representatives and the project architect to incorporate design features into the parking lot plans that would limit such impacts to the maximum extent possible. These features include the use of block walls, dense landscaping and limited hours of parking lot operation with security guards. Therefore, with the additional recommended mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff feels that the proposed development will maintain property values and the general aesthetics of the neighborhoods surrounding both project sites. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On September 16, 2008, one hundred thirty-seven (137) written notices of this public hearing were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject sites. In addition, five (5) notices were posted in designated public places, as well as onsite, and filed with Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 9 of 18 the Los Angeles County Clerk. Prepared, by: i~f7~' P tc Sheri Bermejo Senior Planner Submitted by: /~'"j~' Matt Everl City Planner Attachments: A. Resolution 08-26 B. Staff Recommended Mitigation Measures C. Site/Floor/Elevation Plans D. Assessor's Parcel Map (5371-013-801) F. Letter of Comment, dated January 6, 2008 G. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 10 of 18 EXHIBIT "A" PC RESOLUTION 08-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING .COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 05-223 AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON THE. SOUTH SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET BETWEEN EARLE AVENUE AND ROCKHOLD AVENUE (APN: 5371-013-801). WHEREAS, on November 3, 2005, First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley submitted a Zone Change application to change the existing A=1 (Light Agricultural) zone to a P (Automobile Parking) zone for the development of a satellite parking lot on the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue; and WHEREAS, the existing SCE right-of-way located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue is located in the A-1, (Light Agricultural) zone; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's General Plan designates and the SCE right-of-way for Public Facility uses; and WHEREAS, Section 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth procedures and requirements for Zone Changes; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including specific development standards, to control development; and WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, an Initial Environmental Study recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, along with a Traffic Study, Air Quality Analysis, an Historical Survey, Hydrology Study, Noise Study, and Photometric Study, in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, and local environmental guidelines; and • ! Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 11 of 18 WHEREAS, notices were posted onsite, and in five (5) public locations, and one hundred thirty-seven (137) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject properties specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2008, the Rosemead Planning Commission considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that was prepared for the proposed Zone Change, along .with agency comments and public testimony. The Planning Commission concurred with the findings of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed parking lot, finding that with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no potentially significant environmental impacts could occur from the proposed development; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Zone Change 05-223; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby makes a finding of. adequacy with the Mitigated .Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed satellite parking lot for First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as the environmental clearance for Zone Change 05-223. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that changing the zone of the subject SCE site from A-1 (Light Agricultural) to P (Automobile Parking) is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 05-223 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: A. Land Use: The General Plan designation will remain Public Facilities and will allow for the proposed parking lot to be consistent with City codes and land uses in the surrounding area. The general plan Public Facilities land use designation is designed to support public facilities, including educational facilities, parks, utilities and other governmental activities, as well as quasi-public uses, such as public utilities easements, private schools, and institutional activities. The proposed zoning ~of the site is consistent with the current land uses of the City of Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. According to the~Zoning Ordinance/General Plan Consistency Matrix (Table LU-2) of the General Plan, all zones are permitted under the Public Facilities • -• Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 12 of 18 land use designation. Furthermore, the existing right-of-way will continue to be used to support the existing electrical transmission towers, and the parking lot will support an institutional use. B. Circulation: A traffic assessment was completed by Katz Okitsu and Associates on June 20, 2008, which concluded that the new parking lot will not result in an increase in traffic that would cause congestion. The proposed parking lot will eliminate the need for Church members and guests to park along Marshall Street and Walnut Grove Avenue in close proximity to the Church during Sunday services and church events on Friday evenings. The parking lot will operate Sundays, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., and on Friday evenings between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Church will provide shuttle services between the SCE site and the Church site to reduce pedestrian traffic. C. Housing: The proposed project will not induce substantial new population growth nor displace existing housing units or people. The new parking lot will partially replace an existing wholesale plant nursery. The project site is designated Public Facilities in the General Plan. Since the site is located directly below high-voltage transmission lines and towers, the site is not suitable for residential development. D. Resource Management: The proposed development is located in `a developed urban area, and as such, will not result in any impact upon natural resources. The development on the SCE site only consists of a surface parking lot, and therefore, public views would be unaffected. E. Noise: The project is not anticipated to have any significant noise impacts to adjacent residents with the exception of short-term construction noise impacts to construct the block wall along the east and west project boundaries. .Construction activities will be required to comply with the Rosemead Municipal Code. Mitigation measures will also require that all construction equipment be equipped with mufflers, and.that construction staging areas be located away from the closest homes to the east and west of the site. F. Public Safety: There will not be a significant increase in population or density as a result of the Zone Change for the construction of the parking lot; so the need for more public safety. and public areas is not impacted. In order to provide nighttime safety and security lighting, 22 light standards will be installed throughout the parking area. The entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations. The paved parking lot will be designed to support fire trucks in the event of an onsite emergency.. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Zone Change 05-223 to change the existing A-1 (light Agricultural) zone to a P (Automobile Parking) zone for the development of a surface parking lot on an existing Southern California Edison right-of-way, located on the existing Southern California Edison right-of-way on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue, and commonly known as Assessor • • Planning Commission Meeting OctoberE, 2008 Page 13 of 18 Parcel Number (APN) .5371-013-801, per the Los Angeles County Assessor's current tax roll, subject to mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2008 by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of October 2008. Daniel Lopez, Chairman CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on 6th day of October, 2008, by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Matt Everting, Secretary i • Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 14 of 18 EXHIBIT "B" ZONE CHANGE 05-223 Southern California Edison Right-of-Way between Marshall Street and Olney Avenue (APN: 5371-013-801) MITIGATION MEASURES October 6, 2008 1. The following dust control measures shall be implemented prior to the start of construction and maintained throughout construction: a. Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas. b. Prepare a high wind dust .control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. c. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. d. Water exposed surfaces under current disturbance 3 times/day. e. Cover all stock piles with tarps. f. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. g. Wash/sweep site access points within 30 minutes of any observed visible dirt spilling on public streets and at the end of the workday. h. All construction equipment shall be staged as far from adjacent residents as possible. 2. The following exhaust emission mitigation measures shall be implemented throughout project construction: a. Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. b. Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. ' c. Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment where feasible. 3. The project applicant shall submit a Phase I site assessment to the Building Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit to provide evidence there are no hazardous materials on the area proposed for the parking lot. If hazards are identified they shall be removed or remediated as recommended by the Phase I assessment and to the satisfaction of the City prior to the start of grading. 4. The following mitigation measure is recommended.to reduce potential surface water discharge impacts from the parking lot to the nursery adjacent to and south , • Planning Commission Meetin~ October 6, 2008 Page 15 of 18 of the parking lot a. Southern California Edison shall prepare a covenant and .agreement for approval by the City that requires the project applicant to hold all. three (3) Edison parcels as one. The covenant and agreement, once approved by the City, shall be recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. Construction activity hours shall comply with the Rosemead Municipal Code 6. Construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating mufflers. 7. Construction staging areas shall be located away from the closest homes. 8. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 9. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 10.The mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring and reporting program shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review. 11.There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, or trailers. All trash and debris shall be contained .within a trash enclosure. 12.A11 trash, rubbish and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, and inspected and maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. 13.The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed free and litter free state in accordance with Sections 8.32.010, .020, 030, and .040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains, to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. Any new litter and graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569-2345 for assistance. 14.The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re- painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. In accordance with Chapter 17.84 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking venues hall be striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 15. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22511.8, at least two (2) percent of the required parking stalls shall be designated for handicapped ` space. A letter by the property owner shall be given to the City authorizing ` • • Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 16 of ] 8 enforcement. 16.The parking space markers, including double striping, wheel stops, and handicapped, shall be re-painted periodically to City standards and to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 17.A11 open area not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. 18.The property shall comply with aII appropriate. building,. fire and health department regulations. 19.The developer shall comply with the City's storm water ordinance and Los Angeles County`s SUSMP requirements with respect to planning and development of the site. 20.The applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for the SCE Site prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. 21.The light standards within the SCE parking lot shall operate during the nighttime use of the parking lot on Fridays only. All lights shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m. by means of an automatic timer. 22.The applicant shall submit a fence plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to installation. The fencing proposed along Marshall Street shall consist of a combination of decorative split-face block and wrought iron, and the total height shall not exceed 6'-0." The block wall portion of the fencing along Marshall Street shall have a height of 3'-0." The fencing between .the parking lot and the wholesale nursery shall consist of wrought iron, and the total height shall not exceed 6'-0." All wrought iron fencing shall consist of a minimum gauge of 1 '/Z inches. All bock walls installed along the east and west perimeter of the parking lot shall consist of precision block, within a minimum one course of split-face block, and the total height shall not exceed 6'-0." All precision block and split- face block shall be tan. 23. Block walls along the east and west property lines on the Southern California site shall not be installed until the applicant has informed all property owners adjacent to the site in writing of the timing and location of installation. 24.If the nursery tenant is not contracted to continue its operation within the southern 1.45 acres of the site, then this area shall be improved with same landscaping and the block walls that are proposed for the parking lot area. If the nursery tenant ceases its operation within the southern 1.45 acres of • Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 17 of 18 the site, then this area shall be improved with the same landscaping and the block walls proposed for the parking lot area, within 90 days from .the date the nursery operation ceases. 25.The parking lot operation shall be limited to Sundays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and Fridays between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. A security guard shall be responsible for unlocking and locking the parking lot gates on Sundays and Fridays, as well as protecting the lot and its users during the hours of operation. 26.The Church shall post "Parking Lot Full" signs visible to drivers on Walnut Grove Avenue to advise and direct drivers to use the SCE lot when the existing lots are full 27.Two vans shall provide a pick-up and delivery service between the Southern California Edison site and the Church .site. The van drivers and the security guard shall communicate with mobile phones to monitor the van services and to make calls for emergency assistance if needed. 28.Violation of these mitigation measures may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2008 Page 18 of 18 EXHIBIT "D" I 15371 113 J~~~ ~ 10 >• MARSHALL 1.1 14 SUBJECT SITE FREER TRACT „ M.R;, 39-82 TRKT NO. 12435 M.B. 240- IS - I6 LICENSED SIMNEYORS MM L.S. 30-2-12 CODE 8216 FOR PREY. ASSMT SEG zee-v-ee. •46 ae6TBa® • a/P d OI 17 ee Llet •' 63 is ra ;"'•' 0116 x aaaaB2®' tr9~•• + 0115 a 81®' 4 ~ asi6 I 4e> 80© ' ® x el I4. ~ w ;elM as 79© ©t l l3 ,. Carle.. c78O x 4, 4 QI12 ~ srrrwx ~arQe•~ , x ®,II an6., 76®, 3 s66r •. + O9II0 a,.,~60 , , s6r.., ~ OI 09 a~>e• 74®. y sco6• soee •• 73 Q e~ 106 3 n a.aas~iO ,Olofi 44 W 8ee 9720 Q t ~ W y OLNEN. 560.1' SI(br 21001 !D IOt w IOe ~ w e~.rt0!•~ ~ eser•• 16107 s>ia... SAN BERNARDINO ~ BK. 5288 _.. - - 12 J ~ ~ z6ce:e - sr. ~ `waa!!e ~ 0133> ~ 118 1 . ~ 1 190•a x 0132 W Q r9c.. 0131 120 f9 ~x '''" ~ 130 121 60 • 1220 C 2 '~. sa 0 + 2 N 0 save-• s ~ BK. 539 . 124 e1 ~ Q ~ ¢ -~ ~` I n J 1250 ~ e < a6r9~- 8 3 260 ,.~ 4 - S D e ;695^w BOrS•~ a6Je 102 ~ 103 104 O O` O FRWV W 2 Y Z J 3 IN ASSESSOR'S MM ' COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIF. i' • • 1-6-08 City of Rosemead Mayor, John Tram Mayor, Pro Tem: John Nunez 883-9 E Valley Blvd Rosemead, Ca_ 91770 To all those whom it concerns: My name u Judith Farrell; I live at 3652 N. Earle Ave. I received the city's letter today concerning the request by the First Evangelical Church to replace the nursery on Edison's ease way with a pazking lot for their own private use. As a resident and home owner in Rosemead for over 30 years, I am totally against this proposition, for the following reason: A. My home will back up to this pazking lot, and I do not want a pazking lot behind my home. Parking lots lead to crime, pollution, noise, traffic congestion, and many other problems. This is a residential area not a business zone and should remain residential so that the homes do not loose their value. B. I am ill and allergic to many things, the smoke and toxins that these cazs will produce will make my medical condition worst and I am sure will affect the health of the many seniors which live in the area. If the pazking lot is approved I will then consider making a law suit against the city for the toxins the extra cazs will produce which will affect my health. C. This parking lot will produce a worst traffic jam on Walnut Grove than already exists. In the mornings when school is in session the traffic on Mazshall is always backed up many blocks and it can take hours. for one to cross Walnut Grove, with the many school parents which are dropping of their children, including the members of the First Evangelical Church. This makes this intersection a very dangerous place already the new parking lot will only add to this problem not only on weekends but during the week. D. I do not think that this Church should have the use of public property for their own personal use; there is a division between state and Church in this country. Our city should not serve one particular group over the majority and more so when it is a private Church which only serve a certain amount of people of certain ethnic back ground. The members of this Church not only do not speak English they are only open to the Chinese population. This city and county have gone way out of their way to serve the Asian population at the cost of longtime American who speak English and have lived here all their lives. This preferential treatment has caused many people to develop a negative attitude towards the Asian population in the area, even if it is not spoken about. EXHIBIT F . E. ~ The pazking lot will bring vandalism, a place where gangs can gather, excessive traffic, noise, toxins, more people into the azea which do not live here, graffiti, and in general a more negative influence into our quite residential azea. Environmental affects is not the only thing to be considered in this decisions. ,The effect on the residence of the area and voters is a more important consideration. If I was not ill, I would campaign against this declaration. F. This request should be put up for vote to the long term residence of the area, especially the home owners who will have their back yards backed up to this parking lob G. I am ill and cannot attend the meeting, but as a 30 yeaz resident of the azea and one of those whom this will affect adversity, I am writing this letter so that my voice can be heazd and considered. H. As to the environmental affect of this pazking lot, toxins, congestions, noise, is disrupted to the residence in their homes and will also affect the quality of the air in our homes. The nursery has always been a way of removing toxins from the air, by the plants which aze grown there and it keeps the noise level down and causes no traffic congestion or noise. We, who have lived here a long time, enjoy the beauty of the plants and the good effect they have on the azea. Plants remove the many toxins from the air, which are already caused by the freeway traffic, we do not need more pollutions, more cars, more people of other places coming into the area, just to serve a particular group of people and their religion or church: I. My hope is that others will come forward and express their concerns, as some of my neighbors~have already expressed tliem to me. My long term concern is that this. will also make the feelings between the permanent residence and the First Evangelical Church will become more and more negative. As the Major and `Major Pro Tem, you are here to serve all the members of the City of Rosemead not only a few and not a particular Church, Religion or Ethnic Group. Many other things need to be considered in~making this decision and its long term effects,' not only environmental but socially. J. You can contact me at 62572-4010 since I cannot be present at the meeting I would like my letter to be brought forwazd to show that there aze some long term Rosemead residence which aze against this declaration and why. Sincerely, /~ ~lW Mrs. Judi Farrell 2 A • • b Memorandum To: Planning Commissioners From: Sheri Bermejo, Senior Planner Date: October 2, 2008 Subject: Zone Change 05-223 The purpose of this memo is to inform the Planning Commission that staff has received three letters of comment from residents who oppose Zone Change 05-223 and the construction of a parking lot on the Southern California Edison right-of-way on the south side of Marshall Street befinreen Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue. Copies of these letters have been attached for your review. In summary, the- comment letters express concerns including, but not limited to, safety, noise, pollution, traffic and visual impacts. Due to similar comments that were included in the staff report, staff has recommended that several additional mitigation measures be added to the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program that will be under review at the Planning Commission meeting. These additional mitigation measures are outlined in Exhibit B of staff's report. 8838 East Valley Boulevard Phone: 626-569-2400 ' ATTACHMEfVT C Web:, www.cityofrosemead.org • • October 1, 2008 City of .Rosemead _ R~iy~ Mayor John Tran P18nnF~ D~i Mayor Pro Tem John Nunez ah Council Members: Date~~~~ Margaret Clark -"--- Polly Low . Gary A. Taylor ' 8838 E. Valley Blv. . PO Box 399 Rosemead, Ca 91770 Dear Matt Everting, I am writing regarding my concerns over case no. ZC 05-223. Please do not build a parking lot in the middle of a residential neighborhood. We are already surrounded by traffic on Walnut Grove, San Gabriel BI., Valley BI. and the 10 freeway. Marshall is a small street. There have been numerous accidents already. Enough to where someone has asked to put in a traffic light. My children walk to and from school and would have to pass that lot and I fear,they will be hurt. The noise, pollution, added traffic, and possible crime the parking lot will bring really. is a problem. I do not feel comfortable with 148 cars up and down my neighborhood. That is a big number._Criminals can lurk between those cars, vandalize and/or rob or hurt someone. It will be hard to determine who belongs in our neighborhood with all these cars up and down our streets. There are many children and elderly who walk. Why can't the church use the parking lot already across the street from them? Why disturb our neighborhood? What do we get out of having a parking lot right in the middle of our quiet neighborhood??? The plants and trees in that lot provide clean air, the parking lot will just pollute our air. How long will it take us to travel up and down Marshall if people are waiting to turn into this parking lot? We will have to wait for cars to come in and out whether we are walking or driving. What about accidents? It will increase. THE TRAFFIC ON MARSHALL THAT THIS LOT WILL BRING IS NOT FAIR TO THE RESIDENTS. THE RISK OF CHILDREN AND ELDERLY WHO WALK ON MARSHALL AND THE ACCIDENTS IS NOT WORTH A PARKING LOT. What has this church done for this neighborhood and our community that they feel they can put a parking lot in our backyards??? There is no problem with them parking in the street and in the lot across the street. I do not feel we should sacrifice our neighborhood because they do not want to park in the street. If this was yourbackyard would you want 148 cars of Non-Rosemead Residents? If ,you had children or elderly family who had to pass this.parking lot would you feel comfortable?? How easy would it be for a pedophile to park in this lot and wait for a child? How long will it take to drive down the street with all the traffic already?? • • PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS PARKING LOT TO TAKE PLACE. YOU ARE HURTING OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE_ IT tS NOT FAIR. lT CAUSES TOO MANY PROBLEMS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. MORE POLLUTION, MORE TRAFFIC. IT WILL ALSO DECREASE THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL LOOK SO UGLY WITH A PARKING LOT IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR HOUSES. WE PAY A HUGE PRICE WITH THIS LOT AND FOR WHAT? SO THE CHURCH MEMBERS CAN PARK? ITS LESS OF A SACRIFICE FOR THEM TO JUST KEEP DOING WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING AND PARK ALONG THE STREETS. WE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD GET NOTHING GOOD OR POSITIVE OUT OF IT. PLEASE FOR OUR HEALTH, THE SAFETY OF OUR FAMILIES, THE TRAFFIC ISSUES, PLEASE DO NOT BUILD THIS PARKING LOT. Sine , S nn Melendre October 1;.2008 Received bN Matt Everling P~annin9 DN~°" City of Rosemead ~ G -~~ .off 8838 E. Valley Bld. Ds PO Box 399 Rosemead; CA 91770 Deaz Matt Everling, I am writing in response to Case No. ZC OS-223. As a resident of Rosemead I do not feel it is in our best interest to have a parking lot on a small street that is already. congested with traffic. 148 cars traveling up and down Mazshall will only harm our neighborhood. Our homes' value will decrease, which at this time we really do not need. There are people who enjoy walking and the added pollutants that these cars release is not good nor the safety of the people passing this lot. We do not at all benefit from this pazking lot. We will only lose. There have been many accidents on the comer of Walnut Crrove and Mazshall. This just might make accidents happen more often. Traffic for sure will be backed up waiting to make a left turn into the lot or out of the lot. Being in this neighborhood we know who our neighbors are we really do not want strangers in our streets. The traffic that has us boxed in is already very terrible. This will only add to that. I really like driving by the nursery and seeing beautiful plants and trees. It will be very depressing to see a parking lot in the middle of a residential area. It is ridiculous that we have to suffer for those who do not want to park along the street. I don't feel we need to cater to them at our expense. Would you want a parking lot in your backyard? What about the safety of those who actually have a backyazd to the lot? Anyone can jump over their wall and into their property. Having cazs lined up in a residential neighborhood will be like a candy store for criminals. Children walking or riding their bikes will be in harms way. We have many residents who like to take strolls or jog with their families. They will have to stand there and Iet 148 cars go by. Its just nat worth having our residents suffer. You cannot disrupt a whole community of people for one group. Please do not allow this parking lot to ruin our neighborhood. ,, Sin erely, ~_ ~M rtan ,% Home weer & Resident of Rosemead • • R~eceiVedp~~~h ~~ni~ October 1, 2008 ~ a- ~'OS Dst Dear Mr. Matt Everting, Why would our residents want a parking lot in our neighborhood? I do not want the added traffic or pollution this will cause. The plants and trees beautify our street a parking lot makes it look very unappealing. This is a nice residential neighborhood, by putting a parking lot there will make our neighborhood look like a lower class neighborhood. I'm supposed to give up value in my home, my lungs, my family's safety, so that people don't have to park on the street? Is that fair? I have to drive by a depressing lot everyday because they don't want to park in the street? But I do get to wait in MORE traffic while they. turn in and out of a parking lot? _ Our residents should be taken more into consideration than these people who are not residents. What do they do for this neighborhood? Our well being should be first and foremost Who are these people to disrupt our neighborhood for their conveniences? My son likes to ride his bike on Marshall and Olney to visit his friends. There are a lot of children in this neighbofiood. That parking lot will put them in danger of being hit by a car. We DO NOT WANT THIS PARKING LOT. Thank you, Marlene Godinez PC RESOLUTION 08-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 05-223 AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET BETWEEN EARLE AVENUE AND ROCKHOLD AVENUE (APN: 5371-013-801). WHEREAS, on November 3, 2005, First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley submitted a Zone Change application to change the existing A-1 (Lighf Agricultural) zone to a P (Automobile Parking) zone for the development of a satellite parking lot on the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of- way, located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue; and WHEREAS, the existing SCE right-of-way located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue is located in the A- 1 (Light Agricultural) zone; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's General Plan designates and the SCE right-of- way for Public Facility uses; and; WHEREAS, Section 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth procedures and requirements for Zone Changes; .and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including specific development standards, to control development; and WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, an Initial Environmental Study recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, along with a Traffic Study, Air Quality Analysis, an Historical Survey, Hydrology Study, Noise Study; and Photometric Study, in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, and local environmental guidelines; and ATTACHMENT D • • WHEREAS, notices were posted onsite, and in five (5) public locations, and one hundred thirty-seven (137) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject properties specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2008, the Rosemead Planning Commission considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that was prepared for the proposed Zone Change, along with agency comments .and public testimony. The Planning Commission concurred with the findings of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed parking lot, finding that with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no potentially significant environmental impacts could occur from the proposed development; and WHEREAS, on October. 6, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Zone Change 05-223; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed satellite parking lot for First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as the environmental clearance for Zone Change 05-223. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that changing the zone of the subject SCE site from A-1 (Light Agricultural) to P (Automobile Parking) is in the best interest of .the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 05-223 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: A. Land Use: The General Plan designation will remain Public Facilities and will allow for the proposed parking lot to be consistent with City codes and land uses in the surrounding area. The general plan Public Facilities land -use designation is designed to support public facilities, including educational facilities, parks, utilities and other governmental activities, as well as quasi-.public uses, such as public utilities easements, private schools, and institutional activities. The proposed zoning of the site is consistent with the current land uses of the City of Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. According to the Zoning Ordinance/General Plan Consistency Matrix (Table LU-2) of the General Plan, all zones are permitted under the Public Facilities land use designation. Furthermore, the existing right-of-way will continue to be used to support the existing electrical transmission towers, and the parking lot will support an institutional use. B. Circulation: A traffic assessment was completed by Katz Okitsu and Associates on June 20, 2008, which concluded that the new parking lot will not result in an increase in traffic that would cause congestion. The proposed parking lot will eliminate the need for Church members and guests to park along Marshall Street and Walnut Grove Avenue in close proximity to the Church during Sunday services and church events on Friday evenings. The parking lot will operate Sundays, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., and on Friday evenings between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Church will provide shuttle services between the SCE site and the Church site to reduce pedestrian traffic. C. Housing: The proposed project will not induce substantial new population growth nor displace existing housing units or people. The new parking lot will partially replace an existing wholesale plant nursery. The project site is designated Public Facilities in the General Plan. Since the site is located directly below high-voltage transmission lines and towers, the site is not suitable for residential development. D. Resource Management: -The proposed development is located in a developed urban area, and as such, will not result in any impact upon natural resources. The development on the SCE site only consists of a surface parking lot, and therefore, public views would be unaffected. E. Noise: The project is not anticipated to have any significant noise impacts to adjacent residents with the exception of short-term construction noise impacts to construct the block wall along the east and west project boundaries. Construction activities will be required to .comply with the Rosemead Municipal Code. Mitigation measures will also require that all construction equipment be equipped with mufflers, and that construction staging areas be located away from the closest homes to the east and west of the site. F. Public Safety: There will not be a significant increase in population or density as a result of the Zone Change for the construction of the parking lot, so the need for more public safety and public areas is not impacted. In order to provide nighttime safety and security lighting, 22 light standards will be installed • • throughout the parking area. The entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations. The paved parking lot will be designed to support fire trucks in the event of an onsite emergency. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Zone Change 05-223 to change the existing A-1 (light Agricultural) zone to a P (Automobile Parking) zone for the development of a surface parking lot on an existing Southern California Edison right-of-way, located on the existing Southern California Edison right=of-way on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue, and commonly known as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 5371-013-801, per the Los Angeles County Assessor's current tax roll, subject to mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2008 by the following vote: YES: GAY, LOPEZ AND VUU NO: KUNIOKA ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of October 2008. Daniel Lopez, airma • • CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning. Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on 6th day of October, 2008, by the following vote: YES: GAY, LOPEZ AND VUU NO: KUNIOKA ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Matt Eve ecretary ZONE CHANGE 05-223 Southern California Edison Right-of-Way between Marshall Street and Olney Avenue (APN: 5371-013-801) MITIGATION MEASURES October 6, 2008 The following dust control measures shall be implemented prior to the start of construction and maintained throughout construction: a. Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas. b. Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. c. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. d. Water exposed surfaces under current disturbance 3 times/day. e. Cover all stock piles with tarps. f. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. g. Wash/sweep site access points within 30 minutes of any observed visible -dirt spilling on public streets and at the end of the workday. h. All construction equipment shall be staged as far from adjacent residents as possible. 2. The following exhaust emission mitigation measures shall be implemented throughout project construction: a. Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. b. Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. c. Utilize diesel, particulate filter on heavy equipment where feasible. 3. The project applicant shall submit a Phase I site assessment to the Building Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit to provide evidence there are no hazardous materials on the area proposed for the parking lot. If hazards are identified they shall be removed or remediated as recommended by the Phase I assessment and to the satisfaction of the City prior to the start of grading. 4. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential surface water discharge impacts from the parking lot to the nursery adjacent to and south of the parking lot. a. Southern California Edison shall prepare a covenant and agreement for approval by the City that. requires the project applicant to hold all three (3) Edison parcels as one. The covenant and agreement, once approved by the City, shall be recorded at the Los Angeles County .Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. Construction activity hours shall comply with the Rosemead Municipal Code. 6. Construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating mufflers. 7. Construction staging areas shall be located away from the closest homes. 8. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 9. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 10.The mitigation measures and mitigation .monitoring and reporting program shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review. 11.There shall be no .outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, or trailers. All trash-and debris shall be contained within a trash receptacle located near the bus shelter. The design and location of .the trash receptacle shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. All trash shall be removed from the site on a daily basis by the security guard. (Modified by Planning -Commission, October 6, 2008.) 12.A11 trash, rubbish and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, and inspected and maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. 13.The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed free and litter free state in accordance with Sections 8.32.010, .020, 030, and .040 of the Rosemead ~ Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. Any new litter and graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569-2345 for assistance. 14.The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re-painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. In accordance with Chapter 17.84 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking venues hall be striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and • • orderly manner. 15. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22511.8, at least two (2) percent of the required parking stalls shall be designated for handicapped space. A letter by the property owner shall be given to the City authorizing enforcement. 16.The .parking space markers, including double striping, wheel stops, and handicapped, shall be re-painted periodically to City standards and to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 17.A11 open area not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. 18.The property shall comply with all appropriate building, fire and health department regulations. 19.The developer shall comply with the City's storm water ordinance and Los Angeles County`s SUSMP requirements with respect to planning and development of the site. 20.The applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for the SCE Site prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. All Oleander shrubs shall be replaced with Sweet Bay shrubs (Laurus Nobilis). (Modified by Planning Commission, October 6, 2008.) 21.The light standards within the SCE parking lot shall operate during the nighttime use of the parking lot on Fridays only. All lights shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m. by means of an automatic timer. 22.The applicant shall submit a fence plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to installation. The fencing proposed along Marshall Street shall consist of a combination of decorative split-face block and wrought iron, and the total height shall not exceed 6'-0." The block wall portion of the fencing along Marshall Street shall have a height of 3'-0." The fencing between the parking lot and the wholesale nursery shall consist of wrought iron, and the total height shall not exceed 6'-0." All wrought iron fencing shall consist of a minimum gauge of 1 '/2 inches. All block walls installed along the east and west perimeter of the parking .lot shall consist of precision block, within a minimum one course. of split-face block, and the total height shall not exceed 6'-0." All precision block and split- face block shall be tan. • • 23. Block walls along the east and west property lines on the Southern California site shall not be installed until the applicant has informed all property owners adjacent to the site in writing of the timing and location of installation. 24.If the nursery tenant is not contracted to continue its operation within the southern 1.45 acres of the site, then this area shall be improved with same landscaping and the block walls that are proposed for the parking lot area. If the nursery tenant ceases its operation within the southern 1.45 acres of the site, then this area shall be improved with the same landscaping and the block walls proposed for the parking lot area, within 90 days from the date the nursery operation ceases. 25.The parking lot operation shall be limited to Sundays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and Fridays between the hours of 7:00 p.m: and 10:00 p.m. A security guard shall be responsible for unlocking and locking the parking lot gates on Sundays and Fridays, as well as protecting the lot and its users during the hours of operation. 26.The Church shall post "Parking Lot Full" signs visible to drivers on Walnut Grove Avenue to advise and direct drivers to use the SCE lot when the existing lots are full. 27.Two vans shall provide apick-up and delivery service between the Southern California Edison site and the Church site. The van drivers and the security guard shall communicate with mobile phones to monitor the van services and to make calls for emergency assistance if needed. 28.Shuttle vans shall come to a complete stop, and turn off their engines at pick-up and drop-ff points. The van engines shall not idle at any time during pick-up and drop-off. (Modified by Planning Commission, October 6, 2008.) 29. Upon the review and approval of the Planning Division, signs shall be installed within the parking area to prevent noise and loitering from disturbing the adjacent residences. (Modified by Planning Commission, October 6, 2008.) 30.Violation of these mitigation measures may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. t e • MITIGATE® NEGATIVE DECLARATION FIRST EVANGELICAL CHURCH OF SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEW PARKING LOT ON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT-OF-WAY ZONE CHANGE 05-223 Southern California Edison Right-of-Way between Marshall Street and Olney Avenue (APN: 5371-013-801) Lead Agency: City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 626-569-2144 Project Proponent: Yung Ku, Project Applicant and Owner of Church Site First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley 3658 North Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770. Southern California Edison/Owner of Right-Of-Way 14799 Chestnut Street ' Westminster, California 92683 Project Architect Simon Lee 140 West Valley Boulevard, Suite 215 San Gabriel, California 91776 September 10, 2008 ! _. R~osived-by . Phoning. Oiviaion °Ost `~ /lo c - -- ATTACHMENT E ~~SENO. os ~= Z23 • • TABLE of CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................:........................1 1.1 Purpose ................:...:..........................................................................................1 1.2 Location ...............................................................................................................1 1.3 Project Description ...............................................................................................1 1.4 Intended Use of This- Document ...........................................................................9 1.5 Environmental Setting ..........................................................................................9 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ..................................................................................13 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ..................................................16 3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................. ............................16 3.2 Agricultural Resources ........................................................... ...................:........21 3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................... ............................23 3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................. ............................33 3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................ ............................36 3.6 Geology and Soils ............................................:..................... ............................37 3.7 Hazards .............................................................................:... ............................40 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................. ............................43 3.9 Land Use ............................................................................... ............................49 3.10 Mineral Resources ................................................................. .....:......................50 3.11 Noise ..................................................................................... ............................50 3.12 Population and Housing ....:.................................................... ............................56 3.13 Public Services ...................................................................... .......:....................57 3.14 Recreation ............................................................................. ............................58 3.15 Transportationffraffic ............................................................. ............................59 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................. ............................62 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................... ............................64 +.. 4:.0;..'`.r~REFER1EtV~iES .................................................................................. ............................66 ,__.. ,.,~.:......~.~Appendi~es Appendix A -Air Quality Impact Analysis Appendix B -Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C -Noise Impact Study Appendix D -Traffic Assessment ... . ~ •~~ Pagei ~ Initial Stud / Miti ated Ne alive Declaration ~ Y 9 9 City of Rosemead Zone Change Ob223 ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot " LIST of FIGURES ' ~ Figure Pa~c. e ' 1. ..... .... Regional Location Map ~ .2 2. : ......................................... .... .... ............................................... Local Vicinity Map . . .3 3. Aerial Photo ................................................................. ~................................................. ..4 ' 4. 5. Site Plan .............................:...............................:............................:.....................:....... Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................. ..6 ..8 6. Photographs - On'Site Land Uses ................................................................................ 11 ' 7. 8. Photographs -Surrounding Land Uses ....................................~..................................... Photometric Plan .......................................................................................................:... 12 19 9. Seismic Hazard Zones ........:....:....................................~................................................ 39 1 10. 11. Drainage Plan .................................................................................:.............................. Construction Equipment Noise Levels ....................:.............:........................................ 47 53 LIST of TABLES ' Table Page 1. South Coast Air Basin Emission Forecasts (Emissions (tons/day) ................................. 24 2. 3. Estimated Project Construction Equipment .............:..................................................:.. Construction Activity Emissions (pounds/day) ............................................................... 28 28 4. Project Related Emissions Burden ........................................................................._...... 30 ' 5. 6. LST Threshold Data ...................................................................................................... Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits .........:..................................................................... 30 52 _ 7. Existing~lntersection Level of Service Summary .........:........................................::........ 60 ' Page ii • 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The City of Rosemead has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the potential impacts that could occur as a result of a proposed Zone Change for the construction of an off-site surface parking lot in a Southern California Edison power line easement for the First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley. The Church is located at 3658 Walnut Grove Avenue whereas the proposed parking lot is within an existing Southern California Edison (SCE)-right-of-way located approximately two blocks west of the Church between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue. The parking lot will provide 148 off-street parking spaces for Church members and guests and eliminate the need to park on public streets adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the Church. It is the intent of this environmental document to identify the potential environmental impacts that can be expected to occur with the construction and operation of the parking lot and provide suitable mitigation measures, when required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to reduce all impacts to less than significant levels. 1.2 LOCATION The project site is located within an existing residential neighborhood north of Interstate 10 in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map. The site is approximately 500 feet west of the First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley within a Southern California Edison (SCE) easement adjacent to and south of Marshall Street, north of Olney Avenue, west of Rockhold Avenue and east of Earle Avenue as shown in Figure 2 -Local Vicinity Map. The project site totals 4.01 acres. The proposed parking lot comprises approximately 2.56 acres on the northern portion of the site and the existing nursery will continue to operate on the southerly 1.45 acres. An aerial photograph of the site is shown in Figure 3 -Aerial Photo. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Public Facilities and the zoning is A-1 (Light Agricultural). 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A zone change (Zone Change 05-223) is required for the construction of the parking lot within the SCE easement. Zone Change 05-223 is a request to change the existing A-1 (Light Agricultural) zone to P (Automobile Parking) zone for the development ~of a surface Page 1 r~ ' uaK;~ '~~ 1 I ~r~i'_._.._ ,R u ~ m ~ ~ E ~ ~. V iAl1<Cf! HIYU ~~ , .. ~~ a z F at_a.~ sr ~ ~~~~ ~ `~.. } ~ t.~ ~~~ z ca~x.~ -.. - F' M B Yd ~ yG I I w e[YUaw F xMCCV sa' 3 p L : Nu" . / I-tiv 9 '~wFWJ ~..'I~j"' tiR~ , kW f= 'aE ~ ~ ~V RAt.FN SF $t YFY tAY I'.I 7r'4 ir-,, ~s rt -gy' Q ~,.~: ~ ~~ u ~ ~ ~ 410.17A „,e ,v ! Pl :i4xQ yr x Y i L _. ~ Y~OR~-~F t~ ~ Pl t ~ R~ ~~ rte- {- ~- I- _ t I -' ~ I ~ p{' Flw g • z ,. f } v ~~' MJt09Ytl $Fm y~ F ; ~ Mtsul .: A ~~. _ .~~ -- i~~ ~ ~~ Q , ~a ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ .,! E I ~.-V l v ~v. - 1 ~ n - 1~~(:~ gat ~-F~u '~` I s ~,61HIPON~Q.. o[ ~. '.'v~, III, ~ r ~. n~.~aov ~ a u suer L'."a__. _ ~~ ~, _eY~y}±_,a _~ ; II ~.~ ~-r••,r _ ~. $i , w C - 1 ~~ tltKP~F~ ~ ~. ICI I ~ y '. { 1 d ?. _.._ f n11 - ~~ j. T,_ ~P. ~rvl_N' 1 1SW Acr411 .,~ 9 »} ~iE ~ I3g~~t~ARDIN t ~'1' xci>~An 1 ~ ~ ~~AV . 9 ~ w I ~ ~ ~ ~ +A~ 3 '~~ tI y a ! ~ ~~ I` x~ ~~i''~m ~ E I ~~ ~ E~ l I. ~~ Y Aq4 AYtA/ ~_~ N ~ , i~ ~< nes*+Fr ~ ~ i .i~ 't ~s ~ 1 ~ I.' K~ N7.~I~ 1 ~' ~` '~'Y ~ } I' L~ ~ Cdal T ~'T ~ .~~I K ~) I SAR [Fi. r ('!~ 1 { -i .~ I ~~ P~ I ~f~ ~Y~ is ~ ~ ~ ~~. j ~ E ~-~ ~[ E P.y~t ~' I ft AY TI ~ ' ' ' N ~ ! ~°.J..A.9~5 ~ 1 ~uaR I 7 ~t . tlvtf /iV n ru I 1 9-' ~•sd _ 17 ,. ~F :~ ~ f7 ~{ ~~ ! ~~I v I--u 't~':< ~ I qtr--~_.£r ~ _ t K _-~r I - ~n t' l '. xx C, ~ ~ '~I a , { ~ 'fit, d ~L2' ~ ~L - ~ ~ N~ 1 ,` CY, ~yKt J ,} ~ a4 CfIR'tnw,~~~'~ ~nu to ~ nv~ € 3 ; c i .~~ ~ i ~ .~ t ~~ s v ~ ece ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~ . ~~~ ~ ' _~ { ~p ~ E y ., _z `>~V °_ ~ ~_• I ~ - GARYEYuF ~ r ,r,.-n n,f"~ ~ ®p~ I _,, O" !'`AY l ' ~ nw7 I a~ ~ t~ mns gg)) ~ t-+ ~ _, laf ~ ~ t KU ~ ~ I 1 :-.~ 7in K I L3 I ~ r~ ~~ I~~ I I ~i 3i.P ~ ,~ ti e. rutl v r ~ aV ~ ~ 1 ~i ~ ~ ~W t tTi.'- .y i t-_ ~~- - i ~ za ~ ~,~. 1 „~~,Y~ ~ I o ~ ~ . ~, ~ ~ - F uv`..uar. ~ --T r ' Fttn °'~' _y I lratetwt r r. a ~ ~ ~ I ~ I a:~ I _._ JI~ ' - 1 ~ ._ lt.fl ~ ' ~J ~ r F~ j FtAll - ~~ ~~~. ~..~ ... .1.=`~,~ AY .' ~ .. ~ - tFm Y I I ~ .ice. I T ~~11 r n I ~; ~ ~ ,~~ 4 ~_ L r ~ r t ~ I c~~r.tlr ' ~; i ,~a ,E i I ~~ ~.. t d~ 4-.,1IlAT y ~ ~ ~-C.., __~53.4_~~_:.I 0.V' A ~w~ fr t :- I 5l ...,~, W -~ ` Ft ~ i ~G ~~ .~ . •~i~x i ~ EI ~ , t ~ 76 ~ ' wz ri+P nte+ tr-,r j - t ~ ,~ 'nu+r ~ '~ f ai '-'- il, .k Itt -: yrFtx'~u~ --~ I ~ 4~~fMx s(-~°4~-~1 ~' t _~VI ~ ' E .. r4VESr ~.. ~ I ~'AV ~.'': ° .~.~fRAVES~'-r r t c=hi ~i~f ~~ is asp-. ~v~ t ..f -~ ~~ ~ _- ~ ,~ar ~=_4 ~inuat~ yty~r x _S i Asa; (aYl I .. R ~.,~,,~~le`' F m~vzv~-~ yr ,Inj°~a~ i>f` ? ~ ~s'.'-'~t:~ ~ tom...! ~ ftnurrxr Ems; ~ k~?~ '.~ 6z/ YO' ~r~ ' ~ 7 ~ ~ r ~ cs. A ~ `\ _ :::'~~' ~' f / Fu- ~ I! t rk .{ r T=_T .r `~~ ~.: ~ 4 ~ 111„t ~.,~L 3. a .*a. 3 r1 ~r , _ Ct(d3eltsF 2 - ~ l ,_{. ~O .~.~p inJ14.~ E~Gi '~'~ t ~:~~ vg' ~~ °~ -~ ng RUSH ~ ST _nlsl "~n-`~ _l ~f n rm n _ .~. IY otz .fie' yN "`" _ i ~~: ~.r I ~ } .1 l J C ~= ' c ,9 ~ H 'v~ , ,~y _^.C .t-*~ ~{~',~~ ~ _.. ~ I MI;iRCk tl+7Stlr~: ~•I1 ~(~t~-Tr ~ :..- ~ ~,II '.Sll l` un F`8~ed 3~1. I ~_aA~/fT. -~ -~I ': Y _f ~i'% ¢ ~ ~ i ~ . ~',,~ Gtz 9s ~,t r ~ ~~ '',.'~i~ ~ `v - v~ a¢ ~w 3 ~'. p ., s ~~F I.,d,~ "t ~ ~,~q 1 ~nry a~ ~ m ¢tt.ri~t 7_ y-' - `J~; kL'f,c ~~ ~e,~ ~ ~jjl tt aivi - .q ,~ t '~ C:. ~~ ~: - ~ ~ "'P^te r:-;~ / ~ ..:lr F'-' $•>>~ ~ i - n va 1r~.. ... ur(tER51 ~ 1~~ ,,"~ ,~Eltrat .3!i ~ \ ~ ~~r"A ,-~i':,.`' 16 - h~, =tea ~ a.,`''~ l0 ~3'4..~UJf `~ °,:.iA _ za`31 .-,+R.1~ ~ ktsr ' a z~'' \ t t ~ ~ -~ ~. 1 =n r `a ~~ ~B ~ ~ ~{ ~;~,:;~ ~ `~#' du d~tq tY -u (--- ,, ti ~r ~ f LffM` :~l~ 2\..-1 f~^Fy p. S~ `~-L -J~~ ~~ e,V: ~' /DIY ~ ~~ 1 I 'i, L' y1 -. ~eYY ~~Sr Iw'. st ~"I}4 f~. ~`q~~~rc~.tti~ T ~ ~ [' f~'{s o~' ~,~,s. a~ry¢e~ ~2y, tf ~-. t - ".r'~ i' I t ~1. . I 'a "~.' _ _7 t~ -f j ,aj~j~. fi ) I,~ G { euo f~ri C 7°i A ~ 9 r L ` a ,' G4<p, U I .;: t _~ ~~^- ~; ~ / t /l y, f g ~~rze ~° Igne'd FEtl4.R t.7~ti ~ ~.a ~ .s. ,. ~ A. r'.y~ _ ,~ -±~~IdrVt ~.an~+f~tr ~` ~ ~ i T ; sr V ~ - , ~~~Q r+! -,ft~ ~,~ ` ~' 2 ~ ~.,~~ ~ -':., b..S r' v u ty„A~s' ~~t '~ -~ ' ~ ~ °ct tt f ~, ~~,~ ~~ F" ~ r,.E+.asra F~a .~ 4 ,~ 8~s''~..F~ } ~ a f.POM K+, Bi ~ ___ c ~~_ it _ RO ~I .. _ ~ ; , ~ ~t ~~ti~a ' - ~ < _~. -cawa via ~ r~ ~ .b , .. ~I. ~~ ~s~:~ rl~ ~ , r.-~~! ~M0 TEB,ELL ~rmszto ~ ~ ~ ~ . _~, ~" 5ource:Thomas Bros. Maps ~~ , 0 0 v w 0 ca ~. ~o 0 0 .~ a~ a~ v .~ a off _c ~~ • • ' ~ ~ Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' sement. The nurse is an parking lot on the northerly 2.56 acres within the existing SCE ea ry allowed use within the A-1 zone; therefore a zone change for the southerly 1.45 acres will not be required. The site is designated Public Facilities land use by the Rosemead General Plan and the parking lot use with the P zoning is allowed and consistent with the Public Facilities land use designation. The parking lot will provide parking for members and visitors of the First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley that currently park along the public surface streets adjacent to ,and in the immediate vicinity of the Church. The proposed new parking lot will eliminate the need ' for Church members to park on the public streets on Sunday morning. The parking lot proposes to provide 148 parking spaces, including 145 standard spaces and 3 handicap spaces to meet the off-site parking needs of the Church. In addition to the existing Edison electrical transmission towers and distribution electrical 1 lines, the -4.01 acre site is occupied by a wholesale plant nursery. The wholesale plant nursery will consolidate and continue to operate on the southerly 1.45 acres to allow the construction of the surface parking lot on the northerly 2.56 acres, The existing 1 transmission towers will remain and the parking lot will be constructed around the base of the towers as required by Edison to provide a buffer and allow adequate access to its 1 facilities for maintenance purposes.- The proposed parking lot site plan is shown in Figure 4. Vehicular access to the site is provided by three driveways; two from Marshall Street and ' one from Olney Street. Amain 30'-0" wide two-way driveway is proposed at Marshall Street for ingress and egress. This driveway will also provide vehicular access for SCE maintenance equipment and emergency vehicles including police and fire. A second 16-foot wide egress driveway is proposed near the east property line, east of the main access gate. This is an exit-only driveway and will provide secondary access for SCE maintenance trucks ' and emergency personnel if necessary. A 30'-0" wide two-way driveway for ingress and egress is proposed from Olney Street. This driveway will provide access for the wholesale plant nursery operator to the southern end of the site as well as access for SCE ' maintenance equipment and emergency personnel. In addition, three 30'-0" wide two-way driveways are proposed at the southern end of the parking lot adjacent to the wholesale ' plant nursery. These three gates will provide access to the parking lot from Olney Street for SCE maintenance equipment and emergency vehicles. All access gates will have Knox locks to prevent unauthorized personnel from entering the site, except for SCE personnel and emergency response personnel such as fire and police. Page 5 City of Rosemead Zone Change OS-223 r~ `~ Initia 'tudyl Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church.of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 1 1 1 • ~ ~ ~ v ,~ ~` ~ r;~. ~n "" " -d ~~ 0 a, 0 ~" ~~ o, ~.. d otS c z ' ~ ~ ~ Initial Stud I Miti sled Ne alive Declaration City of Rosemead y g g 2:one Change OS223 - First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot The parking lot will be developed around four existing Southern California Edison transmission towers, all of which are located on the northern 2.56 acres of the site. A 15'-0" x 5'-0" passenger shelter is proposed near the main Marshall Street entrance where a shuttle van will pick up and drop off passengers. The passenger shelter is setback approximately 85'-0" from Marshall Street. The project applicant proposes to install approximately 10,362 square feet of landscaping to ' buffer the parking lot from Marshall Street and the adjacent residential properties east and west of the site. A 15' wide landscape area is proposed for the site frontage at Marshall ' Street. The landscape improvements include athree-foot tall split-face block wall with a three foot tall wrought iron. fence on top of the block wall for a total wall height of 6'. Turf and verbena will be planted in front of the wall/wrought iron fence, between the block wall ' and the existing sidewalk along the south side of Marshall Street. Two existing street trees south of Marshall Street will be incorporated into the landscaping. A variety of oleander plant species will be planted in a 10' landscaped setback along both the east and west project boundary adjacent to the rear yards of the residents for the entire length of the parking lot. There are trees and other landscaping in the rear yards of some residents that will, in conjunction with the oleanders, provide landscape screening of the parking lot for the existing residents. ' The City of Rosemead Municipal Code requires the project applicant to construct a 6' tall concrete block wall along the east and west property lines for the entire length of the parking lot. The new 6' block wall will.. replace the existing 5' block wall and wooden fence that currently exist in the rear yards of the residences adjacent to the project site. Some of the existing block walls and wooden fences are in disrepair and the new replacement 6' block wall will improve the aesthetics of the site. The proposed landscaping plan is shown in ' Figure 5. First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley proposes to operate the parking lot on Sundays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and Friday evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. On-site security will be present during the entire time the parking lot is open. A security guard will be responsible to unlock and lock the parking lot gates when in ' operation. The parking lot gates will remain locked throughout the rest of the week when not in use. The church will provide a shuttle service to carry people between the parking lot and the church to reduce pedestrian traffic. Two vans will provide spick-up and delivery service between the parking lot and the Church at 15 minute intervals. The two van drivers and the security guard will communicate with mobile phones to monitor the van services and ' to make calls for emergency assistance if needed. Page 7 .City of Rosemead-~' Zone Change OS-223 .7 Initia Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 1 1 i ~ i ~~' ~B f ~ ~ ~.. ~ ( 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w :, ~ ~~ ~. ~a ® o aa oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A A q C $ .X +. S p ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Sd. 2 ~ ~ ~~ -~. ~ ~~ ~ ~g~g ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ i ~~a ca o ao oao s ~~~0 0 0 ~ ~. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ g B 3 ~ 9 E~ ~: di ~ ~ ~ @ B $ ~ ~ ~ ~ w d i'. d' d' ~, ~ v ... ~ U ^d "s ~' F~1 ~ll s ~ U L", O V V ~U~yy Qi d n , ~„ ~ d ~ ~~ 0 C G ~ ~ N 0 (/1 ~ - ' ~ - ~ • Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead - ,Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' MENT 1.4 INTENDED USE OF THIS DOCU ' This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead and all other responsible, trustee or regulatory agencies to evaluate the project's environmental impacts and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, if any, to less than a significant level, according to the regulations set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (Public Resources Code §21000 - 21177, and California Code of ' Regulations §1500 - 15387). ' 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Rosemead is a suburb within the Greater Los Angeles area located 10 miles ' - east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the City of Temple City, on the west by the City of San Gabriel and the County of Los Angeles, on the south by the City of ' Montebello, and the City of EI Monte and -South EI Monte on the east. The City of Rosemead is 5.5 square miles iri~size with a residential population of approximately 53,505 . people. - The proposed parking lot is located within an existing Southern California Edison easement in a residential neighborhood west of Walnut Grove Avenue, between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue. The project site spans one block, from Marshall Street on the north to Olney Avenue on the south. The site consists of three parcels of land totaling approximately 4.01 acres. The primary use of the site, which was acquired in 1923, is by SCE for electrical transmission. The site has four existing transmission towers with electrical lines that are ' part of a regional electrical distribution system. Two of the towers have unmanned telecommunication facilities; one is operated by T-Mobile and the other by Royal Street Communications. A wholesale plant nursery also occupies the entire site,, except for the area around the base of the towers. The plant nursery has existed on the property since 1971. Photographs of the site and surrounding areas are shown in Figures 6 and 7. 1 h ere are The site is essentially flat. Although the property is zoned A-1 (Light Agriculture), t no agricultural activities, with the exception of the wholesale plant nursery that consists of ' potted plants. All existing plants, shrubs and trees on the site are owned by the wholesale plant nursery and maintained in temporary planting containers. 1 win : th f ll l d i h it g e o o u e nc e s e The land uses surrounding t -, North General Plan: Public Facilities and Low Density Residential -Zoning: A-1 (Light Agricultural) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: SCE Right-of-Way and Single-Family Residences Page 9 • Initialyl Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot $OUtI1 General Plan: Public Facilities and Low Density Residential Zoning: A-1 (Light Agricultural) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: SCE Right-bf-Way and Single-Family Residences East General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: Single-Family Residences West General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: Single-Family Residences Page 7u ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • hil Martin ~ Associates, Inc. Surrounding Land Use Photograph 1: Looking at the rear yards of the residences east of the site. Note existing walls/fences that will be replaced. Photograph 2: Looking north from the site at the SCE easement and single-family homes. hil Martin & Associates, Inc. Surrounding Land Use Photograph 3: Looking at the residence west of the site from Marshall Street. Project site is on the left. Photograph 4: Looking south at the project site from Marshall Street. 1 City of Rosemead Zone Change OS223 • Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST :... __ Envirohmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Signwficant Impact The environmerital factors listed below are not checked because the proposed project would not result in a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by substantial evidence provided in this document. ^ Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology/Soils ^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Land Use/Planning ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population/Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities/Services Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance --- En ., ~. vlr:..onmental Deterrninattor~ r:. ,... ;~ ,... 1 On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. ' ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a, significant effect on the environment, .and an Environmental Impact Report is required.` ' ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a ,"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect, 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ' ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable ' standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. - ~ Signed Date ' Page 13 J City of Rosemead Zone Change Otr223 c) Mitigation easu Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans; zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information. Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, .lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.. • Initial~y/Mitigated Negative Declaration ' First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CEQA requires a brief explanation for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as, direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there. is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. .Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063.(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) .Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. M res For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Page 14 ' ~ • City of Rosemead Zone Change 0li-223 ~ Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of~San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot i n of each issue should identif 9) The explanat o y a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and. ' b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 1 ' Page 15. City of Rosemead ~ ~ Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 ~ - First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ~~ This Page Intentionally Left Blank • City of Rosemead - Initiar Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION . I,,,; it Less,Than ~~ •,~„~,F~~~ ~ ~ Potentially ~~~~Sign~ftcan~€-E~~Less Than Significant ' With Significant No ~~ _ Environmental Issues Impact,, Mitigation Impact Impact 3.1 Aesthetics .:1 ;: ~. .: - ;: ' _Wou ~~~ ~ ~a) Hav he pro~ect~~ - e a substantial adverse effect on a ^ ^ ^ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage, scenic resources, ' includirig, but not limited to, trees, rock ^ ^ ^ outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual. character or quality of the site and its ^ ^ ® ^ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or .glare, which would adversely affect day or ^ ^ ® ^ nighttime views in the area? ' 3.1 AESTHETICS a) No Impact. The most predominant scenic vista open to the Rosemead community is the ' San Gabriel Valley mountain range, which is located approximately 8.5 miles north of the site. The proposed parking lot within the SCE easement will not block or interrupt any direct ' views of the San Gabriel Mountains by any residents adjacent to the site that look north across the site to the San Gabriel Mountains. All residents adjacent to the site will continue to have direct views of the San Gabriel Mountains without any significant interruption due to the project. The proposed parking lot light poles that are near the southern end of the ' parking lot will extend into the view of some residents, but the light poles will not completely block or significantly interrupt residents existing views of the mountains. Neither the project site nor any surrounding property is designated a scenic vista by the City of Rosemead ' General Plan. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant scenic vista impacts. b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to or near any .state-designated or eligible scenic highways.' As a result, the project will not affect or impact any existing scenic resources, historic buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway. c) Less .Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with four Southern ' California Edison transmission towers and associated overhead power lines. The site is also occupied by a wholesale plant nursery, which has existed within the SCE right-of-way State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, http://www.dot.ca. gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_h ighways/ ' Page 76 • City of Rosemead ~ ~ Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church-of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot since 1971.. Although not permanent, the existence of the wholesale plant nursery has enhanced the aesthetics of this portion of the SCE right-of-way between Marshall Street and' Olney Street. While the nursery will be removed from the northerly 2:56 acres to allow construction of the parking lot the nursery will remain on the southerly 1.45 acres. The removal of the existing nursery, stock from the northerly 2.56 acres will eliminate the landscaped appearance of the site. However, the Church proposes to landscape the perimeter of the parking lot as well as some of the area within the parking lot to provide some buffering of the parking lot from motorists and pedestrians on Marshall Street. The proposed landscape plan shows that four species of fast-growing 15-gallon oleanders will be planted in a 10 foot landscape set-back along the east and west boundaries of the site and the two medians that separate parking spaces at the southern end of the site. Turf and other low profile landscaping will be planted in the 15 foot set-back at the northern end of the site adjacent to Marshall Street. Shredded wood chips will be placed within all landscaped areas. The project proposes to retain two existing street trees along the project frontage in the landscape set-back in the Marshall Street right-of-way. A three foot split face block wall with a three foot wrought iron fence on top of the block wall. is proposed along the north side of the property, adjacent to and south of Marshall Street. This wall will be setback 15 feet from the northern property line. Double drive gates with a Knox lock box are proposed at the. main enfrance on Marshall Street as well as the southern end of the site adjacent to Olney-Street. The double drive gates with Knox boxes will allow site access for both .Edison personriel and emergency vehicles from both Marshall Street and Olney Street. Church guests will only access the site from Marshall Street, they will not be allowed to the site from the south. The site will be paved with asphalt to provide a suitable parking surface for cars and a paved surface for fire trucks in case of an emergency. A prefabricated seven foot metal shelter, excluding the roof dome, will provide shelter for guests while waiting for the shuttle van to be driven to the Church. The shuttle van will stop at the shelter and pick- up and drop=off Church guests. The project will change the existing aesthetics of the northerly 2.56 acres of the site by replacing potted nursery stock with a paved parking lot. The proposed improvements include pavement, landscaping and turf, a three foot split face wall with a three foot wrought iron fence, double wide ,gates, interior curbs, parking lot lighting, and a new six foot .block wall along the entire length of the east and west property lines. The existing nursery on the southerly 1.5 acres will remain with the project. The project site is not directly visible from the back yards of the residents adjacent to the site unless someone is standing close to their rear property -line and looking ,over-the block wall or wooden fence. The existing five foot block walls and wood fences in the rear yards of the residences that extend along the east and west property lines and separate the SCE easement from 'the adjacent residents block direct views of the site. The. existing Page 17 ' 1 ii 1 City of Rosemead Zone Change Ob223 • • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot landscaping, including trees and shrubs, in some of the back yards also screen and block views of the site. The existing block wall and wooden fence along the rear yards of the residents will be replaced with a new six foot block wall by the project applicant. The new six foot block wall will incrementally reduce direct views of the parking lot by the residents when standing near the wall. Similar to the current conditions, the site will not be directly visible to the residents and the construction of the new six foot block walls along both property lines will further reduce the visual impact to residents of the parking lot. In addition, landscape is proposed along the east and west project boundary to further buffer the view of the site by the adjacent residents. The construction of a new six foot block wall and installation of landscaping along the project perimeter will reduce the visual impact of the project. ~ The improvements proposed for the project frontage on Marshall Street includes a split face block wall, wrought iron fencing, turf, and other landscape materials. These improvements will minimize the, aesthetic impact of the project for both motorists and pedestrians on Marshall Street. While the project will replace approximately 2.5 acres of existing nursery with a parking lot, the landscaping proposed along the Marshall Street frontage, along the east and west project boundary and throughout the site will minimize aesthetic impacts to motorists and pedestrians on Marshall Street. Overall, the project will have less than significant aesthetic impacts to the adjacent residents and motorists and pedestrians on Marshall Street with construction of the landscaping that is proposed for the site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate a new source of light compared to the existing conditions. The project proposes to install 22 light poles throughout the site to provide nighttime safety and security lighting whereas there are no lights currently J associated with the nursery. The light poles will be a maximum of 15 feet tall and located along the perimeter of the parking lot and throughout the interior of the site to provide lighting when the parking lot is used ~on Friday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. The lights will be shielded and directed down to minimize the amount of light that extends off-site. A photometric study was conducted to determine if the project lighting will impact any adjacent residents as shown in Figure 8. The photometric model was based on the height and type of lights proposed, the manufacturer and model, distance of the adjacent residents, height of the existing five foot block walls along the east and west project boundary, and the reflective index of the project pavement. Based on the results of the photometric study, the intensity of the light from the project at the east, and west property lines is less than 0.3 foot candles, which is comparable to medium to bright moon light. Page 18 • City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS-223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot This Page Intentionally Left Blank w o c ~ ~ ~ ~ zz_ c~ ?~ ~ "' ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ z a4 ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ is d o d P d d d d d d ~ P d d P d P d d P d d d d d o P a d d P d P P d~ 4 P ~d a ~ ~ ~ ~ P a. P P P d d d P P P P P P P d d a P_ d P P P' P n C P d d d d d P d d h P P d A fl ~' P d /- d P P d n P d P r ~ P c r ~ .= d n d rl , d P d d d d N N: d d P ~ xl P d d P r+ N P P r d d d P P P P P d P d P d d d d d ~ d d d P P d d P d' P d d d d P d d d P d d d d d d P P d P d d d d P P d d d ~ d d d P . d d P Q ~a ~ n ~n ~ P d P d 1 N P d c, r~ a d ~ 6 R+ d d ~ d o d d P c ~:. n.~ '. P d ~ n _ ,'P: ~ P d d P ~Y d P d d P P P d~P P d d ~y~P.~ P P ..p..'P,a .o o a o o•o ~ o 0 0 0 0.0 o_o: d:,P':~ 6 ~ A R P P P P P P A• ~$~~-o". P d P -4 P R P O 'G P- R ~FI P P P'A 15 P P P P 4 P d P;~.P lYJ P {I d P P d P C } 'R p.:.:• P h P, 'P' e.,P ~ P P !1 P P P ~ P •~.P r. : o..o ..o ~~q':o 'o. - 1 d P ~ ri d. r; :d%. ~;P P'a', F'.~P 9%;~=i~ d'd: 4 d a . Q Q ,PP P•d PdA'P.C P PP d'PPd.d R dP~ 4 P P "P P..P R'A P "P R P P ~ P F p ~ o d d ~ , 'P P P ~ 'P P P 'P !>l~`P R A P P P O P 6. ~ .P d 4 o, P d P, -d P d P. ` o +'~' P - F~:P• P P .d 'P P ~ P P '13: t3i~P'd"'A'• ~ ~. FijY: `sf ~.. P d d n. •:P :b ~"P Q C P . - . ' : e::bi' P Y. F. .P P~' P d d G a - d c d '. d P P d P d d d d P d P s+ d d~ d o N d P a'~P d d d d d u P lsba' P ~ Y _ ~~ ` ~ d o p d v,~ d d ~ , • ~ P d . .4 ~~~~ P P ~ P P P d d d.F f+ d ~ P d d d ,!! qq~~ mm~~ P d W ~~N ~ N d d ~ RfP d d P d P r®d P P P rl ~ !~ %' P C ~ ~ c P A P P o P P d~ i ~ P P d o P P P P P d d P .N rv i P d d N d d P d P ~ ~ d d 'd P P d d P d P d d P d P d P d d P rK ~ P c d~ d P d P P d d d P n~ d P d ~ P d y R ' r a ~ r ~ N ~ ss ~~~~ P ~ Lr tY' ~j( p ~° _ d..'d".. d :'F.1~:'P".if: ¢'r.A~ 6 0" '•s;'.Ao.•~: ~ ,P,'i%#'.f.51: a:;'.Q',Soi';'a': P' P a •''aj'.P. P d d' P P d P d d P d P P d d P P P _bt O i+ s+ it A P" P t~ 4 i~ ~ d d d 0 A d d a P ,,°e d P p. ~ p < ::. ~ ~ < ~ ~ E ~ Z ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~G g~~$ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ g~g 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 4 ~ °~ i ,~ f C ~ 1 g 3 3 Y Q `~ ~r? L J pskp gO G ~1 f 5 GC `` t. 1 1 1 LJ I ~ {~ J I w ~ 1 u VVq-1 L C u W Q d u G .~ v 0 x F d A V O H Q C_ N Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead ' Zone Change OS223 - First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' First Evan elical Church of San Gabriel Valley proposes to operate the parking lot between 9 the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Sunday and 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Friday. A ' security guard will be at the parking lot all times during the time the lot is open; including Friday evening. Twenty-two light poles are proposed for the parking lot to illuminate the site ' on Friday night: The lights will only be used on Friday night and turned off.at 10:30 p.m. when the parking lot is closed. The light poles are positioned to minimize spillage of light and glare onto the adjacent residents. '' . The applicant proposes to construct a new six foot tall block wall along the entire length of ' the east and west property lines to replace the existing block walls and wooden fences. In addition, the project applicant proposes to install landscaping adjacent to the perimeter block wall. The landscaping that is proposed along the east and west .property lines is ' considered a fast growing plant species (oleander). Once the landscaping reaches maturity and extends above the block wall, the landscaping will be at a height to block and interrupt ' some of the direct views of the parking lot from the rear yards of the adjacent residences. The only time that glare from the windows and metal surfaces will be generated from the ' parking lot is on Sunday. While the parking lot will be used on Friday night from 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., no glare will be generated. The new six foot tall block wall that will be ' constructed along the east and west project boundaries by the project applicant will block and eliminate any glare from impacting adjacent residents at ground level. Although minimal, some glare may occur to residents in second story residences with windows that ' face the site. Some. glare could be generated to motorists and pedestrians on Marshall Street, but the impact would be minimal and insignificant due to the small area of the site ' that is exposed and most, if not all, of the glare would be blocked or interrupted by the landscaping along the project frontage. While the parking lot lights and automobile windows and metal surfaces will generate light and glare, respectively the impact will be less than significant and not significantly impact ' area residents, motorists, or pedestrians. ,' ' Page 20 City of Rosemead Zone Change 05-223 - Initia~ dyl Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ ' First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot :r-- - .. •• ~ Ler s Than _ 'Potentially Significant Less Than Significant I With Significant No ' Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ~, 3.2 Agricultural Resources !n determining whether impacts fo agricultural res~urcesare significant e nvironmental effects. lead agencies. may refer to the Califorrna AgriculturalLand Evaluation and Srte Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Cal~fornla Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculta~ie and farmland. ;; W"ould the,,prr~ject _ _ _ ,., ,. _.- a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps " prepared pursuant to the Farmland ^ ^ ^ ~ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ^ ^ ® ^ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or ^ ^ ^ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES . a) No Impact. The primary use of the site is for electricity distribution by Southern California Edison. Edison has four electrical transmission towers on the site that are part of a regional electrical distribution system. The wholesale nursery is a secondary use on the site that exists in conjunction with the SCE facilities. The nursery has potted. plants only; no plants are planted or grown in the soil. There is no other agricultural use on the site or in the vicinity of the site. The California State Department of Conservation was contacted to determine if the site is designated as prime or unique farmland or of statewide or local importance on the California State Important Farmlands Map. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) considers the City of Rosemead as an urban area. Therefore, none of the soils have been mapped and the NRCS has no plans to map the soil in the future. For reference, the State maps potted nurseries as Unique Farmland if the site is 10 acres or more. In this case the site is less than 10 acres (4.1 acres). Therefore the site has no farmland designation.2 Because the project will not convert any State designated farmland to non agricultural use the project will not impact farmland. z Kerri Kisco, State of California Department of Conservation, email dated June 3, 2008. Page 21 1 1 1 1 City of Rosemead Zone Change OS22~ w • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will require a zone change to change the existing'A-1 (Light Agricultural) zone to P (Automobile Parking) to allow the development of the proposed parking lot on the northern portion of the site. A parking lot is not a permitted use in the A-1 (Light Agricultural) zone. The zone change. will reduce the amount of land that is zoned A-1 (Light Agricultural). Currently there are approximately 186 acres of agricultural land in Rosemead. The zone change will convert 1.56 acres of agriculture land to non-agriculture land resulting in a loss of less than one percent of existing agricultural land in the city. Because Rosemead is highiy urbanized, the loss of 1.56 acres of land- that is zoned for agricultural use does not have a significant impact. Although the 1.56 acres is zoned for agricultural use, no other crops or types of agricultural activity other than strawberries or nurseries would be allowed due to a conflict with SCE operations. Most of the agriculturally zoned land in Rosemead is used for non-traditional agricultural uses due to economic and land use compatibility issues. All of the properties that are zoned for agriculture are located adjacent to residential or commercial uses and if used for typical agriculture uses would result in land use compatibility issues. In addition, the costs of water, fertilizer, fuel, etc. associated with agricultural farming are a major obstacle to the economic benefits of raising agricultural crops in Rosemead. The potential impacts associated with changing the zoning of the site from agriculture (wholesale nursery) to a parking lot will be less than significant because the project will not eliminate any important or prime farmland in Rosemead and the project represents the loss of less than one percent of the city's agricultural land. Neither the site nor any surrounding property is in a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project will not have a conflict with any land that is in a Williamson Act contract. c) No Impact. Like the project site, the SCE property north of the site and almost the majority of the entire length of the SCE easement through the City of Rosemead is zoned A- 1. The proposed parking lot will displace approximately 2.56 acres of the existing wholesale nursery, which is considered an agricultural use. However, the existing nursery will continue to operate on the southerly 1.45 acres of the site adjacent to the proposed parking lot and throughout the rest of the SCE easement. The parking lot will operate adjacent to the existing nursery and not impact the existing nursery or the nursery on the' SCE property north of the site. The project will, not result in or encourage the conversion of agricultural uses. to non-agricultural uses. \ Page zz • l ' City of Rosemead y/Mitigated Negative Declaration Initia Zone Change OS223 ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot :_~.-' Less Than ~: Potentially - ,Significant Less-.Than , - Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact - Mitigation. -- Impact ` ---- - Impact 3.3 Air Quality.. ,:...:; Where available. thesignificance criteria established bythe apE~lica6le air quality rnana gemen~t I orair pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following de terminations. ~bould the,:nNro~ect: i a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ^ ^ ^ the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ^ ^ ® ^ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ^ ® ^ ^ quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ^ ^ ® ^ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ^ ^ ® ^ substantial number of people? 3.3 AIR QUALITY An air quality assessment was prepared for the project by Giroux Associates. A copy of the air quality report is included as Appendix A. a) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south. and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the _ nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM-10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and- the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. Page 23 ' ,City of Rosemead Zone Change OS223 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states. with air-sheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast fors ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon. monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter ,are shown .in Table 1. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several- decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5 are forecast to slightly increase.. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint" in August 2003. The 2003 AQMP was approved by the EPA in 2004. .The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. Components of the 2003 air plan include: • How the federal standard for CO was to be maintained. Control measures to further reduce emissions from business, industry and paints. • Measures to be adopted by CARB and EPA to further reduce pollution from: :• Cars • Trucks •:• Construction equipment • Aircraft • Ships • Consumer products Table 1 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in Tons/Dav) Pollutant 2005a 2010b 2015b 2020b NOx ~ 957 756 586 496 ROG 684 567 ~ 517 492 CO 3838 2943 2395 2056 PM-10 276 ~ 278 284 292 PM-2.5 g7 97 98 ~ 100 `2005 Base Year. b With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. ' Source: California Air Resources Board, The 2006 California Almanac of Emission & Air Quality Page 24 City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot-- With re-designation of the air basin as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan has been developed. This plan shifts most of the one-hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8-hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date will "slip" from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM-2.5 standard. The 2007 AQMP was adopted on June 1, 2007, after extensive public review. The 2007 AQMP recognizes the interaction between photochemical processes that create both ozone and the smallest airborne particulates (PM-2.5). The 2007 AQMP is therefore a coordinated plan for both, pollutants. Key emissions reductions strategies in the updated air quality plan include: Ultra-low emissions standards for both new and existing sources (including on- and-off-road heavy trucks, industrial and service equipment, locomotives, ships and aircraft). • Accelerated fleet turnover to achieve benefits of cleaner engines. • Reformulation of consumer products. • Modernization and technology advancements from stationary sources (refineries, power plants, etc.) Development, such as the proposed project do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing "general" development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation control measures that can be implemented on aproject-specific basis, and if the scope and phasing of a project are consistent with adopted forecasts as shown in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), then the regional air quality impact of project growth would not be.significant because of planning inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is agrowth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than-significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on aproject-specific basis. The project will not significantly affect regional air quality plans because the construction of the project will not generate new or additional vehicle trips; only a redistribution of parking from surface streets to a new designated church parking lot to accommodate parking for church members and guests. The parking lot will provide off-street parking for Church members and guests that currently park on public city streets adjacent to and in the Page 25 ' ~ • Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' rea when existin Church arkin lots are full. Since no new air emissions will immediate a g p g be generated, the project will not impact the implementation of any air quality plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The only new air emissions that will be generated by the ' project are associated with the construction of the parking lot and replacement block walls along the east and west project boundaries. The project will not generate any operational air emissions .because the parking lot redirects existing Church. patrons that currently park ' on adjacent public. surface streets to a new location. The project shifts the location of parking rather than generate new vehicle trips. ' ruction Activi Im acts Const ty p ' Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amehable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions." Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of _ specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural. Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal "default" factor based on the area disturbed assuming that atl other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into midrange average values. This assumption may or may not be totally applicable to site- . specific conditions on the proposed project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for project-specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a considerable degree ' of imprecision. ' Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are stated in the SCAQMD Handbook to be 26.4 pounds/acre.3 This estimate is based upon required dust control measures in effect in 1993 when the AQMD .CEQA Air Quality Handbook was ' prepared. Rule 403 -was subsequently strengthened to require use of a greater array of fugitive dust control on construction projects. All construction projects in the SCAQMD are required to use strongly enhanced control procedures by Rule 403.4 Use of enhanced dust ' control procedures such as continual soil wetting, use of supplemental binders, early paving, etc. can achieve a substantially higher PM-10 control efficiency. Daily emissions with use of ' reasonably available control measures (RACMs) for PM-10 can reduce emission levels to s SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), Table A9-9, "Graded Surface" Default Value = 26.4 pounds/day/acre ' "SCAQMD Rule 403 (last amended June 3, 2005), Section (d) (2) states: No person shall conduct active operations without utilizing the applicable best available control measures...to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type within the active operation. ' Page 26 • City of Rosemead Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change Ob223 - ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot around ten (10) pounds per acre per day. With the use of best available control measures (BACMs) the California Air Resources Board URBEMIS2007 computer. model predicts that emissions can be reduced to 1-2 pounds per acre per day. The project site is approximately 2.6 .acres. The Air Resource Board URBEMIS2007 computer model predicts that 0.7 acres could be under simultaneous heavy construction at some point during the build-out lifetime of the project: With the use of. RACMs, daily PM-10 emissions during site grading would be 7 pounds per day (0.7 X 10.0 = 7 Ib/day). The SCAQMD significance threshold of 150 pounds per day would not be exceeded. With the use of Best Available Control Measures (BACM), daily PM-10 emissions can be further reduced. Because of the PM-10 non-attainment status of the air basin, construction activity dust emissions are considered to have a cumulatively significant impact. Use of BACMs is thus required even if SCAQMD individual CEQA thresholds are not exceeded by use of RACMs. Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns. or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2.5") was adopted in 1997. With a limited amount of construction activity, particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. PM-2.5 emissions are estimated by the SCAQMD to comprise 20.8 percent of PM- 10. Other studies have shown that the fugitive dust fraction of PM-2.5 is closer to 10 percent. With mitigation, PM-2.5 emissions during all construction will be reduced to less than one pound per day. This level will be well below the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of 55 pounds per day for PM-2.5. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture, or landscape foliage rather than being any adverse health hazard: The deposition distance of most such dust particles is very close to the source (typically 100 feet). There are few concentrations of dust-sensitive receptors within the primary dust deposition impact zone. Exhaust emissions will result from on and off-site heavy equipment. The types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. Equipment exhaust emissions were calculated presuming that grading will be mainly balanced on-site, grading will gradually shift toward paving. The URBEMIS2007 Page 27 Initial Stud /Miti ated Ne alive Declaration City of Rosemead Y 9 9 Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot computer model was used to calculate emissions from .the following prototype construction equipment fleet as shown in Table 2. Table 2 Estimated Project Construction Equipment 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 Grader Grading 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 Water Truck 1 Paver 4 Cement Mixers Paving 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 Roller The calculated construction activity emissions associated with the equipment identified in the above table are summarized below in Table 3. Table 3 Construction Activity Emissions (pounds/day) Activity ROG NOx CO SOZ PM-10 PM-2.5 COZ Grading No Mitigation 3.4 28.1 14.8 0.0 7.9 2.7 2,371.8 With Mitigation 3.4 23.9 14.8 0.0 1.2 0.6 2,371.8 Paving No Mitigation 2.3 13.0 9.2 0.0 1.1 1.0 1,241.9 With Mitigation 2.3 11.2 9.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 1,241.9 (~i; ~ti t ~,_ ~ SG,AQM~D,aThreshold ~~ r75 Jq S__ _ F 4 _ _ _ ,~ v~~4`C~I kl 1,OO~k~Fla il ~k~S.,.~',33'~~.~I ~ ~~'~ ~~J~f ~r r'" ~~' S50a c•l'.S~ItV~~Y .II w, i9~ 150 S T ~, 150 w_: . d I .; ~. $ ~i455 h.~~~ ~ ClE .___- Source: URBEMIS2007 Model, Output in Appendix All pollutant emissions during construction activities are predicted to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds prior to the implementation of ahy supplemental mitigation. Regardless, because of the non-attainment status of the air basin for both ozone and particulate matter, use of BACM's is recommended during construction to mitigate cumulative regional air quality impacts. The recommended emissions mitigation measures are detailed in the "Mitigation" section of this report. Construction activity air- quality impacts occur mainly. in close proximity to the surface disturbance area. .There may, however, be some "spill-over" into the ~ surrounding Page 28 City of Rosemead Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS-223 ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot community. That spill-over may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt is washed into public streets. Passing non-project vehicles then pulverize the dirt to create off- site dust impacts. "Spillover" may also occur via congestion effects: Construction may entail roadway encroachment, detours, lane closures and competition between construction vehicles (trucks and contractor employee commuting) and ambient traffic for. available roadway capacity. Emissions controls require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic management plan that will maintain such "spill-over" effects at a less- than-significant level. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Project-related air quality impacts will derive from the mobile source emissions that will be generated from the parking lot uses proposed for the project site. The project proposes a total of 148 parking spaces. If each parking spot were utilized, this would translate to 296 daily trips. Although use of this parking lot will be on Friday evening. and Sunday morning only, calculations were made assuming 296 trips per day as a worst case analysis. Operational emissions for project-related traffic were calculated using a computerized procedure developed by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) for urban growth mobile source emissions. The URBEMIS2007 model was.run using the trip generation factors specified above for Sundays and special events. The model was used to calculate the resulting vehicular operational emissions for a project build-out~year of 2009. 'Due to improving vehicle technology, a project build out date beyond 2009 would result in lower operational emissions. The results are shown in Table 4. The project will not cause the SCAOMD's recommended ,threshold levels to be exceeded. Project-related emission levels for the two ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx) would represent 3 percent each of the significance threshold. Carbon monoxide (CO) would similarly not exceed the suggested significance threshold by a large margin of safety. Operational emissions will be individually less-than-significant level. LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS The SCAQNID has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based. thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee in February 2005. Page 29 ' ' City of Rosemead Zone Change OS223 1 ' Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot Table 4 Project-Related Emissions Burden Emissions (Ibs/day) Year 2009 ROG NOx CO S02 PM-10 PM-2.5 C02 Mobile Sources 1.8 1.8 24.8 0.0 4.5 0.9 2,397. 3 SCAOMD ~ 55 ~ r, 55 ~ 55 0 1150 ~ ~r ~, x,150 i 55 Thr, . , ~ Percent of Threshold 3 3 45 <1 3 2 NA Exceeds No No No No No No NA Threshold? Source: uKestnnlszuoi nnoaei, output m Appenalx Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). LSTs. represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent'applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard,, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.. In the absence of any operational "stationary" source emissions from parking lot uses, the LST methodology applies only to construction activity emissions. The URBEMIS model estimates that the daily construction disturbance "footprint" will be almost 0.7 acres. LST pollutant concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre ' sites. Utilizing data fora 1 acre site and a source receptor distance of 25 meters to the nearest off-site homes, the following thresholds are determined (pounds per day) and shown in Table 5. As shown, all mitigated emissions ,are below LST thresholds. ' Table 5 LST Threshold Data i So. San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 LST Threshold 598 131 5 4 Proposed Project No Mitigation 9-15 13-28 ~ 1-8 1-3 With Mitigation 9-15 11-24 1 <1 c) Less Than, Significant With Mitigation. Construction and operation of the proposed project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (CO,. PM10, and precursors of ozone VOC and NOX) for which the proposed project region is in Page 30 City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality. standard. SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative construction or operational emissions, nor provides separate methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts should~be assessed using the same significance criteria as those for the project's specific impacts. Since none of the project's anticipated daily emissions exceed the thresholds recommended by SCAQMD, the project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Construction activity air pollution emissions are not anticipated to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds for any representative single development. Because of the basin-wide non- attainment designation for ozone and PM-10, project construction activity impacts will be cumulative in nature. Emissions reductions from construction activities can be readily achieved. The following construction activity mitigation measures are recommended to reduce cumulative construction air emissions: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The following dust control measures shall be implemented prior to the start of construction and maintained throughout construction: • Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas. • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Water exposed surfaces under current 'disturbance 3 times/day. • Cover all stock piles with tarps. • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. , • Wash/sweep site access points within 30 minutes of any observed visible dirt spilling on public streets and at the end of the workday. • All construction equipment shall be staged as far from adjacent residents as possible. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: The following exhaust emission mitigation measures shall be implemented throughout project construction: • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Page 31 City of Rosemead ~ - Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative-Declaration Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church oT San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' ~ Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. ' • Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment where feasible. ` ' d Less Than Si nificant /m act. Air qualit impacts .are analyzed relative to those 9 P Y persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called ' "sensitive receptors". Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease). Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for, extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is .highest. Existing off-site residences abutting the SCE Easement are considered pollution- sensitive to any project related emissions. Residents adjacent to the site could be impacted ' by air emissions during project construction. The following measures are recommended to reduce potential short-term air emission impacts to area residents: ' t i iti t d ors o a r sens ve recep The residences adjacent to the parking lot are considere emissions. Although the project will generate air emissions during project construction, as ' presented in the air quality assessment, the project emissions will not exceed adopted air emission thresholds during construction as presented and discussed above. The operation of the parking lot will not generate a significant number of additional automobile air emissions that will result in air quality impacts. As a result, the relocation of Church patrons and guests to the parking lot from the public surface streets in the immediate vicinity of the ' Church to the proposed site along with an allowable total of 148 spaces will not exceed air emission thresholds. The project will be required to implement specific measures such as daily water to reduce fugitive dust particulates during project grading and construction, proper maintenance of all motorized construction equipment to reduce air emissions, staging construction equipment as far from adjacent residents.as possible, etc. in an effort to ' minimize air emission impacts. Due to the relatively small scale, the air quality emissions generated during both the construction and the use of the parking lot will be less than ' significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. During the two months to construct the parking lot and ' install the block walls the residents closest to the construction activity may detect some odors from the operation of the motorized construction equipment. There will be less than ' four pieces of large construction equipment operating on the site at any single time so the odors generated by the motorized equipment will be minimal and not significantly impact area residents. Once construction is completed all odors from the operation of construction ' equipment will cease and there will not be any additional or nevv odors generated during ' Page 32 City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS22J - First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot operation of the parking lot. The odor impacts generated by the project will be short term and less than significant. Green House Gas Emissions -The green house gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction and operation of the project were evaluated pursuant to GHG statues and executive orders (EO) AB 32, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. There are no adopted thresholds of GHG emissions significance. However, GHG emissions. are implicated in the acceleration of global warming experienced in the last several decades. The project is estimated to generate approximately 24.4 tons per year of GHG emissions during project construction and 125 tons/year during the operation of the parking lot assuming all parking spaces. are occupied Friday night and Sunday. These numbers represent approximately 0.000004 and 0.00003 percent, respectively, of the 2004 statewide annual GHG inventory in COz-equivalent levels (including all non-CO2 gases weighted by their thermal absorption potential). Because no new traffic trips..will be generated by the project and all applicable measures to control dust and construction equipment air emissions will be incorporated, there will not be any project or cumulative GHG impacts. ::. Less Than ~ ~. I ~ Potentially Significant .Less Than Significant With Significant No ..Environmental Issues Impact' Mitigation. Impact- impact ,:~ 3.4 biological Resources l~l~ould the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local ^ or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ^ plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal ^ pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Page 33 ' City of Rosemead ~ Zone Change OS223_ - ~ • ~ Initial Stud / Miti ated Ne alive Declaration y g g First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' d Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or ' wildlife species or with. established native ^ ^ ^ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? , e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, ^ ^ ^ such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation. Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, . or other ^ ^ ^ ' approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ' 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: The project site is used primarily as an, electrical distribution facility for ' Southern California Edison and secondarily as a wholesale plant nursery. SCE has used the site for power distribution for more than 85 years. All native vegetation was removed at the time SCE developed the site and constructed the distribution towers. During the past 85 ' years, SCE has maintained the site and, routinely removes all vegetation that could interfere with its operations. The site is basically void of all vegetation, with the exception of the current potted nursery stock. The site is kept clear of all vegetation that is not associated with the nursery. There are. residences adjacent to the site with some introduced ,' landscaping in their rear yards adjacent to the SCE property. None of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is classified or considered to be rare or endangered plant species. The existing on-site .vegetation and the adjacent residential areas include introduced urban ' landscaping; none of which are candidates as either endangered or rare plant species. There are no wetlands either on or adjacent to the site. The development of both the site ' and the surrounding residential .neighborhoods many years. ago have resulted in the removal and disturbance of any native or significant biological resources and natural plant communities that may have existed. Because the vegetation on the site and the ' surrounding residential areas was removed and replaced with non-native urban vegetation there is no habitat to support native wildlife. The wildlife that may exist either on the site or ' the surrounding- residential areas probably includes non-native wildlife. that is typically associated with urban development such as domestic dogs and cats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, mockingbirds, etc.; none that are designated or would qualify as a sensitive or ' ~ special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U:S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thus, the project will ' not have impact any biological resources including plants or animals. b) No Impact. The project site and the areas surrounding the site are developed with urban ' uses. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities either on the site or Page 34 r City of Rosemead • Init~dyl Mitigated Negative Declaration , Zone Change 05.223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot in any of the adjacent residential neighborhoods. There is no riparian or other sensitive .natural. habitat either on or adjacent to the site that is part of a local or regional plan, policy and regulation or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the project will not impact any riparian or sensitive natural habitat. c) No Impacf. There are no wetlands on the site. The site is not listed nor will it qualify as a federally protected wetland since no wetlands or habitat associated with wetlands exists on the site. The project will not impact wetlands. d) No Impact. The project site is occupied by four high-voltage transmission towers and a wholesale plant nursery. The surrounding areas are developed with residential uses and Interstate 10 is located south of the site. There is no native vegetation or bodies of water either on or adjacent to the site that could support the movement of migratory fish or wildlife or support a nursery for wildlife. As a result, the project will not impact or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. e) No Impacf. The site is developed and located in an urban setting with development surrounding the site. There is residential development east and west of the site and a freeway (Interstate 10) is located 'approximately 60 feet to the south. The SCE power distribution facilities on the site are part of a regional distribution system that extend both north and south of the site. All of the on-site vegetation is associated with a commercial nursery that raises potted plants. There are no natural biological resources present. None of the introduced non-native plant species on the site classify as native species or are under the jurisdiction of any. ordinance that will prevent their removal. All existing plants, shrubs and trees on the site are maintained in temporary planting containers by the nursery owner/operator. The two existing street trees along the south side of Marshall Street will remain and not be removed or impacted by the project. The City of Rosemead Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance recognizes oak trees as significant historical, aesthetic and ecological resources and establishes conditions for the preservation and propagation of these trees. There are no oak trees that will be~ removed by the project and require protection or replacement in compliance with the Rosemead Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project will not have any impacts to oak trees. f) No Impacf. The City of Rosemead is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project will not impact any habitat or natural community conservation plan. Page 35 • ~ • City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 05-223 First Evangelical Churc h of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ._ ` , ~ ~ ~ h Less Than E ` "' - Potentially :... 5tgnificartt Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues _ _ Impact Mitigation Impact _ Imp 3.5 Cultural Resources ,.. _ , e i~o ect =l, ,;~ ,~,~ ~.., I=.;' ...., ' e a substantial adverse change in the a Caus significance of a historical resource as ^ ^ ^ ' .defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ^ ^ ^ pursuant to §15064.5? ' c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ^ ^ ^ geologic feature? , d Disturb an human remains, includin those ^ ^ ^ interred outside of formal cemeteries? ' 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ' The firm of Archaeological Associates conducted a record search and survey to determine if historical resources may exist on the site.5 A copy of the results of the records search and site walk-over are included as Appendix B. i fii hl urb nized. a) No Impact. The project site as well as the enure Clty of Rosemead s g y a ~' There are very few existing .properties that are considered significant from either a historical or archaeological resource perspective. Based on the- results of the records search and site ~ survey. conducted by Archaeological Associates there are no historical resources on the site. ' In addition, ~no historical resources are anticipated to be uncovered during grading for the parking lot. However, if historical resources are discovered during project grading or ' construction of the parking lot lights and van shuttle. shelter, Section 15064.5 of the CEQA guidelines shall be implemented to protect any historical resources that are present. ' b) No Impact. As stated above, a records search and a site survey were conducted to determine if archaeological resources are either known or suspected to be present on the ' site. There are no recorded archaeological resources on the site. A site survey did not identify any existing resources or the potential for archaeological .resources to be present. Based on the records search and site survey the project will not have any archaeological ' resource impacts. However, if archaeological resources are discovered during grading, all grading activity, shall cease and the resources evaluated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ' Section 15064.5, which addresses impacts to unique archaeological resources. e Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the Marshall South Edison Parking Lot, Archaeological Associates, July 28, 2008 ` ' Page 36 City of Rosemead • InitiTStudyl Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 05.223 ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley~Parking Lot c) No Impact. Based on the City of Rosemead General Plan there are no known paleontological resources in the city. The project will not require extensive grading such as large cuts that will impact paleontological resources, if present. The project will remove approximately four. inches of the top soil so sub-base material can be placed and compacted for the final asphalt parking surface. The removal of less than four inches of topsoil will not extend into any paleontological resources, if present. Because the site has been developed and the top soil displaced associated with grading and construction for the electrical transmission towers, any paleontological resources that may have existed were either disturbed or removed during prior construction activities by SCE. Because the site has been disturbed and there are no known paleontological resources in this area of the city based on a records search, the project will not have any paleontological resource impacts. d) No Impact. Neither the site nor the surrounding area are or have been used as a cemetery. Thus, there are no known human remains on the site that will be disturbed by the project. The project will not impact human remains. - -_ --- -- I! = Less Than Potentlally Significant Less Than Significant With - Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Jmpact Impacf ..3.6 Geaiogy and Soils ~' Wouldthe project: ~~ ~ ~, 'i, - _ - - - - a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: ' i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning ' .Map issued by the State Geologist for •~ ^ ® ^ the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to , Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ® ^ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ^ ^ ® ^ , including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ^ ^ ^ ® , b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ^ ^ ^ of topsoil? ~ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is , unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, ^ ^ ^ ' subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? , Page 37 City of Rosemead ~ ~ • Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 05.223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ^ ~ ^ .(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ' supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ^ ^ ^ where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? i 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ' i-iii Less Than Si nificant /m act. The Cit of Rosemead lies in.a seismically active a ) 9 P Y region. While there are properties in Rosemead that are in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone. There are no known active surface faults within the site that would impact the project. The project site is located in an identified liquefaction zone. Based on the State Seismic Hazard Zone map as shown in Figure 9, the project is in an area where historic occurrences ' of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a . potential for permanent ground displacements. The project does not propose to construct ' any buildings or structures other than a pedestrian bus shelter, parking lot, and a 6' block wall along the east and west project boundaries. The bus shelter, parking lot, and block walls will have to be constructed in compliance with the Building Code to minimize any effects associated with liquefaction. The approval of building plans and site inspections during construction will ensure that all construction will minimize the effects of liquefaction. The project will not be significantly impacted by liquefaction. a iv) No Impact. The site is flat and not prone to slope instability hazards, such as landslides. The residential development surrounding the site is also flat and will not impact the site due to instability or landslides. The project will not be significantly impacted by ' .seismic activity, ground shaking, seismic conditions or landslides. b) No Impact. The project will be required by the City to install and provide all appropriate ' erosion control measures prior to the start of construction and maintain the erosion control measures throughout the construction period. The incorporation of standard erosion control measures such as the use of sand bags around the project perimeter, silt curtains, and other measures deemed appropriate by the city will reduce and minimize soil erosion. Due to the flatness of the. site there will be minimal soil erosion during project construction. Construction during the non-rainy season (April -October) will further reduce and minimize ' .soil erosion. The project will not have any significant soil erosion impacts with incorporation of City required erosion control measures prior to the start of construction. ' Page 38 City of Rosemead Zone Change OS223 • InitiaTatudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot This Page Intentionally Left Blank.. Source: State of California Fi re 9 hil Martin & Associates Seismic Hazard Zones City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 05-223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' c No Im act. The site has been developed with electrical transportation facilities for over P 85 years without any evidence of unstable soil. The project does not propose to construct any buildings or structures other than a pedestrian bus shelter, parking lot, and a 6'-0 tall block.wall along the east and west boundaries of the site. According to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the submittal of a soils report will not be required. Furthermore, the Building and Safety Department does not require building permits for block walls 6'-0 or less in height. The project will not have any significant unstable soil impacts. d) No Impact. The Rosemead General Plan does not identify any expansive soils on the site or the project area. Due to the minimal grading that will be required to construct a ' surface parking lot and the fact there will not be any buildings, other than a bus shelter, the _ project will not be impacted by expansive soils. ~ e) No Impact. The project will not require wastewater disposal and no wastewater disposal systems are proposed for the parking lot. The project will not impact any soils resulting from alternative disposal systems since none are proposed. _ - .. _., Environmental Issues -- Potentially Significant Impact - Less 7han~ Significant With Mitigation- _ Less Than Significant, Impact _ _ ~ II No .Impact t I, r 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous 'Materials ,:-..;, l~lrould~flie p~cject: ~: ~.. ,. ._.. _,.. ,:, ;; _ I ' a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ^ ^ ~ ,® transport, u"se, or disposal of hazardous materials? ' b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ^ ^ ^ ' involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ^ ^ ^ substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located within one-quarter mile of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle ^ ^ ^ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste? ' ~ ' . Page 40 City of Rosemead - Initial Studyl Mitigated NegatiOe.Declaration Zone Change OS223 - - First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot _.. ~ .~:_, ,... ---- - -Less 'Than :~ ~ ~.. ,: Potenftally Significant -Less Than Sign-ficant with `Significant No Environmeritallssues Impact' Mitigation Impact Impact 3.7 'Hazards alnd Hazardous fillatelrials r - _..:: Would the io ect: '' ~ - e) Be located on a site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid .. waste disposal site unless wastes have been removed from the former disposal ' site; or 2) that could release a hazardous .substance as identified by the State ^ ® ^ ^ Department of Health Services in a current list .adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code? f) Be located on land that is, or can be made,. sufficiently free of hazardous material's so ^ ^ ^ as to be suitable for development and use as a school? g) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not . been adopted, within two miles of a public ^ ^ ^ .. _ airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? h) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ^ a ^ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 3.7 FIAZARDS AND FIAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) No Impact. The construction and use of .a parking lot for church members does not include the use, disposal or transportation of any hazardous materials. The parking lot will be used by Church members to park while attending church sponsored events and no hazardous materials will be used or generated by the project. b) No Impact. As stated in a) above, the project does not include the use of any hazardous.. materials that could involve the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The use of the parking lot by Church members to park their cars while attending church sponsored events does not include any activity that could potentially involve the. release of any hazardous materials. c) No Impact. The closest school within one quarter miles of the project site is Mildred B. Janson Elementary School, which is approximately 700 feet east of the site. There are no hazardous materials associated with the proposed parking lot that could result in hazardous Page 41 ' City of Rosemead ~ • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS-223 First Evangelical Church oT San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot emissions or the handling of any hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances that could impact the school. The parking lot will be used by Church members and guests to park while attending church sponsored activities. No hazardous materials will be used or generated within the parking lot that could impact the school. ' d) No Impact. The project site is not located within one quarter mile of any industrial-zoned land or existing industrial uses that emit or use hazardous materials. However, there are overhead electrical distribution power lines within the SCE easement that .generate electromagnetic fields (EMF's). There is no evidence that EMFs emit any hazardous substances that will impact people that will park their cars within the SCE easement. One of the existing SCE electrical transmission towers has a mounted telecommunication facility that is operated and maintained by T-Mobile. Southern California Edison has stated that the existing cell site poses no danger to the general public, as they are operating in compliance with the guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) .and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. According to SCE they acquired their site in 1923 and have occupied the easement for at least 50 years. The wholesale plant nursery has occupied the site since 1971. The SCE site is neither on the DTSC's Brownfields ' Reuse Program lists nor the DTSC "Cortese List" of hazardous waste and substances sites. SCE allows the use of pesticides and herbicides in association with the nursery operation. ' The use of pesticides and herbicides in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations would not pose any significant- hazard impacts. It is unlikely there are any hazardous materials present that would impact or be impacted by the project. To ensure no pesticides, ' herbicides, or other hazardous materials are present, the project applicant should provide proof there are no hazardous materials on the area proposed for the parking lot. The following measure is recommended to mitigate potential hazardous impacts to less than significant. f Mitigation Measure HZ-1: The project applicant shall submit a Phase I site assessment to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit to provide evidence there are no hazardous materials on the area proposed for the parking lot. If hazards -are identified they shall be removed or remediated as recommended by the Phase. I assessment and to the satisfaction of the City prior to the start of grading. ' s v/ ublic last access Se tember 10 2008 See http://www.envlrostor.dtsc ca go p p , ' Page 42 City of Rosemead - ~ Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot f) No Impact. The existing site conditions would not be suitable for a school due to the existing high-voltage power lines and transmission towers. The State Department of Education has strict regulations due to perceived environmental concerns regarding the construction of schools under or near electrical transmission facilities. The site is not suitable for a school. g) No Impact. The closest airports to the project include Los Angeles International Airport, and EI Monte Airport, which are approximately 18 miles to the west and 2.75 miles northeast of the site, respectively. Neither Los Angeles International Airport nor EI Monte airport is located within 2 miles of the project. The project will not impact airport operations at either EI Monte Airport or Los Angeles International Airport nor will either airport result in safety hazards for people parking on the parking lot. Therefore, there are no related impacts due to the proximity of the project to either airport. h) No Impact. The project site is more than two miles from the closest private airstrip. The parking lot will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip and will have no associated impacts. ---- - - ~...~ -Leis Than ,, '' Potentially Significant Less Thari Significant With Significant' No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ~ 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality :, Would the project _.._,., .._ a) Violate any water quality standards or ^ ® ^ waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the ^ ^ production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which -would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? _............ ._..... .._.... ......._ -_ ~.-------._._._._........_ ........................................._...._...._... drainage c) Substantially alter the existing pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ^ ^ in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Page 43 , .City of Rosemead ~ Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 ~ _ ~ ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gahriel Valley Parking Lot d Substantial) alter the existin drainage Y 9 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or ' river, or substantially increase the rate or ^ ^ ® ^ amount of surface runoff in a manner, flooding on result in would which ff ' site? _ ........................-__.......... ...-.....................__........................._-. _ .._.-....._........-.........--......................:................-.. ....._ ....._ ...._ ....__or.....o ....._ --...._...---... e) Create or contribute runoff water which ' would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or ^ ^ ® ^ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ' f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ^ ^ ® ^ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ' hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood ~ ^ ^ Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation. map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ' structures, which would impede or redirect ^ ^ ^ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving ^ ^ ^ flooding, including flooding as a result of the ' failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ^ ^ 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project could impact water quality due to ' silt and other debris being carried from the site by surface water runoff during grading, construction and the operation of the parking lot. The quality of storm water runoff is regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES storm water permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of pollutants and establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such pollutants into storm water runoff. As a co-permitee to the County (NPDES No. CAS614001), the City requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with the NPDES requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. As such, the project developer will be required to install and maintain all applicable soil erosion control measures, including Best Management Practices (BMP's), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction and the operation of the parking lot. The developer will be required to submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to the City of Rosemead prior to the issuance of a grading permit to ensure that all applicable erosion ' control measures are installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. Page 44 City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 ~ - _ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot To control surface water pollution, the project proposes to install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3/4 of an inch of surface water runoff from the parking lot as.required by law. All project surface water will be directed to three separate three-foot wide concrete ribbon gutters that will be constructed vvithin the drive aisles to .collect and direct surface water runoff to the southern end of the parking lot. At the southern end of the parking lot each ribbon gutter will direct the first 3/4 of an inch of storm water into a water filter. system. The three filter systems will remove debris and other pollutants from the surface water and retain the first 3/4 of an inch of storm water within the' filter system. The collection and filtering of the first 3/4 of an inch of rainfall will meet and comply with all applicable Regional Water Quality wastewater discharge requirements. ; All surface discharge quantities greater than 3/4 of an inch will be directed onto the existing nursery that is part of the project and located south of the parking lot. Surface water from the nursery site will drain south to Olney Street where the surface water will be collected in the existing curb and gutter system and discharged into a catch basin where it will drain to a regional storm drain system for discharge. Although the nursery site south 'of the, parking lot is a separate parcel from the parking lot, both parcels are leased by the project applicant. In order ~to eliminate a potential significant impact due to increased surface water flows from the parking lot onto the adjacent nursery, the project applicant wi~~ nave to control born parcels. Thus, the project applicant will have to provide proof to the City that it controls both parcels so that surface water from the parking lot can be discharged onto the nursery. If in the future•the applicant does not control the nursery, any increased surface water flows from the parking lot will have to be retained on the parking lot site. The incorporation of all required BMPs and the installation and maintenance of a filter system to collect and treat the first 3/ of an inch of rainfall as required by law will reduce water quality and waste discharge impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HYD-1: The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential surface water discharge impacts from the parking lot to the nursery adjacent to and south of the parking lot. • Southern California Edison shall prepare a covenant and agreement for approval by the City that requires the project applicant to hold all three (3) Edison parcels as one. The covenant and agreement, once. approved by the City, shall be recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Page 45 1 r • City of Rosemead ~ ~ Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 05-T23 ~ ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' s 73,014 roximatel 1.68 acre b) Less Than Significant Impact. Of the 4.0,1 acre site, app y ( square feet) or 42% will be left in open space for water percolation in the form of the existing nursery on the southern area of the site, landscaping along the east and west property lines, the project frontage at Marshall Street, and around the SCE towers. The remaining 2.33 acres (101,662 square feet) or 58% of the site will be paved with an impervious surface that will eliminate rainfall percolation and generate increased surface water runoff. While the ' project will reduce absorption rates due to the parking lot, approximately 42% of the site will remain in open space to continue to allow groundwater recharge through percolation into the soil. As a result, the project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ' substantially with groundwater because the project will continue to allow percolation into the groundwater and not significantly reduce the amount,of land available for water. percolation. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing drainage pattern of the site is to the south to Olney Street. As discussed in a) above, all project generated surface water will be directed to the southern end of the parking lot in ribbon gutters.. The first 3/4 of an inch of rainfall will be retained on-site and quantities greater than 3/4 of an inch will surface flow to 1 the nursery south of the parking lot. Similar to existing conditions, surface water will flow from the nursery into the curb and gutter system in Olney Street where it will enter a catch basin and eventually into the regional storm drain system. The existing drainage pattern to the south wi-I be retained and the project will not alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or the area or alter the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in "c)" above, drainage from the parking lot will continue to flow to the south as with current conditions. The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site. The proposed storm water flow and storm water drainage improvements are shown in Figure 10. The amount of surface water that is discharged from the proposed parking lot site at the present time during a 50-year storm is approximately 5.49 cubic feet per second (cfs). The amount of surface water that is ' estimated to be discharged from the parking lot during the same 50-year storm is 7.35 cfs resulting in an increase of 1.86 cfs. The additional 1.86 cfs increase will sheet flow across the nursery south of the parking lot. The increased surface water runoff generated by the project will not substantially increase and result in flooding either on or off the site. The additional 1.86 cfs increase in runoff will not cause downstream flooding because the local and regional storm drain systems have capacity to handle the additional surface water. ' e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in "d)" above, the incremental increase in surface water by the project will not contribute runoff water and exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. The existing local storm drain system in Olney Street and the regional downstream storm drain facilities have adequate capacity to ' Page 46 i ~ ~ City of Rosemead ~ Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 ~ ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot - This Page Intentionally Left Blank -~ ~r i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • ~: s- ~,i--I ~ i i ~. '': a~ ' i t I I • :: .. .,: gq 4 ,1 rL ti. ( j I a r 1 I j s` IN d I}, I ~t { l ~ I l t I e, P ,.. , ~ :.. L I r 1 i ~ I-:I ~ I, I { I I , ~- ~ it ~ I r ,\ I t''•\ EyyF 'I' ~ Y 'liil ~' ~ ~Q ~$ K°~ 'al{, i` Rn •r_~ ~iai~F ~ :`y:: ... r., `-;I.'~.:.: •L :v:•:` :: ~P-, 99 IFFF c ~' ~ ~ `_, :~.f~~, ,,. • ~._ e~ Cr ~ . I,..I.. I v.li.~: ~'j r~x ~ 3`y3/J1 ~:~', I t.. ,.~, }:: l: ~r :rri ~ '•t f ~i ~ ,S :~i~," ~ ''~~ ~~i; .~'y:. 1;..,F,. ~.: `.~~•_ is :' ... ~ ... ..v ..... ~ 6 h s r. ~1,ti1 I Ivy tir I I 1 `i'~ r - -- . ~p ~• ~,~ i. ~` r • .. ', +:l lj I '~*aii~l ~. ? .i1 a fir. t •` 1 I ~ ~ ~.~ I •,+ ~ ~ ~ , .... }. .. .... .}:. 1 ,.I ....... ..... • ,~\ ....r. ., . { i I I I I } I t r I ~ ~ ~,~ n l d • ~~+ -~ ~ .~. i °@I BST ~I... i 5e ~~~~~ v Y n.~ee~+ gDsf„ g~ ae '~yi~~a` ~ : h6 2i~ a r~ 9¢IF6.~ &~g~hE€C~~~69~~~Sa~~BLte8~1n~"aoF-'-'~ _ ~ - ~~Ii ~i~~:~~t~~d~eeexrg~C[taidx~aPBi ~ yfP~"i~+~~~~ ~'g~ . ...111 ~ ° ~ 8 ~ k' 1 ~ !~ ~ i ~ ~,3~ ~ ~ ~a~I ~ ~~{i63 ~~ i ~! ~ Iiil c~ v bA c~ a~ .~ a. bA 'b » G~6 A, U L." O U •~ ,~ N y A Q 'b H ~ 4 ~ oi! is = v U O N ' City of Rosemead ~ • - e Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 05-223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' handle the increase in the amount of surface water that will be enerated b the ro'ect. 9 Y P J The regional storm drain collection system also has capacity to handle the incremental increase in storm water without any significant impacts. f) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in a) above, the first'/4 of an inch of runoff from the parking lot will be`directed to on-site fitters to remove debris and other pollutants and will be retained on-site. In addition, the quality of all storm water runoff that is ' generated from the site is .regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES storm water permits provide a mechanism for monitoring the ' discharge of pollutants and for establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such pollutants into storm water runoff. As co-permitee (NPDES No. CAS614001) with the County of Los Angeles the City of Rosemead is required to comply with the NPDES requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. The applicant will be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as well as a Standard Urban Storm ' Water Mitigation Plarn (SUSMP), that identifies the minimum required Best Management Practices (BMPs) that must be installed prior to the issuance of a grading permit to remove and reduce debris and storm water pollutants prior to leaving the site. The compliance of ' the project with the measures that are required by the NPDES permit to reduce storm water pollutants will reduce water quality impacts to less than significant. ' No Im act. The ro'ect does not propose to construct any housing. The site is not g) p p J ' located in a flood hazard zone based on FEMA flood map. The City of Rosemead is designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be in Zone "C", which is outside the 100-year flood plain.' Thus, the project-will not place any housing in a flood hazard area. 1 h) No Impact. As noted in g) above the project is not located in a 100-year flood zone. The project does not propose to place any structures that could redirect or impede flood flows if the site were subject to flooding. The only proposed structure includes a covered bus stop, which would not impede or redirect flood flow. The project will have no~impact with regard to impeding or redirecting flood flow. i) No Impact. There are no levees or dams upstream of the project that would flood the site in the event of a levee or dam failure. j) No Impact. There are no water bodies either on or adjacent to the project site that would .impact the site due to a seiche. The site is approximately twenty miles east of the Pacific ~ Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 601410001 C, Revised July 6, 1998. Page 48 • City of Rosemead Zone Change 0!i•223 - - Initial udy/Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Churcti of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot , Ocean and would not be im acted b i p y a tsunam . Th i r r e s to and the su rounding a e a are flat and as a result the project is not exposed to a mudslide. ,~: ~ ;,.._ I;~ Less Than _ '' "'Potentla`l7y Significant ' Less Than Significant With Significant No ,_ ' Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact~~i 3.9 Land lJse alnd Planlning .Would the project: ' a) Physically divide an established ^ ^ ^ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ^ ^ ® ^ ' local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community's ^ ^ ^ conservation plan? ~ 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) No Impact. Examples of "dividing a community" include new roads, rail lines, transmission corridors, or a major development project encompassing numerous city blocks that creates a physical barrier between established neighborhoods or business districts. The project proposes to replace part of an existing wholesale plant nursery with a surface parking lot within the SCE easement. The construction of a surface level parking lot on approximately 2.56 acres of the site will not divide the established .residential community that exists adjacent to the SCE easement. The project will not divide the community. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City, of Rosemead is divided into eight planning areas and the project is located in Planning Area 2. The General Plan land use designation for the SCE easement is Public Facilities. The Public Facilities land use designation allows uses that are operated and maintained for the public administration, welfare, or use. The Public Facilities land use also allows public facilities as well as quasi-public uses such as public utility easements, private schools, and institutional activities such as the SCE power distribution facilities. The City zoning designation for the site is zoned A-1 (Light Agriculture). The existing nursery is consistent with the A-1 zone. However the proposed parking lot is not consistent with the A-1 zone and will require a zone change to P (Automobile .Parking). Therefore, a zone change to P zoning is required for the northerly 2.56 acres ~of the site that is proposed Page 49 • • City of Rosemead Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 _ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot for a parking lot so the parking lot is consistent-with the zoning. Thus, the project is allowed in the P zone and consistent with the proposed zoning. c) No Impact. The City of Rosemead does not have any areas with adopted habitat or ' natural community conservation plans. Therefore, the project vvill not impact any natural communities or conservation plans since none exist in Rosemead. ' ~' :::~: Less Than - ' Potentially Significant Less Than ~~ Significant With Significant No ~' Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.1.0 fislaneral Resources ,V1iould fhe project„ ~, .~. .... a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to ^ ^ ^ the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site ^ ^ ^ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. There is no mining activity on the site at the present time or known to have occurred in the past. There are no known mineral resources on the site that are of value to the. region or the state based on the City of Rosemead General Plan. The project will not have a significant impact to mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) No Impact. As stated in a) above, there is no mining activity on the site and no mining is known to have occurred in the past. The City of Rosemead General Plan does not identify any mineral resources on the site. The project will not impact any locally important mineral resource. Less Than' `'Potentially ` .Significant Less Than ', Significant With ' Significant' No Environmental Issues Impact - Mitigation Impact Impact ' _ ,, „- _ __ -- - ~ 3.11 Noise Would th..e pro~ect:result_~~ _ ~:: ;:..... . ` ' a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ^ ® ^ ^ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Page 50 • Initiad /Miti ated Ne alive Declaration ' City of Rosemead ~ Y 9 9 Zone Change OS223 - ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground ^ ^ ® ^ borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ^ ^ ® ^ above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ^ ^ ® ^. above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ^ ^ ^ . project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ^ ^ ^ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.11 NOISE The firm of Giroux Associates prepared a noise study for the project. A copy of the noise study is included as. Appendix C. a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The existing noise levels on the project site range from 60.4 dB at the northern project boundary to 61.3 dB at the southern boundary.8 State law (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 6, Section T25-28) requires that indoor noise levels in habitable rooms of multi-family dwelling units be limited to a 45 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level). The City of Rosemead has established noise/land use compatibility guidelines consistent with State of California criteria. According to Chapter 8.36 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, the Allowable Exterior Noise level for a residential land use is 60 dB (decibels) between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dB between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Since the average attenuation factor for structures with closable windows exceeds 20 dB, a 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise exposure level is typically considered a desirable maximum exterior noise loading. For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use, the City of Rosemead limits the amount of noise crossing the boundary between the two uses, including noise from the movement of vehicles on private property. For regulated on-sife sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes very specific limits .that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The .City standard is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.), and 45 dB at night (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.). One-half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger s Based on noise measurements taken at two locations at the site on July 10, 2008 Page 51 City of Rosemead Zone Change 06223 Table 6 ROSEMEAD NOISE ORDINANCE LIMITS (Exterior Noise for Residential Uses) Noise Level Not to be Exceeded s Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter periods. The City of Rosemead noise standards for adjacent residential uses are shown in Table 6. .Maximum Allowable 7 AM to 10 PM Duration of Exceedance Da time 30 minutes/Hour (L50) 60 dB 15 minutes/Hour (L25) 65 dB 5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 d6 1 minute/Hour (L1) 75 dB Never (Lmax) 80 dB Source:. Municipal Code Section 8.36.060 10 PMto7AM (Nighttime) 45 dB 50 d6 55 d6 60 dB 65 d6 The Ordinance also restricts the hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy equipment to not operate until 7 a.m. during the week and to not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line (8.36.03O.A.3). Noise standards are adjusted upward if baseline levels already exceed any of these. thresholds. The project will generate noise temporarily during construction of the parking lot and new six foot block walls along the east and west project boundaries and could impact adjacent residents. Figure 11 shows the typical range of construction equipment noise during various construction phases. The construction of the parking lot is the only construction activity of the project that will generate substantial noise. Because the site is flat and does not require substantial grading the construction noise will be on the lower end of the noise generation range shown in Figure 11. Maximum. noise levels from the paving activities will likely be around 80 d6 at 50 feet from the equipment. The City of Rosemead .standard is 85 dB as a maximum. Therefore, the City noise standard will be met during minor project construction at 50 feet from the operation of the construction equipment. Residents adjacent to the site will not be subjected to excessive construction noise. As required by the Municipal Code, all construction activity will be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and prohibited on Sundays and major holidays. The noise that will be generated by the use of the parking lot will not exceed the adopted 60 d6 noise standard, thus the project will not have any significant operational impacts. If all of the parking spaces are occupied and the cars that enter the site arrive during a single hour Page 52 • City of Rosemead - Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot This Page Intentionally Left Blank t 1 `Noise=.LeVel {dBA):at 50 Feet ~~'o $ o soy ~ ao Compactors,{Rollers) . __ ~ ,° ;,Front Loaders ; : ;: ~°.- _..:: ~~: °' ~ Backhoes ~~ o `, __. w L T~acto rs -. _ , , o ~. _. F` - ~~: ~ ~ ~Scrapers,~Graders _. o M1Pavers ~ . " : _ `~ Trucks .. .. ~ ~ Concrete _Mixers , sr~ __ . _ ~- _ .a. ~;. _ -: 'Concrete ~Fumps ; , ..a .. ,: ' .... _ .. .._. ~:: Cranes {M'ovablej ~ . - ;~ ~, _ __ ._ _ ;Q ~ Cranes.(Derrick) ,~ ~ w. , 'Pumps :5. z ~.. .., _ _ ~. o'; Generators = ° --- .., °~-_ , ' cn~ , ,Compressor's : , ; : ~ - .; - ~ _ Pneumatic Wrenches °' ? -~ . - ' a~ . Q fl- ~JacK.Hammers and Rock.Dnlls " E _. w Pile~.Dnvers~(Peaks) - : -- - - 1Yibrato~ ' ': •• ,o ' Sauvs ° Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . ~ \ City of Rosemead ~ Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 0&223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot he estimated noise level from the movement of the cars on and throu hout the site is t g estimated at 52 dB at the nearest residence. The cars.would generate the same noise level .during departure, which is less than the adopted 60 d6 significance threshold. In the case of cars entering and leaving the site on Friday night, the noise from cars entering and ' leaving the site at 10:30 p.m. could exceed the city's noise standard of 45 dB. Single events such as a car horn or alarm may exceed the single event noise standard of 80 ' dB at the nearest residence. Similarly, a car alarm may also cause a violation of standards, particularly if the alarm operates through the vehicle's forward directed horn. Operation of a very loud radio might not cause the Lmax threshold to be exceeded, but the loud thumping of the bass speaker is a nuisance. Most other parking/deparking noise is .predicted to be less than the applicable Lmax standard, but the character or time of the noise could still be perceived as intrusive even if ordinance levels are not exceeded. Most other parking lot noise such as radios, car doors slamming shut, engines starting, people talking, etc. are not ' anticipated to exceed noise thresholds. Changing the time the parking lot closes on Friday from 10:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. would reduce potential nuisance noise impacts to adjacent residents due to car alarms. Overall, the project is not anticipated ~to have any significant noise impacts to adjacent ' residents with the exception of short-term construction noise impacts to construct the block wall along the east and west project boundary. Implementation of the following mitigation ~- measures will reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure N-1 :. Construction activity hours shall comply with the Rosemead ' Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure N-2: Construction equipment shall be-equipped with properly operating mufflers . Mitigation Measure N-3: Construction staging areas shall be located away from the closest homes. Mitigation Measure N-4: Friday parking lot hours shall be 7:00 p.m. and close at 1 10:00 p.m. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The construction activities associated vvith the e construction of the parking lot and block walls along the east and west property lines will be the only possible source for ground-borne noise or vibration. Ground-borne vibration is measured in terms of velocity of the vibration oscillations. When these vibrations exceed 0.01 in/sec; it is usually perceived as annoying by building occupants. The degree of annoyance is dependent, upon the land. use, the degree of sensitivity of the occupant and ' the frequency of the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 0.1 in/sec. ' Page 54 / ~ ,~ City of Rosemead ~ ~ ~ - Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 05-223 ~ ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot before building damage occurs. In connection with construction activities, large bulldozers are the most likely source. of vibration and typically generate an approximate vibration event of 0.02 in/sec at a distance of 25 feet. Motor graders rather than bulldozers will be used to grade the parking lot. The vibrations generated by a motor grader are less than the vibrations of a bulldozer. The vibrations of a motor grader will not result in significant ground borne noise or vibration impacts. Therefore, the construction equipment that will be used during project construction will not result in significant ground-borne noise or vibration impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will eliminate the noise that is currently associated with -the operation of the nursery that exists on the northern portion,. of the site. The proposed parking lot will eliminate the current daytime noise associated with the operations of the nursery such as the movement of trucks on and off the site, the operation of maintenance equipment, personnel activity, etc. The noise that will 6e generated by the use of the parking lot will be associated with the movement of automobiles .in and out. of the site, engines starting, car doors shutting, and people talking. The use of the parking lot will be limited to and restricted to Friday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 pm. and Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. and four to five special events a year. The parking lot wil! not be used during the rest of the week, thus there will be no noise generated from the-site other than the time periods noted. The noise that will be generated includes the movement of automobiles driving into and out of the parking lot, car doors shutting, people talking, and the operation of the shuttle bus carrying people between the parking lot and the church. Then noise that can be expected to be generated by people using the site as a parking lot is not anticipated to exceed levels that would exceed city adopted noise levels and significantly impact adjacent residents. The 6 foot tall block walls that will be constructed along the east and west project boundary, along the rear yards of the residents, will attenuate some of the noise to the adjacent residents. The project will not substantially increase the ambient noise level either on the site or the immediate vicinity of the site and overall have a.less than significant impact. d) Less Than Significant Impact. With the exception of construction noise, the project will not produce any significant temporary or periodic increase in ambient ~ noise levels in the vicinity of the project above existing levels. The City's Municipal Code, §8.36.060 sets forth noise level standards for sites adjacent to residential areas at 60 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Municipal Code §86.36.030 limits construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and excludes construction on Sunday and Federal holidays. All construction activity on the site will be required to comply with the City's Municipal .Code, which is geared to reduce construction noise impacts to adjacent residents to less than significant. As noted in c) above, the noise that is generated during the brief periods of the use of the parking lot will Page 55 i ' • City of Rosemead ~ - Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot not cause a substantial eriodic noise level increase compared to the noise levels generated p by the existing nursery operations. .. e) No Impact. The site is not located within two miles of an airport. The closest airport is EI ' Monte Airport, which is located more than 2.75 miles northeast of the site. The project will not expose people using the parking lot to excessive noise levels at the airport: f) No Impact. There are no private airports within two miles of the project site. The project will not impact or be impacted by any private airports. Less Than Potentially Signlflcant Less Than Significanf With Significant No i t _En~ironmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact _ _ Impact ~ 3.12 Population and Housing ~ ::: ~ ,, Woti'Ic1 the project r ~~ ~, r~; a) Induce substantial population growth in an '...,.:_, y,:, ~ ~ area, either directly (e.g., .by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., ^ ^ ^ ' through extension ' of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ' housing, necessitating the construction of ^ ^ ^ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people ' necessitating the construction of ^ ^ ;- ^ replacement housing elsewhere? ' 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING J a) No Impact. The project proposes to replace a portion of an existing wholesale plant O nursery with a parking lot. The site is located directly below high-voltage transmission lines grid towers and residential development is not allowed. The construction of the parking lot would not directly or indirectly induce growth in the area population. b) No Impact. There are no residential units on the site. Thus, the project will not displace any existing housing that necessitates the construction of replacement housing. c) No Impact. As noted in b) above, there are no residential units on the site, thus no ' residents will be displaced that will require replacement housing. Page 56 • City of Rosemead ~ Initial Study/ Mitigated.Negative Declaration Zone Change 05.223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lo[ a) Fire Protection? ^ ^ ® ^ b) Police Protection? ^ ^ ® ^ c) Schools? ^ ~ ^ ^ d) __..._ .. Parks? ... ___..._ ................._..................._.._.. ._ ^ ....-.._.... ._......---------_.._...__ ^ _ ....__......._ ..................__. ^ ....._..........._... _.._........._.. .................... ............ e~ public facilities? Other _ ~ Q 0 ® 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES a) Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Los Angeles County Fire Department has reviewed the site plan to verify compliance with Regulation #27. Regulation #27 was adopted by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in 2006 to specifically address safety issues, regarding development under high-voltage transmission lines and associated towers that exist on the site. Based on their review, the project meets the requirements of Regulation #27. The paved parking lot is designed to support fire trucks that would respond to an on-site emergency. Adequate site access for fire department equipment and personnel is provided from both Marshall Street and Olney Street in case of an emergency. The nearest fire station to the site is Los Angeles County Fire Station 42, .located at 9319 East Valley Boulevard in the City of Rosemead. The project will not significantly impact the level .of service provided by the Los Angeles~County Fire Department. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project has two driveways from Marshall Street. One driveway provides both ingress and egress and the easterly driveway provides egress only. The gates at both driveways are locked when the parking lot is not in use. There is a 30' wide double access gate to the nursery site from Olney Street and three access points at the southern end of the parking lot that provides SCE and emergency vehicle access to the parking lot from the nursery. The gates at these three access points at the southern end of the parking lot will not provide public access; rather the gates will be locked and only SCE and Rosemead police and fire personnel will have access to the parking lot through the three gates. SCE, police, and fire personnel will also have access to the parking lot from Marshall Street through the locked gates when the parking lot is not in use. Church personnel will always be present at the. parking lot when the parking lot is in use. The two main access points at Marshall Street will be locked when the parking lot is not in use. Page 57 ' 1 City of Rosemead Initial S[udy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 - First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' ~ nda s between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The parking lot well only be used on Su y and Friday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. The Church vvill hire a security guard who ' will be responsible for unlocking and locking the parking lot gates on Sunday arid Friday evenings and monitor site security during the hours of operation. The two van drivers and ~ the security guard will communicate with mobile phones to monitor the movement of vans . '~ and make calls for emergency assistance if needed. The nearest police station is Los Angeles County_Sheriff Temple Station located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive in Temple City. The project will not significantly impact the level of service provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department in the City of Rosemead due to limited hours of use and the low ' potential for police service calls. c) No Impact. The parking lot will not generate students. Therefore, the project will not ' impact schools. ' d) No Impact. The parking lot will not increase the use of existing city parks or create a need for new parks. The project will not impact parks. ' e) No Impact. The parking lot will be in use for a short period of time on two days of the week and four to five special events throughout the year. There are no activities associated with the parking lot that will require or need public facilities or result in an impact to public facilities. Less Than. ~ Potentially Significant Less Than i Significant with -Significant No es Environmental lssu ' Im act i i ation Im act Impact M t ~_ p_ ~ _i -- _- - _ _ _ 3.14 Recreation. a _ _ ... j... p J -- a Would the ro'ect increase the use of . existing neighborhood and regional parks or ' other recreational facilities such that ~ substantial physical deterioration of the ^ ^ ^ facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or .require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which ^ ^ ^ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 3.14 RECREATION ' th l i a No Im act. There are no activities associate p e n t d with the parking lot that will resu use of existing park facilities. The project will not impactexisting parks or recreational ' facilities. Page 5S City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated-Negative Declaration Zone Change OS-223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot b) No Impact. As discussed in a) above, the project will not result in a need for the construction of new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing facilities that could have a physical effect on the environment. Therefore, the project will not impact recreational facilities. -.. ~ Po,tentialJy Significant Envir onmental Issues Impact Les~s~Th~n.~ Significant °"Less Than With Significant Mitigation Impact o Impact I, 3.15 Transportation/Traffic ,: . I f '~ I~ +I,~ E1 f~.; Vloulc~ the is ec~t " ~ ,. ;: +: , ~ + a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing #rafflc load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the ^ ^ ® ^ number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by ^ ^ ® ^ the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative ^ ^ ^ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ^ ^ ^ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? .~ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ ~ 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC A traffic assessment of the project was conducted by Katz, Okitsu & Associates. A copy of the traffic study is included as Appendix D.. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The parking lot will not result in an increase in traffic that would cause congestion. The parking lot will eliminate the need for church members and guests to park along Marshall Street and Walnut Grove Avenue in close proximity to the church during Sunday services and church events on Friday. Rather than park along Marshall Street and Walnut Grove Avenue on Sunday and Friday church functions, church patrons and guests can park in the parking lot in the SCE easement. The parking lot will not generate new traffic trips, rather church members and guests will be redirected to the SCE parking lot rather than along surface streets in the vicinity of the church (i.e., Marshall Street, Walnut Grove Avenue). A shuttle bus will transport people between the parking lot and .the Page 59 City of Rosemead Zone Change 0&223 , t • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot church. The traffic assessment states the existing levels of service at Marshall Street at Walnut Grove is operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D). In addition, the four driveways of the two church parking lots -also operate and will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS A-B). Table 7 shows.the existing level of service at these five locations. Table 7 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary Frida PM Sunda AM Stud Intersections V/C or DelNeh LOS V/C or DelNeh LOS 1 Walnut Grove Ave & Marshall St 0,869 D 0.554 A 2 Walnut Grove Ave -North Lot Driveway [a] 11.0. B 10.3 B 3 Marshall St -North Lot Driveway [a] ~ 14.7 B 10.9 B 4. Marshall St -South Lot Driveway [a] 12.1 B 10.4 B 5 Walnut Grove Ave -South Lot Driveway [a] 13.0 B 9.3 A ' The traffic assessment states the intersection of Walnut Grove at Marshall Street currently operates at an acceptable level of service (LOS A) during the Sunday peak hour and it is unlikely that a traffic shift due 'to the construction of the parking lot would cause this ' intersection to deteriorate to an unacceptable level of service (i.e. LOS E or F).g ' There is adequate parking in the two church parking lots to meet the parking needs of the church on Friday evening. While some church members may choose to park along public surface streets such as Marshall Street east of Walnut Grove Avenue on Friday evening, it is ' ~ more for convenience rather than necessity due to the lack of available parking in either of the two church parking lots. The proposed parking lot will accommodate church patrons and ' visitors who currently park elsewhere (i.e. on Marshall Street) on Sunday when the existing church parking lots are full. For this reason, the study also determined related traffic impacts to be minimal for the new parking lot, as no new trips are generated. ' It should be stated that althou h the arkin lot rovides additional arkin for church 9 P 9 p p 9 ' attendees, the attendees are not required and may not use the Edison parking lot site. Some church attendees may continue to park .along the streets in close proximity and walk t the church. Although the church can encourage people to park at the Edison site, it is likely ' that people will continue to park along Marshall Street east of Walnut Grove. People that presently park along Marshall Street west of Walnut Grove are more likely to park in the new Edison .parking lot and use the bus shuttle. ' g KOA Corporation, Technical Memorandum, First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley, Edison Parking Lot Traffic Assessment, June 20, 2008, Technical Memorandum July 21, 2008, page 5, Conclusions and Recommendations, bullet point #6. ' ~ Page 60 • City of Rosemead ~ ~ _ Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 ~ -. _ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot b) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the traffic assessment, the project will not change or impact the existing level of service of any area intersections. .None of the area intersections would change from an acceptable to an unacceptable level of service due to the project.- While the project will incrementally increase traffic at the Marshall Street/Rockhold Avenue intersection on Friday evening and Sunday due to people parking the SCE parking lot site, the traffic would not cause any intersections to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, their current levels of service. c) No Impact.. The project will close and have temporary impacts to pedestrians that use the sidewalk along the south side of Marshall Street during construction of the parking lot. However, once construction is completed the pedestrian sidewalk will allow pedestrian access along the front of the site on Marshall Street. The project will not change or eliminate the existing sidewalk along the south side of Marshall Street. There are no bus stops, bicycle racks or any other forms of alternative transportation that.will~be impacted by the project. A shuttle service will transport people to and from the parking lot to-the church to provide an alternative mode of transportation. The project will not conflict with and impact any city policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. d) No Impact. The project provides direct ingress. and egress to the parking. lot from Marshall Street with no curves or other design that will result in a dangerous intersection or incompatible use. The project does not propose any design that will result in any increased hazard impacts. ,~ e) No Impact. The project provides adequate ingress and egress for the police and fire departments for emergency purposes. The two driveways on Marshall Street and the three driveways at the southern end of the parking lot via the nursery provide adequate access to the site for emergency purposes. All access gates will be locked with Knox locks when the parking lot is not in use to prevent unauthorized access while still allowing emergency access. The main site entrance from Marshall Street is 30 feet wide and the second. driveway on l Marshall Street is 16 feet wide. These ingress/egress driveways meet both City and County Fire Department's standards, which require that new .developments. provide adequate access and circulation for emergency vehicles. In addition, the plans have been reviewed and approved by Southern California Edison, which requires access to and throughout the site for maintenance purposes. The project site and the surrounding roadway network do not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets.. Final project plans are subject to review and approval by the City's Traffic Engineer and the City's Fire Marshall to ensure that the site's access complies with all emergency access standards. The project will be required to comply with Page 61 Initial Stud / Miti ated Ne alive Declaration City of Rosemead y g g Zone Change 05-223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ' 'r Marshall's standards. The ro'ect will not have emer ency all City Traffic Engineer and Fie P . 1 9 access impacts. f) No Impact, The project will have a positive impact on parking along the public streets adjacent to the church. The project will eliminate the need for church members and guests to park on the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the church by providing the proposed off-site parking lot. As noted in the traffic assessment, once the existing church parking lots. are full church members and guests park on Marshall Street both east and west of Walnut Grove,Avenue and along Walnut Grove Avenue. The construction of the parking ' lot in conjunction with the shuttle bus service will provide a suitable parking alternative and eliminate the need for members and guests to park along adjacent public surface streets. ' According to the Rosemead Municipal Code (Section 17.84.080) the project is required to provide one parking space for every three persons based on .total occupancy permitted by <<~ the Uniform Building Code. The proposed parking lot provides 148 parking spaces which ~ meet the, off-site parking needs of the church and eliminates the need for church patrons and guests to park alorig Marshall Street east and west of the church. The project will. significantly reduce parking congestion along area surface streets on Sunday. __ _.._.. ~ ;. = Systems ,:;~3.~16 Utilities and Servtce Lti'oulcl the project _ _ a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ' of the applicable Regional Water Quality ^ ^ ^ Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or ' expansion of existing facilities, the ^ ^ ^ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ' c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of ^ ^ ® ^ which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ' serve the project from existing entitlements ^ ^ ^ and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ' e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ^ ^ ^ capacity to serve the project's projected ' demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Page 62 • City of Rosemead - ~ ~ ~ Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 05-223 - First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ^ ^ ^ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, -state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ^ ^ ^ . waste? 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) No Impact. The surface parking lot will not generate any wastewater. Therefore, the project will not exceed or impact wastewater treatment requirements. b) No Impact. The project will require a minimal amount of water for landscape maintenance. However, the amount of water required to irrigate the project landscaping would be less that the quantity of water that is used by the existing nursery. Thus, the project would have a small, but incremental positive impact on the area water supply. The project will not generate any wastewater. The project will not require the construction of new or the expansion of any existing water or wastewater facilities. The project will not have any environmental effects associated with the construction of water or wastewater facilities. c) Less .Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section a), the project developer will be required to install and maintain all applicable soil erosion control measures, including Best Management Practices (BMP's), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction and the operation of the parking lot. In order to control and minimize surface water pollution, the project proposes to install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3/4 of an inch of surface water runoff from the parking lot. Project surface water will ~be directed to three separate three-foot wide concrete .ribbon gutters that will be constructed within the drive aisles to collect and. direct surface water runoff to the southern end of the parking lot. At the southern end of the parking lot each ribbon gutter will direct the first 3/4 of an inch of storm water into a water filter system. The three filter systems will remove debris and other pollutants from the surface water and retain the first 3/ of an inch of storm water within the filter system. The collection and filtering of the first '/< of an inch of rainfall will meet and comply with all applicable Regional Water Quality wastewater discharge requirements. The ribbon gutters will be within and part of the parking lot and require minimal grading and construction. Each filter system is 30-inches in diameter and will extend from 15 feet to 25 feet into the ground. Dirt will have to be excavated to allow the installation of the filter systems. Any excess dirt will be exported from the site. There is no other surface drainage construction required by the project. The excavation required for the. installation of the filter systems will not have any significant environmental impacts. Page 63 ' ~ • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Zone Change 05-223 First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot ~~ u CI n d) No Impact. The project will require water to irrigate the landscaping along the east and west project boundaries and the Marshall Street frontage. The project proposes 10,362 square feet of landscaping that will have to be irrigated compared to the 63,062 square feet (1.45 acres) of existing nursery. The amount of water required to irrigate the project landscaping will be less than the amount of water currently used to irrigate the existing nursery..Thus, the project will have a positive impact on the water supply by consuming less water than currently consumed on the site. , ` e) No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore the project will not impact the capacity of the local wastewater treatment plant. i ~ No Impact. Trash receptacles will be placed throughout the parking lot so that people can dispose their solid waste. However, the amount of solid waste that will be collected on Sunday will be minimal and insignificant. The solid waste collected at the parking lot will be deposited at the church trash dumpster. The project will not have any solid waste impacts. g) No Impact. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and have no solid waste regulation impact. °'° Less Thin Potentially 5si'gnificant` Les's Than I, Significant With Significant No ,..Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.17 EVlandatory Fondings of Significaruce , a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife ~ population to drop below self-sustaining ^ ^ levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ^ animal community, ~ reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ~ ^ ® ^ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial ^ ~ ® ^ adverse effects on humari beings, either directly or indirectly? Nage oa ~ d ~ City of Rosemead ~ Initi yl Mitigate Negative Declaration Zone Change 05223 ~ ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE , a) No Impact. As discussed in Section 4 of this document, the project will not have any impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration because there are no plant or animals species on the SCE site that will be impacted by the project. Furthermore, the project will not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ' ranges of any plant or animal species and will not threaten any plant communities because no native plants or animals exist on the site. Similarly, as discussed in Section 5 of this document, the project will not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or , paleontological resources, and thus, will not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the project will not have any biological or cultural resource impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact. ,There are no aspects of the project that have the potential to contribute to cumulative hydrology (surface water runoff), water quality, noise, public service or public utility impacts due to the small scale of the project. Air emissions generated by the ,project could have cumulative impacts, however measures are recommended to mitigate cumulative air quality impacts. The project will not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. t c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the .project that will cause or ' expose people to environmental effects. Church members and guests that -park on~ the parking lot two days a week will not cause or have the potential to cause any adverse . effects either directly or indirectly on human beings. , 8 Page 65 1 n City of Rosemead • Zone Change 05.223 • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot 4.0 REFERENCES 1. City of Rosemead General Plan, November 24, 1987 2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code. 3. Giroux Associates, Air Quality Impact Analysis, SCE Easement Parking; City of Rosemead, California, July 18, 2008 4. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the Marshall South Edison Parking Lot Project Site, 2.7 Acres, Archaeological Associates, July 28, 2008 5. Giroux Associates, Noise .Impact Study, SCE Easement Parking, City of Rosemead, California, July 23, 2008 6. Traffic Assessment - KOA Corporation, June 20, 2008, Technical Memorandum July 21,.2008 Page 66 City of Rosemead Zone Change OS-223 • Initial udyl Mitigated Negative Declaration ' ~ First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot This Page Intentionally Left Blank City of Rosemead Zone Change 05.223 • ~ - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot APPENDIX A Air Quality Impact Analysis • ., ~a .~ ' Project No.: P08-038 A c AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS SCE EASEMENT PARKING CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Phil Martin Associates Attn: Phil Martin 18551 Von Karmen Avenue Suite 140 Irvine, CA 92612 Date: July 18, 2008 METEOROLOGICAL SETTING • The climate of the Rosemead area, as with all of Southern California, is governed largely by the strength acid location of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic conditions are characterized by very warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime on- shore breezes, and comfortable humidities. Unfortunately, the same climatic conditions that create such a desirable living climate combine to severely restrict the ability of the local atmosphere to disperse the large volumes of air pollution generated by the population and industry attracted in part by the climate. Rosemead is situated in an area where the pollutants generated in coastal portions of the Los Angeles basin undergo photochemical reactions and then move inland across the project site during the daily sea breeze cycle. The resulting smog at times gives the western San Gabriel Valley some of the worst air quality in all of California. The worst air quality, however, has gradually .been moving eastward. The area of heaviest ozone air pollution has gradually moved eastward from Pasadena in the 1960's to Glendora and even Upland/Ontario in the 1990's. Elevated smog levels nevertheless persist in the Rosemead area during the warmer months of the year. Despite dramatic improvement in air quality in the local area throughout the last several decades, the project site is expected to continue to experience some unhealthful air quality until beyond 2020. Temperatures in the project vicinity average 62 degrees Fahrenheit annually with summer afternoons in the low 90's and winter mornings in the low 40's. Temperatures much above 100 or below 30 degrees occur infrequently only under unusual weather conditions and even then these limits are not far exceeded. In contrast to the slow annual variation of temperature, precipitation is highly variable seasonally. Rainfall in the eastern portions of Los Angeles County averages 17 inches annually and falls almost exclusively from late October to early April. Summers are very dry with frequent periods of 4-5 months of no rain at all. Because much of the rainfall comes from the fringes of mid-latitude storms, a shift in the storm track of a few hundred miles can mean the difference between a very wet year and a year with drought conditions.' Winds across the project area are an important meteorological parameter because they control both the initial rate of dilution of locally generated air pollutant emissions as well as their regional trajectory. Local wind patterns show a fairly unidirectional daytime onshore flow from the SW-W with a very weak offshore return flow from.the NE that is strongest on winter nights when the land is colder than the ocean. The onshore winds during the day average 6-8 mph, while the offshore flow is often calm or drifts slowly westward at 1-3 mph. During the daytime, any locally generated air emissions are thus transported eastward toward San Bernardino and .Cajon Pass without generating any localized air quality impacts. SCE Pazking Lot Air Quality R95.08 1 • ~ ~ . The drainage winds which move slowly across the area. at night have some. potential for localized ' stagnation. Fortunately, these winds have their origin in the San Gabriel Mountains .where background pollution levels are low such that any localized contributions do not create any unhealthful impacts. The wind distribution. is such that nominal project-related air quality t impacts .occur more on a regional scale rather than in the immediate project area. One other important wind condition .occurs when a high pressure center forms over the western United States with sinking air forced seaward through local canyons and mountain passes. The air ! warms by compression and relative humidities drop dramatically. The dry, gusty winds from the N-NE create dust nuisance potential around areas of soil disturbance such as construction sites and sometimes create serious visibility and vehicle safety problems for vehicles on area freeways. , In conjunction with the two dominant wind regimes that affect the rate and orientation of ' horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through- which pollutants are mixed. The summer on-shore flow is capped by a massive dome of warm, sinking air which caps a shallow layer of cooler ocean air. ' These marine/ subsidence inversions act like a giant lid over the basin. They allow for local mixing of emissions; but they confine the entire polluted air mass within the basin until it escapes into the desert or along the thermal chimneys formed along heated mountain.slopes. In winter, when the air near the ground cools while the air aloft remains warm, radiation 1 inversions are formed that trap low-level emissions such as automobile exhaust near their source.' As background levels of primary vehicular exhaust rise during the seaward return flow, the combination of rising non-local baseline levels plus emissions trapped locally by these radiation ' inversions creates micro-scale air pollution "hot spots" near freeways, shopping centers and other traffic concentrations. ,Because the incoming air draining off the mountains into the San Gabriel Valley during nocturnal radiation inversion conditions is relatively clean, the summer subsidence ' inversions are a far more critical factor in determining Rosemead area air quality than the winter time local trapping inversions. 1 I1 ' SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 2 • • ~ AIR QUALITY SETTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS) In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed SCE Easement r Parking project; those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and , welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in ' photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. ~ , National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality ' problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the , federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference. between state and national clean air standards. ' Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2. l The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmenta Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects. EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate. EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM-2.5"). New national AAQS were adopted in 1997 for these pollutants. , Planning and enforcement of the federal standards for PM-2.5 and for ozone (8-hour) were challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. ' Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health-based standards did not require preparation of acost-benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some I inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their required attainment schedules. Such attainment-planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of , communities to "non-attainment" for the 8-hour ozone standard. SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 3 - ' i i • Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards California Standards Federal Standards Averaging Pollutant ~ Time Concentration Method Primary .Secondary Method 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 uglm3) Ultraviolet - Same as Ultraviolet Ozone (Os) 8 Hour 0.07 ppm (140 Nglm3) Photomet ry 0.08 ppm (157 Ng/m3) Prima Standard ry Photomet ry irable Res 24 Hour 50 Nglm3 150 ~rglm3 Inertial Se aration p S p PartICUlate Annual. Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation ame as Primary Standard and Gravimetric Matter (PM,p) Arithmetic 20 Nglm3 Revoked (2006) Analysis . Mean 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 ~glm3 Fine Inertial Separation Same as PartICUlate Annual Arithmetic - 12 ug/m3 Gravimetric or Beta 15 Nglm3 Primary.Standard and Gravimetic Analysis Matter (PMzs) Attenuation Mean 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mglm3) 9 ppm (10 mglm3) N Non-Dispersive Infrared Photomet Carbon Non-Dispersive one ry Monoxide 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mglm3) Infrared Photometry s 35 ppm (40 mglm) (NDIR) (CO~ 8 Hour 3 (NDIR) - - (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mglm ) - Nitrogen Annual Arithmetic 0.030 ppm (56 uglm3) ' Gas Phase 0.053 ppm (100 Nglm3) Same as Gas Phase ~IOXIde Mean Chemiluminescence Primary Standard Chemiluminescence (N~2~ 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (338 Nglm') - 30-Day average 1.5 Nglm3 - - - Lead r Atomic Absorption Same as High Volume - 1.5 Ng/m3 Primary Standard Sampler and Atomic Quarter Absorption Annual Arithmetic - 0.030 ppm (80 Ng/m3) - Mean ectrophotometry S Sulfur Dioxide 24 Hour 04 ppm (105 Nglm3) 0 Ultraviolet 0.14 ppm (365 NgIm3) - p (Pararosaniline SO . Fluorescence Method) z) ( 3 Hour - ~ - 0.5 ppm (1,300 uglm3) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 lug/m3) - - Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer- VlSlblllty visibility of 10 miles or more (0.07-30 miles or _ Reducin g 8 Hour more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when NO relative humidity is less than 70 percent. PartlCleS Method: Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape. . Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ~glm3 Ion Chromatography Federal Hydrogen 3 Ultraviolet SUlflde 1 Hour ) 0.03 ppm (42 uglm Fluorescence Standards Vln I Chloride Y 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 Nglm3) Gas Chromatography Source: California Air Resources Board (01101108) Table 2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants • Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Carbon Monoxide • Incomplete combustion of fuels and other • Reduced tolerance for exercise. (CO) carbon-containing substances, such as motor •. Impairment of mental function. exhaust. • Impairment of fetal development. • Natural events, such as decomposition of o Death at high levels of exposure. organic matter. • Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina). Nitrogen Dioxide • Motor vehicle exhaust. • Aggravation of respiratory illness. (NOZ) • High temperature stationary combustion. • Reduced visibility. • Atmospheric reactions. • Reduced plant growth. • Formation of acid rain. Ozone • Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with • Aggravation of respiratory and (Os) nitrogen oxides in sunlight. cardiovascular diseases. • Irritation of eyes. • Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. • Plant leaf injury. Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve construction. • Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Fine Particulate Matter • Stationary combustion of solid fuels. • Reduced lung function. (PM-10) . Construction activities. • Aggravation of the effects of gaseous • Industrial processes. pollutants. • Atmospheric chemical reactions. • Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory diseases. • Increased cough and chest discomfort.. • Soiling. • Reduced visibility. Fine Particulate Matter • Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, • Increases respiratory disease. (PM-2.5) equipment, and industrial sources. • Lung damage. • Residential and agricultural burning. • Cancer and premature death. • Industrial processes. • Reduces visibility and results in surface • Also, formed from photochemical reactions soiling. of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Sulfur Dioxide • Combustion ofsulfur-containing fossil fuels. • Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, (SOz) • Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores. emphysema). • Industrial processes. • Reduced lung function. • Irritation of eyes. • Reduced visibility. • Plant injury. • Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002. Air Basin was far from attainin the 1-Hour federal standard, the 8-hour Because the South Coast g ozone non-attainment designation did not substantially alter the attainment planning process. As noted above, compliance deadline for meeting the 8-hour ozone standard has been extended to 2021. Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects. of inhalation. of fine particulate matter prompted the- California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM-2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted on ' . June 20, 2002. The State PM-2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, .but .only requires continued progress towards attainment. Similar) the ARB extensive) evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. Anew state standard Y~ Y for an 8-hour ozone exposure was adopted in April 2005, which mirrors the federal standard. e The California 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than the federal 8-hour standard of 0.08 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have 'a specific attainment deadline. _. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of non-attainment. As part of the same re-evaluation process, the ARB adopted an .annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (N02~ that is more stringent than the corresponding federal standard, and strengthened the state one- hour NOZ standard. As part of EPA's 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne . e particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial modification. of federal clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM-2.5 were strengthened, a new class of PM in the 2.5 to 10 micron size was created, some PM-10 standards were revoked, and a distinction between rural and urban air quality was adopted.. ~' Of the standards shown in Table 1, those for ozone (03), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM- 2.5) are exceeded at times in .the South Coast Air Basin. They are called "non-attainment pollutants." Because of the variations in both the regional meteorology and in area-wide differences in levels of air pollution emissions, patterns ofnon-attainment have strong spatial and .temporal differences. 1 1 ~ ,. SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 6 BASELINE AIR QUALITY Existing and probable future levels of air quality in Rosemead can be best- inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by 'the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at its San Gabriel River Parkway air monitoring station in Pico Rivera. The closest monitoring station for coarse particulate matter (PM-10) is in Azusa. These stations measure both regional pollution levels such as dust (particulates) and smog, as well as levels of primary vehicular pollutants such as carbon monoxide. Table 3 summarizes the last six, years of the published data from a composite of gaseous species monitored at Pico Rivera (and coarse particulates at Azusa).: The following conclusions can be drawn from these data: 1. Photochemical smog (ozone). levels sometimes exceed standards.. -The state one-hour standard averages seven violations per year; the federal eight-hour ozone standard was exceeded seven times in five years. In 2005, no ozone state or federal standards were exceeded because the monitoring station did not operate during the summer "smog season." There have been only four violations in the past six years of the national hourly ozone standard (this standard was rescinded in 2006 and replaced with the federal 8-hour standard). 2. Annual maximum ozone levels tend to reflect some annual variations in meteorological patterns. In 2004, the peak hourly smog level was the lowest on record. 3. Measurements of carbon monoxide at the Pico Rivera station reflect the history of nocturnal air mass that has passed over developed areas of the basin before following the San. Gabriel River drainage toward the ocean. Despite continued basin-wide growth, maximum one- or 8-hour CO levels at the closest air monitoring station are less the 40 percent of their most stringent standards because of continued vehicular improvements. Levels are .steadily declining fairly steadily. These data suggests that baseline CO levels in Rosemead are generally healthful and can accommodate a reasonable level of additional traffic emissions before any adverse air quality effects would be expected. 4. PM-10 levels as measured at Azusa, periodically exceed the state standard, but no measurements in excess of the national particulate standard has been recorded in the last six years. Approximately 23 percent of all days in the last six years in the project vicinity experienced a violation of the State PM-10 standard. The three-times less stringent federal PM-10 standard has not been exceeded. Maximum 24-hour PM-10 concentrations appear to be declining following a spike in 2003. 5. The former federal 24-hour AAQS for ultra-fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) has been exceeded twice since 2001. When the federal 24-hour standard was lowered from 65 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006, the number of violations of the PM-2.5 standard increased to almost 6 percent of the monitoring days. SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 7 ' • • ' 1 Table 3 1 ~ uali Monitorin Summa Air Q ty g ry (Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels During Such Violations) Pollutant/Standard ~ 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Ozone 1-Hour> 0.09 ppm (S) 3 18 7 0* 9*, . 6 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm (F) 0 1 0 0* 1* 2 8-Hour> 0.07 ppm (S)' - - 7 0* 5* 9 8- Hour > 0.08 ppm (F) 0 2 0 0* 3 * 2 . Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.08* 0.13* 0.14- Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-Hour> 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max l -Hour Conc. (ppm) 5 5 5 3* 3* 5 Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 4.0 3.9 . 3.6 2.4* 2.7 2.9 Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour> 0.25 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0* 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.09* 0.10* 0.11 Inhalable Particulates (PM-10) 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 (S) 23/57 21/60 8/55 12/55. 7/58 11/57- 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 (F) 0/57 0/60 0/55 0/55 . 0/58 0/57 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 91. 119. 83. 76. 81. 83. Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-Z.5) 24-Hr. > 65 µg/m3 (F) 0/118 1/111 0/108 0/76* 1/116 0/101 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 (F)Z - - . - - 7/l 16 5/101 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 61.0 90.3 60.7 58.2* 72.2 63.6 ' standard.revoked m lUUb - revtsea stanaara aaoptea m ~uvo Source: South Coast AQMD -Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station; Azusa Station for PM-] 0 * -less than 12 full months of data may not be representative SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 8 • .AIR QUALITY PLANNING The Federal Clean Air Act (1.977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM-10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 4. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint" in August 2003. The 2003 AQMP was approved by the EPA in 2004. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health- based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. Components of the 2003 air plan included: _ • How the federal standard for CO was to be maintained. • Control measures to further reduce emissions from business, industry and paints. • Measures to be adopted by CARB and EPA to further reduce pollution from: • Cars • Trucks • Construction equipment • Aircraft • Ships • Consumer products SCE Pazking Lot Air Quality R95.08 9 • Table 4 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in tons/day) Pollutant 2005a 2010b ' 2015b 2020b NOx 957 756 586 496 ROG ~ 684 567 517 492 CO 3838 ~ 2943 2395 2056 PM-10 276 278 ~ 284 292 PM-2.5 97 97 - 98 100 x2005 Base Year. bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. Source: California Air Resources Board, The 2006 California Almanac of Emission & Air Quality. 1 SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 10 With re-designation of the air basin as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan has been developed. This plan shifts most of the one-hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8-hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date will "slip" from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM-2.5 standard. The 2007 AQMP was adopted on June 1, 2007, after extensive public review. The 2007 AQMP recognizes the interaction between photochemical processes that create both ozone and the smallest airborne ,particulates (PM-2.5). The 2007 AQMP is therefore a coordinated plan for both pollutants. Key emissions reductions strategies in the updated air quality plan include: o Ultra-low emissions standards for both new and existing sources (including on- and-off-road heavy trucks, industrial and service equipment, locomotives, ships and aircraft). o Accelerated fleet turnover to achieve benefits of cleaner engines. o Reformulation of.consumer products. o Modernization and technology advancements from stationary sources (refineries, power plants, etc.) Development, such as the proposed SCE Easement Parking project do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing "general" development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts acid programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation control measures that can be implemented on aproject-specific basis, and if the scope and phasing of a project are consistent with adopted forecasts as shown. in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), then the regional air quality impact of project growth would not be significant because of planning inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a .growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than- significantjust because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project- specific basis. SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 11 AIR QUALITY IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Air quality impacts are considered "significant" if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they .are currently met, or if they measurably contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact. Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offer the following five tests of air quality ' impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: a. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. ' c. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone t precursors). d. Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ' e. Creates ob'ectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. J ' PRIMARY POLLUTANTS Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such,as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worseriing of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non-attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM-10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust. SECONDARY POLLUTANTS- ~ " Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source.. Their incremental . regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through ' complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of the significance of such emissions is thus ,based on a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact. SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 12 • s Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects within the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant:. SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM-10 150 150 PM-2.5 ~ 55 55 SOx 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. ADDITIONAL INDICATORS In its CEQA handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicat~s are as follows: - • Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards. by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project's build-out year. • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook also identifies various secondary significance criteria related to toxic, hazardous or odorous air contaminants. Hazardous air contaminants are contained within the small diameter particulate matter ("PM-2.5") fraction of diesel exhaust. Such exhaust will be generated by off-road construction equipment and by diesel-powered delivery trucks delivering construction materials to the facility. ~ . SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 13 ~ . • ' SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ^ Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called "sensitive receptors". Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill .(especially those with cardio-respiratory disease). Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be ' occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Schools are similarly considered to be sensitive receptors. Commercial uses are considered less sensitive to air pollution exposure because they are populated by mainly healthy adults for limited periods in an indoor environment.: Existing off-site residences abutting the SCE Easement are considered pollution-sensitive to any project related emissions , CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTS Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection -and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions." Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty ' prior to project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural. ' Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal "default" factor based on the, area disturbed assuming that all .other input parameters into emission rate prediction .fall into midrange average values. This assumption may or may not be totally, applicable to site-specific conditions on the proposed project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for project- specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a considerable degree of imprecision. ' Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are stated in the SCAQMD Handbook to be 26.4 pounds/acre. This estimate is based upon required dust control ' measures in effect in 1993 when the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was prepared. Rule 403 was subsequently strengthened to require use of a greater array of~fugitive dust control on construction projects. All construction projects in the SCAQMD are required to use strongly ' enhanced control procedures by Rule 403. Use of enhanced dust control procedures such as continual soil wetting, use of supplemental binders, early paving, etc. can achieve a substantially higher PM-10 control efficiency. Daily emissions with use of reasonably available control ' measures (RACMs) for PM-10 can reduce emission levels to around ten (10) pounds per acre per day. With the use of best available control measures (BACMs) the California Air Resources Board URBEMIS2007 computer model predicts that emissions can be reduced to 1-2 pounds per acre pe'r day.. 1 SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 1[1 • The project site is approximately 2.6 acres. The Air Resource Board URBEMIS2007 computer model predicts that 0.7 acres could be under simultaneous heavy construction at some point during the build-out lifetime of the project. With the use of RACMs, daily PM-10 emissions during site grading would be 7 pounds per day (0.7 X 10.0 = 7 lb/day). The SCAQMD significance threshold of 150 pounds per day would not be exceeded. With the use of Best Available Control Measures (BACM), daily PM-10 emissions can be further.reduced. Because of the PM=10 non-attainment status of the air basin, construction activity dust emissions are considered to have a cumulatively significant impact. Use of BACMs is thus required even if SCAQMD individual CEQA thresholds are not exceeded by use of RACMs. Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2.5") was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. PM-2.5 emissions are estimated by the SCAQMD to comprise 20.8 percent of PM-10. Other studies have shown that the fugitive dust fraction of PM-2.5 is closer to 10 percent. With mitigation, PM-2.5 `emissions during all construction will be reduced to less than one pound per day. This level will be well below the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of 55 pounds per day for PM-2.5. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture, or landscape foliage rather than being any adverse health hazard. The deposition distance of most such dust particles is very close to the source (typically 100 feet). There are few concentrations of dust-sensitive receptors within the primary dust deposition impact zone. Exhaust emissions will result from on and off-site heavy equipment. The types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. Equipment exhaust emissions were calculated presuming that grading will be mainly balanced on-site, grading will gradually shift toward paving. The URBEMIS2007 computer model was used to calculate emissions from the following prototype construction equipment fleet: SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 15 1 1 D • • 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 Grader Grading 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 Water Truck 1 Paver 4 Cement Mixers .Paving 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 Roller Calculated construction activity emissions are summarized as follows: Construction Activity Emissions (Hounds/davl Activity ROG NOx CO SOZ PM-10 PM-2.5' CO2 Grading No Mitigation 3.4 28.1 14.8 0.0 ~ 7.9 2.7 2,371.8 With Mitigation 3.4 23.9 14.8 0.0 1.2 0.6 2,371.8 Paving No Mitigation 2.3 13.0 .9.2 0.0 L1 1.0 1,241.9 With Mitigation 2.3 11.2 9.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 ],241.9 ~. _.._ I~bx il~''~``i q~i SCAQMI) l~lireshold+~~~~,~ ~ } `' p„h4 in. f, .:..K. i~~ ~:. $ ~ ~~ul n a~~5 ~~~'r~~-~p~ IIN?..1(T.JJ it~l k I'k xt =~f/r s.,~~at ~l ~~,~g~.~lU~O °~=j ~ 550~~~~ ~ i .«wtnwP ~'~ .~ ~v ~~. iu1 i ~~+M, 4u7 ~t}cif, '; X150}~'~~n.~ 1 >r~ { .G~F?i,a.'.~~,i~+1~~.'I,k. l {I- 11 ,.~ ~ na yl~µ~l n _ 1: Source: URBEMIS2UU7 Model, Uutput m Appendix All pollutant emissions during construction activities are predicted to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds prior to the implementation of any supplemental mitigation. Regardless, because of the non-attainment status of the air basin for both ozone and particulate matter, use of BACM's is recommended during construction to mitigate cumulative regional air quality impacts. The recommended emissions mitigation measures are detailed in the "Mitigation" section of this report. Construction. activity air quality impacts occur mainly in close proximity to the surface disturbance area. There may, however, be some "spill-over" into the surrounding community. That spill-over may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt is washed into public streets. Passing non-project vehicles then pulverize the dirt to create off-site dust impacts. "Spillover" may also occur via congestion effects. Construction may entail roadway encroachment, detours, lane closures and competition between construction vehicles (trucks and contractor employee commuting) and ambient traffic for available roadway capacity. Emissions ' SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 1C • controls require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic management plan that will maintain such "spill-over" effects at aless-than-significant level. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Project-related air quality impacts will derive. from the mobile source emissions that will be generated from the parking lot uses proposed for the project site. At project completion, there will be 148 parking spaces at the site. If each parking spot were utilized, this would translate to 296 daily trips. Although use of this parking lot will likely only be on Friday evening and Sunday morning services, calculations were made assuming 296 trips per day as a worst case analysis. Operational emissions for project-related traffic were calculated using a computerized procedure developed by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) for urban growth mobile source emissions. The URBEMIS2007 model was run using the trip generation factors specified above for Sundays and special events. The model was used to calculate the resulting vehicular operational emissions for a project build- out year of 2009. Due to improving vehicle technology, a project build out date beyond 2009 would result in lower operational emissions. The results are shown in Table 6. The project will not cause the SCAQMD's recommended threshold levels to be exceeded. Project-related emission levels for the two ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx) would represent 3 percent each of the significance threshold. Carbon monoxide (CO) would similarly not exceed the suggested significance threshold by a large margin of safety. Operational emissions will be individually less-than-significant level. SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 17 • e • e Table 5 Project-Related Emissions Burden . Emissions (lbs/day) ' Year 2009 ROG NOx CO S02 PM-10 PM-2.5 C02 Mobile Sources 1.8 1.8 24.8 0.0 4.5 0.9 2,397.3 "<~ r ~' ~ ~~ 1':: ~ ~., n SC~AQMI~ Cltresliold` -z;; ~ ~ .. .- ~ - ;,~ .~. F~~ .:, ., ,ti,~~^~ ~,.::,:. . ~'~a..~r~ ~ „ ~~m~~ :tn .. -~s%~'~, §i~ f ~I JUF~ 3~R Sew ~,~~ ~~ 550 rf ~ _~ki,~. ..^.,..fa ,d„~". ~:~ al ~ ~ w~~- :~ ~'~~~ ~,~~ ~ 52p~, ,~ _.,,4 _.~.?~: "~i~w'Jrcm~~in r ~^t -. -- .~~~ L~150 .,~.!n t~lh,.. -3 ..._i P1y3k'l~p§.1 r M~;i~ ~„~• ~ ~ 7~5 i+~l Lys. '4:.. :t i _.~~. - _ Percent of Threshold 3 3 45 <1 3 2 NA Exceeds Threshold? ~ No No No No No No NA ' Source: URBEMIS2007 Model, Output in Appendix ,' .' SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 18 • • LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee in February 2005. Use of an LST analysis .for a project is optional. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. In the absence of any operational "stationary" source emissions from parking lot uses, the LST methodology applies only to construction activity emissions. The URBEMIS-model estimates that the daily construction disturbance "footprint" will be almost 0.7 acres acres. LST pollutant concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre sites. Utilizing data fora 1 acre site and a source receptor distance of 25 meters to .the nearest off-site homes, the following thresholds are determined (pounds per day): S San Gabriel Valle CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 LST Threshold 598 131 5 4 Proposed Project No Mitigation 9-15 13-28 1-8 1-3 With Mitigation 9-15 11-24 1 <1 All mitigated emissions are below LST thresholds. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming.'.' These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight; but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles; off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. SCE. Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 1(~ ' ~ , • California has, passed several bills and the .Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. The~Governor's Office of Planning and Research is in the process ' of developing CEQA significance thresholds for GHG ,emissions but thresholds have yet to be established. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO 5-03-05, EO 5-20-06 and EO 5=01-07. ' AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California's reputation as a "national ' and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship." It will have wide-ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and, wide-ranging 1 mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Major components of the AB 32 include: • 'Require the. monitoring and reporting of GHG, emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions. • Requires immediate "early action" control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources. • .Mandates that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. • .Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by. 25-40%, from business as usual, over the next 12 years (by 2020). • Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants. Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Additionally, through the California Climate Registry (CCAR), general and industry-specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned), and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on-and off-road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off-site electricity generation and non-company owned mobile sources. , Impacts -Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to short-term GHG emissions from construction activities. During project construction, the URBEMIS200Z computer model predicts that a peak activity. day will generate the following CO2 emissions: Grading - 2,372 pounds/day Paving - 1,242 pounds/day , For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that non-CO2 GHG emissions are negligible, arid that the total project construction GHG burden for any single project element can be characterized by 10 peak grading days and 20 peak paving days. The estimated annual GHG impact if grading and paving occur all in the same year _is as follows: SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 20 J • Grading = (2,3721bs/day x 10 peak days/year) / 2,000 lbs/ ton = 12.0 tons/year Paving = (1,242 lbs/day x 20 peak days/year)/2,000 lbs/ton = 12.4 tons/year In 2004, the statewide annual GHG inventory in COZ-equivalent levels (including all non-C02 gases weighted by their thermal absorption potential) was 492,000,000 metric tons (541,000,000 short tons). The worst-case project construction impact of 24.4 tons per year of GHG represents approximately 0.000004 percent of the statewide burden. Maximum daily operational COZ emissions from project-related traffic and area source emissions are predicted to be 2,397 pounds per day if all parking spaces are utilized. It is assumed that the parking lot will be utilized two days per week, for Friday evening and Sunday morning services. Annually, this translates into 125 tons per year. This represents slightly less than 0.00003 percent of the most recent statewide inventory. There are no adopted thresholds of GHG emissions significance. However, GHG emissions are implicated in the acceleration of global. warming experienced in the last several decades. Climatic impacts are global in scale. Any project-specific contribution to the. global issue is miniscule. In the absence of any- definitive thresholds of significance, the GHG emphasis on a project-specific level is to incorporate project design features that reduce •energy consumption and reduce vehicular travel as much as is reasonably feasible. Unless there is a greater shift to clean energy such as solar, hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, etc., no substantial reduction in GHG is likely attainable by conventional methods except through energy conservation. MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MITIGATION Construction activity air pollution emissions are not anticipated to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds for any representative single development. Because of the basin-wide non-attainment designation for ozone and PM-10, project construction activity impacts will be cumulative in nature. Emissions reductions from construction activities can be readily achieved. Recommended construction activity mitigation measures include: Dust Control • Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas. • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. Water exposed surfaces under current disturbance 3 times/day. • Cover all stock piles with tarps. • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 21 O • a • minutes of an observed visible dirt s illin on Wash/sweep site access points wrthm 30 y p g .public streets and at the end of the workday. Exhaust Emissions a • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. • Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment where feasible. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MITIGATION ' Operational emissions will not exceed adopted significance thresholds, so no mitigation measures are required. a . ~ _ J ~ ~~ ~ . SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 =, 22 ~ ~ _ • APPENDIX . URBEMIS2007 Computer Model Output SCE Parking Lot Air Quality R95.08 23 • >. ca ~ 0 0 v, U ~ ~ ~ u o ~ d < v ~ ~ N ~' i ~ d C O ~ C N ~ ~ ~ ~ C: ~ O ~ r •~ o y N ~ ~ ~ w ~ f ~ ~ 1 a ~ i 7 ~ ~ 'D ~ ~ S C f O =S U o ~ ,a ~ ~ M ~ O r I _ao ~ °o ! Uj N ~ ~ ti ~ f4 ~ r L 3 Cfl ~ O ~ r N o ' Z ~ M N ~ 3 ti 7 O ~ o N U c6 ~ . O s E ~ L1J N i .. Q i ~ O o ~ ~ 5 ` ~ S d ~ ~ C C O 0 0 ~ i (~ ~ ~ ~ Q c~a m ? ~ ~ m m j ~ c0 cn cn o 0 ~ ~ ~j . . ~ N N m ~ ~ ~ w ~ w ~° w w U i ~ a~ a U ~ 0 U ' ~ ~ ~ U " ~ Z J ~ ~. U ~ - i a a i ~ ~ ' .p .Q C .~ _ a a O O LJ N O O M (h O co ao rn rn U ~ ~ v v M (7 N N N N ~ •- (D ~ ~ ~ W N O O N ~ ~ M ~ V O r I ~ O ~ O W ~ cc c~ v_ o 0 0 0 r- o 0 0 a N m ~ N O N ~ ~ ~ .- o y o co ~ ~ ~ o ~ o y In O O O co 0 0 0 O a ' pl °o °o °o °o cnl 0 0 0 0 O~ ~ ~ cD m C~ n v ~ v m ai o ~ o M N N f ~ ~ ~ ~ M (7 N N M M N N U ~I a ~I a N O U OI U OI z ~I O • O ~`? O ~'? UI ~ U M M N N in ~n in ~n N O N m ~ O ~ O a a o o ~ v _ ~I v ~ v a a ~ O ~ O fn O (n O O O ~ I ~ I N N x m x ao oI U ~I N a N A ~ X W ~n a y 0 N a ~I a a N O O a NI O l zl O z ~ ~ UI m ~~ Z W Q ~ ~ w cn w N ~ ) Q ' ~ Q1 M O 00 c N r - ~ :~,: ~ ~~:~ m, E E ~ Z O ~ ~~ W Z O U ~ to z m °' :~ ~ m 'o N n J O E-. ~ ao ~ m ~ .E m v fn ~ - J O H ao ~ °' - :~ ~ m v N ~ J O t- m ~ m rn _E m v y a J O F-- rn w a ~ ~ uJ Z ~ ~ ~ w W ~ ~ Q w ~ m ~ .~ ~ J+ m ~ ~ v Q H z O ~ ~ W W U _ > ~„~ J Z O ~ w _ ~ ~ ~ c > ~ m ~ ~.. Q F c6' r 1~ , ~ '(n O ~ U o N 0 N 0 N 0 N ~ Q O H a O O H a fA 'D I ~ j I 0 ~ d N U' i E E O ~ i ~ w 1 o a Q ~ i ~ ~ :~ w ~ ~ ' m m °' o O ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ E m ~ ~ c °-~ ~ W c,, ZO v J y ~ ~ ~ U . ~ ~ J _ ¢ ;`. 'N ' ~ ~ z > F- U ` U .~ • ,. ~ ~ r O.~ O O O O O N M O O O V M Q7 ~ M Q~ O O M N ~ O) LO n a N~ M N O N N O ~ ~ N O O ~ N iD (O (D O O O (((VVV~~~ N O O ~ , t0 CO M . M O O OI O O O O O , N" N ~ ~- O O ~ ~ O ~ O O Q OI M O M O O O ~ M O O O O ~ O N ~O O O O O O O O ' ~ O O O .- O O O fD M~ ~I (D ~ (D rM- O O o O O 0 O O 0 O OI 0l O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 a N Qf h -N O) O ~ V O O O ~ ~ O O O T O N O O N O O ~ n (O• ~ O O a a O o v O o O o ~ O 0 O 0 N 0 0 o .- o o ~ o .= c o N <G ~ (D ~ CO O O O O O O O ~ O O O O' O O O O O O ' 'O O) O O O O O O' ~ O O O O O O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O . a .U N N ~ N J+ ~ n n n n o O cD ~ o O N cs co o. O ~n O v n O O o '~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ O ~ O .-- Q) O O n O .- > ~ ~ m Q ~, W ~ m a i ~ L n o >, m ' M O ~ O N f0 ~ >~ O L D O N 1~ ' O ~ ~ O O O O O O O r O M ~ O O In M ~ d (~ 'O ( ~ U O' a0 N oD N O a0 N O O M ~ O ~ O O .O-. ~ ~. 0 p w 'O v ~ O ` O L U l6 ' O L (D ti 'O t1) O O O O N M t!] M O O M O O V O ~ N l0 N N aD O O OD O N M O O CD O O ~ O O O ~ ~ lD (p O C M- M O M O O ~ U ~ p~ C ~ `~O- R O W O O N M ~ co O . 'O (0 ~ fD ~ O> C '~ N O n ~ O m -o _ .- ~ ° O o L ~ ap O - ~ N - N N N o O ' W a d ~ o m N - o O. ao i° rn ~ ' N _ M O ~ O ~ O •~' N 00 O p N ~ _ N N _ N N N 00 ~_ N .0.. N (D ~ _ ..+ N .. ~ m C f` L N ~ N O Y ~ N O Q N N 0! Q' Y M !O 0 ~ ~ a ~ N ~ D ~ N y U d r ~-- o o N 7 O ~ O C O O ~ r m m o N. m V 0 O 0 F- ~ D) ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ >' ; ~ .. c O N o CD ~ 01 00 O M N ~ O) O O) O) ~ o N ~ ~ ~ Y _ ~ ~ 7 Q > U H i a E L ~ N ~ r M N~ Ol Cap ~ N ~ N .O (0 ~ R N N •- N O\ ~ O ~ O C O >O > ~ ~ N T O N J y ~ U Y ` ~. O O' v ~ O ~ ~ O N U N 'D O Ur Ur ~ ~ ~ N ~ 01 O1 Q) O1 N N Q 7. l9 W f- J ` ~ M O U Q ~ ~ N C C C C ' U Q ~ O N ~ f0 f>Q N L.L U 7 Q ~ d c~6 O o O O ~ O ~ ~ N N ~ ti d N > a~ r~ C ~ u. ii i~ ~ u. ~ d N > n N d d d d ui, N E IO 'X w N L p ~ ~ ~ Ur ~ > m ~ ~ ~ E U FQ u. E U HQ Q a r. ~ ti ° 0 0 F > • ~ . 0 0 o N o m r~ c+~ o M ~ ~ - p ~ co o r~ o v ~ rn o N rn n CJ o ~ o v o m v n M tn7 N ~ N ~ ~ N N N ~I ll7 In .~- V O O ~ ~ ~ O .~- O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O a ~ cod co v o o ~n v o 0 o 0 ~ ~ o 0 ~n 0 o 0. ~ 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O - 7 ^ O~ O O O O O OI O O O O O l17 ` O e--{ ~ (D V' O O - NI N O ~ O O .-~ O O O O d O O O O- O a ° ° ° ° ~ ° `D o ~ nI ~ n o v o o ~ o 0 of o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~n v~ in o o ~ 0 0 0 o , co cc cD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - p o f o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T ~ O ~ R ~ d OI 1y ~ O l0 O N ~ ~- O O r O N a ` ~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ m O IN O ~ o °~ ~ o L m m L n _ 0 0 ~ ~ o ?, `p A N >+ O U O O ~q OI ~ n a0 O O O CO O O n O ~ ~ ~~ O O n O ~ c0 M N ~ C U ~ (II •D w N ZI M N O N O O I O O O O O W N a d . ~ a v a ~ o_ , ~ o ~ U m O .7 i to C N L d ^ n L O O) O O O n O ~ N O ^I Cf ~ ~ N M O O M O O V O ~f'1~ - NE In N a0 O 00 O M O fD O O E v J M O C7 O O N ' N O N O O O ~ O ` O E WWW d 07 U p C 7 C f6 U ~ ~ m m -o '~ n W , _ O N O ~ O ~ O N O ~ ~, a L L O O N O m N O fa O ~ -~ W O N C1 N O O M .- m ~ . -~ N <~ - Z O N O ~ O• O .- N C ~ O ~ O W ~ ~ o N M~ a~ N m N ' X _ O) C L ~ ~ M O O O O N O ~ ~ N _ ~ ~ ~"' O CD ~ ~ ~p fit. ~ 7 ~ C O ~ D7 'O U ~ .a O C R O D .m ~ W O O ^ O~ O > > a) ~ N O O N O N ~ N p . O ~ . O Z N O) Q7 O) O) ~ N O ~ ~ Y M \ > p ~ L O ~ .-~ - O r C7 ~ . ' N N . ~ . ~ ~ C OO O O) O - '> U O . L O ~ N N m C V ( D I 0 ~ ( O R ~ N ~ O O O ~> r C_ _ d ~ C N O LO O J ; C-- !~. (~ ~ > O N ` C9 ` U ` C9 C9 ~ > O 01 O) O) O) 00 ~ N W ~ O ~ ~ , N O . ~ O ~' O ~ '~ ~ ~ O ~ ,U~ ~ U Q O ~ C C C C U^ O N N N N 4~, •.. . ~ O N LL LL LL LL ~ N p. d 4. d d ~ h N N ~ N t~O O- ~ ` Z N > N C ~ N > ti ~ r d Q O v ~ ~ ~ CJ.-: U F- Q F- Q a i v t 1 1 1 1 G Q M O T ~ o N m N R ~ ~ ~ 0 a U N p C O .~ U X W m m C7 N y ~ y 1 m u C _ C y ~ u N ~ E ~ p a N u W d c ° O O Z _ N d ~ [ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ f o ~ N N ~ ~_ ~ i C N f O r ~ U m i N ~ ~ N U ~ N C_ ~ LL ci y J (0 I a ' o `' n - a m ayi , f0 d E C O O E rn '. ~3 O 0 o >, L C O 7. ~N L y y ~E o T m .N L U ql y .~ O '=D O d y N C y ~ U_ ~~ O E y ~ O W y ~ ~ ~ y O) C a~ v ~ y a u .E .E ~ 'O L `7 d C ~ N d T y O G _ c E c .n ~ •N c .E c ~ O ~ ~ y U N T ~ C m N ~ O Z 1 - (0 .E _y ~ y U "' ~7 E " E f/1 O U ~ Q ~ y O N Q) N CO '~ ~ ~7 ~ ~~.. r0 ~ U N ' m m y 3 ~ ~ E o E "D 3 -p T ~ ~ y N i0 - a .R -O O U _ N x ~ x m .o ~ E ~ M N D7 ~ o _ l0 lL ~ E ~ a j ~E o d c .D p O ~ C f4 F ~ N ~ U ~ O O` y ~ ~ E i~ U m d c 0 o w L d ~ `° o rn a ~ ~ O v ~m N x U O N ~ U d 7 O ~, ~ . >< . N NO N ~ ~_ O 0. ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ LL N O N N d N U y y Y ~. c a~ d m vi y O ~ D O U (0 N N d .~ N i y y ~' .L... rL.+ i ~ N N N N )< i 7 7 (Q Ip d ~ ` ` i e y y \° N \ N o o N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ c ~ ~ ~ u7 a~ a0 N O a0 O ' ~ y ~ y p O ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ O iri p v N ~ I ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~L-' ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a. .~ d -~ a a F= s, ~ ~ a ~ o °' a °' o o a~ ~ °v cn ~ m y m a~ c o 0 ~ ~ 7 7 ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O_ (~ O (' X LL' O d' X i ~ `o ~ `o ~ `o ~ `o ~ `o ~ o ~ o ~ `o ~ LL LL d LL d LL LL LLLL LL d LL Z LL Q.LL Z X i ~ 1 e ' O . 7 ~ N i ~ 7 LL - o t i ~ ~ ~ O _ 4. I o i i ' X O Z I i 1 ~ ~ N i a o ':.~ j O '_ a Q 01 M O ~p O O aj N m r ~ co ~ ti I o I X I i O I c V 1 W N . i d I N !] I i ~ N d L.. c e ~ ~ N ~ f ° d X I ~ d ~i Z I l O i LL7 i W I N L ~ ~ a ~ e i ~ O ~ o_ ~ i ~ . a ~ i a ~ L Y 1 O [Q o 1 ~ !~ N 1 ~ ~ f O ~ J d y i o 0 0 ~ ~ m ~ j~ F- ° I ~ Z LL d I o I ' X O Z N O M `,O` ~ U ~ m ' ~ rn (~ > N M N ll~ N N OD ~ a0 a O O o v ~ a v v N ~ N O N O (n O O U O ~ O r` v N a N v 61 m m ~E ~ X ~ m ~ o~ r ~; Z m O a N 'O 7 O a ~ O ~ h - ~ t` - ~ . ` E E W r O H Q ~..N . ..~~.'. ~ ~ ~ ~ a m'. W ~, o, ~~:.. Z ~ ~_. Q1 (6 ' ~ V C D) ~ 7 E C. W ~ Q o cn ~; m ~ m:. O o - .. phi:" F- ~ ~!. -(O,y. ~ LL C Q ': a., a m O N ^. ~ E m E C ~ `m ~ c - o o '~ m a~ ~ ~ a _ E o > ti ~ . ~ ~ ~ LL ~ y ~ f0 p~ N a ~ ~ O C ~ ~ a~ O U O_ U N N d ~ F N ~ ~ O U ~ O c m O ~ ~ N d 7 7 . . ~ U U ~ ~ c c ~ C O p p w '~ C C N ~ ~ ~ a~ d m O O o Q.. t t a t 0 0 N O Z (`~ N > . n O O Q U ~ W M O c .N T ~ ~ ~ ~ O > O ~ N ii m ti w m ~ h W • ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ p N N H ~n o 0 a ~ ~ (D (O ' ~ T O) ~ N N O I- N O O C N O ` Z n. ~ >' U F- W C N' N .O N O C (9 ~ O ~ r J o. r O F c0 E ~ ~ N a y ~ r o o m o m o 0 0 0 0 ~o~oo~~~ooo~o~ 0 N N f0 r N O N O O O f0 O O T pp fM Qi ~ O N O O O aD O OD ~ W '01 Q1 Q) N ID N N GD f6 U ;~ v, n v, rn o 0 0 0 0 o v, 0 0 >~ r N O O O O O O O O O O fC n f0 i C O z X N N LL d U N O O O O O O O~ O O O O O O L O. O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ N O U a w N ~ N ~ O ~ O O. ~ O ~ O ~ ~ O O ~ ch c'7 d N O ~ O _ ~ r O ~ ~ l17 O O O V M n ~ if) O y ~ ~ p In pp aD Y U 2 - - - c i ~ N V M ~ >, ifJ H H > m N J >' O U U U > > ~ O N ~ 7 U O O w 7 ~ ~ ~ `0 N ~ 2 m >, m 2 2 m ~ ~ Q H I- ~ a i 2 i, CD ~ ~ o ~ 2 2 > ~ ~ ~ rn rn rn m °: ~ ~ ~ t ~ o ~ o J d ~ J J J ~ J J ~ 2 O ~ ~ (n ~ ~_ • ~ ~ rn o 0 0 • E co ~ o n~ o `h °' w U ~c ` v co 0 0 o r~ ai o ~ ~ M •U C y` O E z E 0 U N M V O O ~ M ~ O N ~ E ~ ~ (~ E 0 U ~ ~n rn o s of v o of ~ .- r~ v ~ ~° E a~ ,~ _ ~ c o 0 - y ~. C O C U o .- o o ~ o ~ o ro L ~ L ~ U fa _ l0 ~ M _ O ~ c E ° a i • a ° m y = N ' Y I~ O O d) O N I~ O N > i ~ O N N a C fU T N ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ o~ iy ~ C N N ~ ~ N ~ E r ~ d J 'C c O ,p N ~~ = ~ J ~- ~ N 7 t a ~ y N N O. ~ 'c ~ ~ ~ ~ p_ ~ - O U ~ .E o U ~ ~ Q ~, O v J m Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change OS223 ~ First Evangelical Church~of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot APPENDIX B Cultural Resources Assessment • A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE MARSHALL SOUTH EDISON PARKING LOT PROJECT SITE, 2.7 ACRES LOCATED ADJACENT TO MARSHALL STREET WEST OF WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, CITY OF ROSEMEAD, LOS ANGELES COUNTY by Laura S. White, M.A. Robert S. White Archaeological Associates P.O. Box 180 Sun City, CA 92586 TEL (951) 244-1783 FAX (95 l) 244-0084 for Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. 1.8551 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 140 Irvine, CA 92612 July 28, 2008 Study Area USES 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle: El Monte Study Area Acreage: 2.7-acres KEYWORDS: Survey, Marshall Street, SCE corridor, Rosemead., Los Angeles County The undersigned certifies that the attached report is a true and accurate description of the results of a PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES assessment described herein. . ............................... Laura S. White, M.A. Principal Investigator J e e e e e t s t t • • TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY iii L_ INTRODUCTION ~ • 1. II. STUDY AREA LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT 1 III. RECORDS SEARCH 4 IV. HISTORIC MAP RESEARCH ~ 6 V. LAND PATENTS . ~ VI. SACRED LANDS FILE CHECK. VII. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION 8 VIII. FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 8 IX. FINDINGS 8 X. RECOMMENDATIONS - 8 REFERENCES CITED 10 Appendix A: NAHC Sacred Lands File Check Appendix B: Native American Consultation . ~ ~ -~ ; LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Regional location of the project area as indicated on a portion of the Los Angeles l :250,000 scale USGS Topographic Map Sheet. Figure 2. Study area plotted on a portion of the El Monte 7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle. Figure 3. Study area as shown on Site Plan. LIST OF PLATES Plate I. Top: Looking northwest across study area from the southeast project corner. Bottom: Looking northeast across property from the southwest corner. PAGE 2 3 5 PAGE 9 f f t t v '~/ MANAGEMENT SUMMARY • At the request of Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., Archaeological Associates has undertaken a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of 2.7-acres presently utilized as a Southern California Edison transmission tower corridor and commercial nursery. The study area, identified as a portion of APN 5371.-013-801, is located adjacent to the south side of Marshall Street just west of Walnut Grove Avenue in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County. The purpose of this study was to identify all potentially significant cultural resources situated within the project area. Current plans call for replacing the nursery with a parking lot. The results of the records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University Fullerton indicated that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been recorded within the property. The. results of the field study were also completely negative. .Therefore, no additional work in conjunction with cultural resources, including monitoring of grading activities, is recommended. ~~. I. INTRODUCTION The following report was written for Phil Martin & Associates by Archaeological Associates. , It describes the results of a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of 2.7-acres of partially developed land known as the Marshall South Edison Parking Lot project site, City of Rosemead, ' Los Angeles County. The study area, identified as a portion of APN 5371-413-801, is located within the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor situated on the south side ofMarshall Street and west ' of Walnut Grove Avenue. Presently, it is desired to replace this portion of the existing commercial nursery with a 148-space paved parking lot that will serve the First Evangelical Church of San ' Gabriel Valley. The purpose of this assessment was to identify all potentially significant cultural resources , situated within the boundaries of the subject property. This information is needed since adoption ofthe development plan could result in adverse effects upon locations of archaeological or historical I importance. Our assessment consisted of: (1) a records search conducted to determine whether any previously recorded prehistoric or historic material is present within the subject property and (2) a ' field reconnaissance intended to identify any previously unrecorded cultural resources. The study described herein was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act , (CEQA) as it pertains to the management of cultural resources. -. II. STUDY AREA LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT Regionally, the study area lies in the San Gabriel Valley a short distance north of Interstate 10 and northwest of the central core of Rosemead, Los Angeles County (fig. 1). More specifically, the property is situated within the SCE corridor adjacent to the south side of Marshal l Street between , Rockhold Avenue on the east and Earle Avenue on the west. Legally, the subject property lies within the Northeast 1 /4 of the Northeast l /4 of Section 24, Township 1 South, Range l 2 West, San r Bernardino Base Meridian as shown on a portion of the USGS El Monte 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle (fig. 2). ' The study area is rectangular in shape and bordered on the north by Marshall Street and on the south by additional nursery land. The eastern and western boundaries both abut existing ' residential development. Access to the property is best achieved from gates on Marshall Street. -1- ~ ' t t t s • • I,~R'~ ~.x,, i I ~.- 1S ~, ;< 5~N GhbRfE! ~ar ..µ ~~ ._ $~1-i 1r13 v. ~` ~~ .~I + :a~ l~ ~ : ~# bx'3,;• f4 ~•~ Kale hip~Nt MgR4'H,t~t Ne,.cor+t~3Ln het ~x~ ~~ t>t•. , r. `~•~ .'7 r~'~' c-) i~ ~d GICS~ 1B ' I Tnxer'.Alt tbfCSQU .r u' a~ - ~.., axEl -i 750l1H1 ~IrJWr t r r ~-, ~ ~'an n l c'u S : ~ +. I l ~ ; Aal L ' .~ _ r a . ~^`~yi fir' r~ 's - 7L,. ~ t,y ~ ~ ~ rv S4 et 0 A1I Ct n .iG.~ i•'" ~r~'P~i a ~~O~~Y u.Y~ '8fl T QP A11h ~ _ ~ Neapegg ~ m . S F ~1 • 1 C ~0.~, f. -£lmtt .~~yU 1.~. ~ ~lq~.~Q(ifl (758 r i _ ,`~ i r l ~ ry p y .ti 1 ?~ - ] ~ ~. il. cE ti Jla BURBANY f ~ ~ ~~ J ~ 7 _ -1 I ~ 1•J 4rTA Crm9 ra^IO ~ I ~ I f ~, r ~ ~ a t nn ~ - k ar'a Am a Daq r ~ i . ~~ F l y ~~1 T. r` l flrorldge i----• h - ~: J'~~ r ~ ~ ~ 1 - 'an ,s` Y S I v (1/IYT ~ \ 1 ... j~=u "_-- -J;T, ~ 1 ~~~ Yg3~uv~lY1 ~_ +~•fi '~LENDQI~ r Ra>,a t G.;./~~; Ssgrra Madre tI~ ~~ N~ qar it _ ,. r~#~. ..PROJECT AREA=--+xm`~~~ `~I I ._^ t ...i * ' _ Santa Arl aiFac-. ar I~----~~~~- p t ~ a i ~ i~ gt~ Au~~' "il i .._~ •:. - a~ '?:' VUU fiC i,'k .~ ; ~ 1 1~ 51wth i Sah o t„ I _ AROf16I1fi i ~ m P sad lthON vIA I y,.. r... t - '~ta^i'.: zrk -..~: ry.:, t ... 1'C1r`1'LkJ~iTY Der k. r .. .y9f 4~ _3~ ~s.n. t ..:7. 1 t t' ~• 6 N~ F s: ~ '' , ~ lrwohdai 1'' is 1, t I ~: ~ _'• / I _ ~ 1 l ~ °ren n r - ~ ~ rrs ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~tt RA ~ ~ ~ - ; TOY 1 ',~ ' y - ~ 1.. ~ _ - _ - 5 ~~lD P RK ~ i, r '~ , I ~ i 1 S li ` t. qUF \LL MO~JTE ~ hV ~ t trc-.•- x_-~ ~ San C~a6nEl iEL~S ~ 7 ~ ; 1 V1~ESTiCOYINA r... '~' ~ ~ , ~ ; ,. , MO TEIZ!~Y ~ , r Csftti f .. ~, q ,.. r rm, ,~,*,~Y ~ r~-r ~ ,~~,"_ ' i ~ a4wm ~ ., Y PUENTE t I !~~ ~ * _ I ~r - xnls I~ti '~ Ef1~b', ~ '~ 1 ~ r 1 1 _ .~ fAar t tin MEI ~' (. ~.r _' L .TY. - ~/' r 11~ vloll ~,$.N I.S-.~n M4 {!-.~ u,t~... , ~. ~ ti n,f, " yw- -d"f`T ~. ' p7A f/.'13E`3r x~,~ ' i ~ ~ ' ' ~ Fi~CIEND ~ :,r s. r ~ G ~ ' '. ~' ^° ~ ' i~! y >•. ,,-~ - -,~ ~ ~ ~' / j: ~ . , `; ~ . r1 HI~I Fi3 i -Bowls U j ; r `i ~ i-~ rs~ = ~ .A .~:;~ ~,,.. ~~ rr .._ y~V4•III~fi`~i - ,~ 'S' 7 ' :_~ Heig1, 'yy'.~//~ OD ,ze .~ l GA ~N'I/a10NT'E !l ~ r , ; ~ , ~ I ~ T~I :. i art % JII?11a F rfl S ~~~p ~ r 1 ~~a Haoru ~felg~its~ r' P_A K_ ~ 1 -~= --~~ .r., ~' ~' :~y~#~ 1 ~Fit~f1E12---~ ~~ ~" K I AT'f is -~~~ r r h„ rrR1w., Y 1 . ., ; r~-` --~~ I .... to Np,BRA~ I - S, ~ C.f FkE FIf tl ~~ t~ t I ,~ ~~,• l =~ i ! 'i s.lY 0',OD; ~ ~~ia,tl dol ` ~ ~~. ,, i 1 ^~ I' .~'~~ ~ l i ~ '~ ~~ i... -1610 I r ~ \ r" -i ~ u v r .~-` S I OQ~ /~ ' '~"'~ f~~ !i ' t Se, ^~`-iGl~. IT ~^ ''~. ~,E i-Ciltkt~/'~ I UQ ~l_ ! ._l_~ 1 -;t`~oS ~i 'T~ /.: I' ,i ,• t. T` I an*~T ` --- ~' F ` i ~'F { Iti~ALI1 \ ( ~V N V AftK~ `- _ 1 A , ~••.v - Y~.ir YIG14( i:, x` "I"' ~ f I ~`. N ' _ c% j1ri-~ 12~~5, ` ~ a -~i .~ p ~jpif r~ 4 J r `±~ ~ ~., ~' V1 Y;/ V!./~•'t yi~ : ;7 +V V I iri 01 • u . `~ / { - ~- ~ ` ~ - r{ ti, t Figure 1. Regional location of the project area as indicated on a portion of the Los Angeles J 1:250,000 scale USGS Topographic Map Sheet (1975). -2- • • i" i ~'>. ~ '' ~.~~. .Stt 1 C S}oI C0 ( fli xQ} ~_. ~I. ~ 3tp o r ~ „F ~ Ch iE ~ ^ ~~ {e, ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ Jf9 ~ _~ ~' J yS,S { 0 a Y. a;~~ Pry. ~~yy'_G_ ~ ~ ~A ~ ~ 2 H` ~ f, t$ J~ ~t rl ~ - `I ~ ~; i ~ ti~ µ ~.~~ ~ 22 ~. ~ o ~ f !11 .,fry i 1 ~. {I N g ! / -r+ ~<L ~ ~m~ad j: ~ '~ ~'~ P k ~~ - ~-~ ~~ a i0 ~-.~ '~ ~ `f'y ~ ''~..,7) ""' ~`c L*'n r4~tsr, -- ;~ ~~332 ~r~E_ ~a/~'~ € ~ HoR ~4 ~~ ~ ~h ml J ~ s ~, r§. ~ d~ ~ 1 -: fr{,-.~ ~ ~~r c>»'' bus"' ~ - ;. r_A ti~ Jr ; W~ . ..r4Jbr"";~, F~ ~ vr~ ~!I c '` ~- ,~ - \~ g• ~; 9 we: Lli¢rs .r~xr,:~ ~r ~', a ~ .tw ~y~+> ti ~ 11y1,,~y c '~.,1 ~~, r a a. . s s D~~ t~F i} S '~j t 1~ ~ Q I .- - q~' Y '~ F I ~ -. [?~ ~l~ r.~ ~ M I.W r i _ ~~ a c i , ~~., ~f .'ss~a ,_ I , ~' Nq lE ~ ~i.Y3 ~- ti ~ ~ ~'a.t~ i ' ~ z, ~~ Sruilt ~~ ~~ ~ ; F; ,,,,-~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~E rn~'- :~ f i yZ Muahall G, t '~*t i J09 r i ~ ~'~ Rr ~.' I~t~r r' W~~+,, try7, ~t~ -_c 4 ~~ + r^ tF '"r s Ca~~$1C18 ~. ~~L~r vat f ¢ r. y r- r! y~ SfaSion~L70 rr:/ - . j;.s +~ ±~- to pr ` $Qk sr r .y~3 1;p - E i ,z 7_.s ; . .~ k 'y y?r ;+ N a_w' p ,ua ~ a - d ~ r' ~ _ ~ }~ w~ ~ ~ ' ~ F_aF L . y a'" rl ~ ~, ~ ~ '~ a tc ,~ ~ ,~ y ~ ~;~.rr~, q . ,§ L2 ~' _ a° o gr ~{ ~~ r5+7171gd ~ ~- ~ ra ~ .~ •O fr 3 g 'w .~ .. . 8el5~ l~'~' ~ ~ ~~ a ~ 1 ~ u Bx '~ 78n v~ ~.a sd ' ~ _ ~I~ q '" ~ !'~ / :, nn wv _ \ .. ~ 1 ! Ki r f ~~ =tt~ y<e, a~y~ .<t ~ ~ it [ I ~.. C` 7,,{ ft~*1 E Fr ~> ~'/~~i f~5 .r N +.L~.~ ~~ f w~ ~ iL /t~q ~ -- '`' 'F s ~ !~ prtul ,,t,, ~ ~ - T, t 'Y Twin ,'~' @Dx ~+~kli~ R ~ ~,~ ~-ff ~ ~ 5 a~. ~ ~ i 48Q~ J~.. ~ Gggin~sl 7~ ~. I 1 ~ 'r 1 Statio Is ' ~ V1e11 r - ~J: ~' ~ ~ ~ l ' ^ ~, ~r.+aeurl.+ ~_ i rJ 1fij ,~~` sr i "~ ~ Z 1... ~ v i Ifr , ~ r 14;, aXe._`_ n3 ` :~' ;, a ~ ...~ ~ ;t ~'~ _ " J 741 ~` r S~eh G ~ ~ ~~ -~. III R N 1)1,6 ~ -' T I} ~r E A,. w r ~..,~ ^. ' ~Jf 7'3. -.f t : 1 f, ~~,~ r' ~ ~ ~ R ,t y~ a Well'!' ~ r c~.-- t,V r, , 5 1 .^+ y ~ .~ ' d r~ ` i '~ f r1.`, .Yr z.. ^,. _4 r. .,~-_... - ,.'. ...;.: S, ,i,-.i' `Z-~;. Fi{ C :. f '1 T1Qry JP~IDi o ~ _.. - ~ I MILE ~f 13'/=~ Os~- __1000 FEET U .,00 FOOD METftiS 4r Pna cteater3 ~fith TOPCI!~? 02003 National Geo^m hic (wu~u~.r~atio ova hic.com/to o) Figure 2. Study area plotted on a portion of the El Monte 7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle (1966, photorevised 1972). -3- • O Topographically, the study area is flat with a slight down-hill gradient to the south. Elevations'range 0 from a maximum of 305 feet above mean sea level in the northwest property corner to a minimum of approximately.300 feet in the southeast corner. D On-site vegetation comprises commercially grown landscape shrubbery, trees and flowers. Around the margins of the nursery a few rooted trees and shrubs were observed. Some of the more 0 readily identifiable trees and plants included magnolia, jacaranda and elm trees, and a large clump of bamboo. Fauna encountered were limited to mocking birds, doves, and a few lizards. Soils . comprise sandy loam. No bedrock exposures, outcrops; or sources of natural surface water were observed anywhere within the project boundaries. Disturbance within the study area is significant a but not unexpected since it has been uti lized as a transmission tower corridor (4 towers on property), cellular phone site (2 on property), and a commercial nursery beneath the transmission lines. a III. RECORDS SEARCH a A records search of the study area was conducted by Ms. Laura S. White at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCLC) at California State University Fullerton. 'The search entailed a review of all previously recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites situated on or within a one-mile radius of the study area. Additionally, inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRI--IP), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), and the California State Office of Historic Preservation's Directory of Properties were reviewed for the purpose of identifying any historic properties: A Previousl~Recorded Archaeological Sites The results of the search indicated that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the boundaries of the .subject property. Furthermore, no archaeological sites have been recorded within cone-mile radius of the project site. B. Heritage Properties No listed National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), or California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) properties have been recorded within the -4- • ~.!~!~, ~ ~ ~Ma~a ~ o~ ~~ L lYd~ w-an i~ ~ a ~ na ~ IF{~~y/ MO'SIO9 H1lf~ a'iLVI~QY4 iil NOMIQ -r'- -- - -- -- - --~ _ ~~ ~ _ ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ @ 6~L tl ~E 4 ~ ~~ ~ g o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G y M i i10 ~~~ ~ ~ q 1 ~~ ~k p ~~® ~ . a _!! 3 ~ ~ p R. ~ ~~ E ~ ~ ~~~ .~ ~ y ~ i p p ~! s ~ ~ ~ ~~:8~ ~ ~ . W ~~~ bil~" ~~ ~ r 9 ~ ~ R a • s ~ AA !C !~4 a R 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ aa~ ~~ ~ ~~~ &~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~e~ ~~ ~ l ~~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 9~ a k- i~ . ~ ~l 6~ ~~ ~ 5 ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ Figure 3. Study area as shown on Site Plan (30 scale map, reduction unknown). O Y ~ ~ ~ A Q ~¢ ;. ~ 6~ 9 ~ t ~ Q i! ~. . i m '~ a,~r A a ~ < k:~~~ ~$ n f+ :'~h .8 m o' o -5- ~ • • 0 ~ _\ study area nor within aone-mile radius. The Office of Historic Preservation's Directory of Properties also failed to list any buildings in this part of Rosemead that have been previously evaluated for historical significance. Recently, one building (not listed on the Directory of Properties) has been evaluated for historical significance. It comprises the Hawaii Supermarket (commercial building) located at 120 E. Valley Boulevard in the adjacent City of San Gabriel. The stuccoed supermarket with flat roof was constructed in 1.948 and recorded as Primary # 19-186684. Due to its modern appearance and lack of integrity; the commercial building did not appear eligible for listing in the National Register under any criteria. The study-was conducted in conjunction with a Cingular Wireless site (Marvin and,Michalsky 2001). C. Previous Surveys The results of the search indicated that the study area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. However outside the study area, thirteen surveys (representing approximately 10% of the surrounding acreage) have been conducted in the project vicinity. These investigations are represented by a combination of cellular phone sites, small acreage surveys, as well as linear studies (i.e. roadways and pipeline alignments). The closest survey to the project area was conducted immediately to the south by Philomene C. Smith of Caltrans District 7 in 2001. It comprised a 10-mile linear study for the rehabilitation of Interstate l0 on and off-ramps ]ocated between Los Angeles and EI Monte. The northern project limits of this highway study included the 1.3-acre (not-a-part) remainder of the subject nursery located within APN 5371-O13-801.' No cultural resources of any kind were observed during the freeway study (Smith 2001). ,~ IV. HISTORIC MAP RESEARCH In addition to the records search; supplementary archival research included a review of early USGS topographic maps. Map research was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information t Center at California State University Fullerton and in the Map Room at the Science Library, University of California at~Riverside. The various maps examined for the project included.: 1)-the 1900 Pasadena 30' USGS Topographic Quadrangle (surveyed 1894), 2) the 1926 El Monte 6' USGS Quadrangle, and 3) the 1948 El Monte 6' USGS Quadrangle. 1 -6- 1 • A review of the 1900 Pasadena 30' USGS Topographic Quadrangle shows the Southern Pacific Railroad passing through the towns of San Gabriel and El Monte. Rosemead does not appear on the map but most likely developed from the tiny community of Savannah. The study area and surrounding area are shown as very sparsely inhabited with Pomona Boulevard (Valley Boulevard) being the major thoroughfare in the region. The northwestern boundary of the Potrero Grande Rancho is also delineated to the south of the study area. The 1926 El Monte 6' USGS- Quadrangle continues to show the aforementioned improvements in addition to the established townsite of Rosemead. Although the map indicates that the area is becoming more occupied, it is still rather sparsely developed. The study area is shown within the corridor for the "Southern California Edison Power Lines". Pomona Boulevard and Garvey Road lie equidistance between the Pacific Electric railroad alignment (present day Interstate 10). The 1948 El Monte 6' USGS Quadrangle depicts all the aforementioned improvements including the channelization of Rubio Wash just to the east and an increasing number of houses in the region. However the area is still relatively undeveloped. The closest residential development to the study area lies to the east adjacent to Walnut Grove Boulevard (Avenue). V. LAND PATENTS Archival research also included a review of land patents on file with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Sacramento. BLM General Land Office records indicate that one land. patent had been recorded for the study area (located within the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24 of Township 1 South, Range 12 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian). The land patent was issued to James H. Tibbet on November 15, 1875 as part of 160 acres comprising the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24. It was granted to Tibbet by authority of the Nature of Scrip (5 Stat. 607).. VI. SACRED LANDS FILE CHECK On July 2, 2008, a Sacred Lands File Check for the project area was requested by Ms. Laura S. White, M.A. The search was conducted on July 8, 2008 by Mr. Dave Singleton, Program Analyst for the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. The results of the search indicated that no sacred Native American sites have been recorded within the boundaries of the study area. -7- !~ A list of both individual and Native American groups was also provided for further consultation (see Appendix A). VII. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION In order to learn more about the potential archaeological sensitivity of the project area, a letter of inquiry was sent to .Mr. Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary for the Gabrielino/Tongva Council/Gabrielino Tongva Nation (Appendix B). To date, no response has been received. VIII. FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Afield reconnaissance of the study area was conducted by Laura S. White (Principal Investigator) and Robert S White (surveyor) on July 18, 2008. The pedestrian survey began in the northeast corner of the property and proceed in a southerly direction. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced at 5-meter intervals (more or less between the rows of plants and trees) across the property. Where parallel transects were impractical, meandering transects were employed through the rows of vegetation. Surface visibility was generally good, varying from 65 to l00% depending on the density of the potted plants/trees. By utilizing these techniques, a thorough field reconnaissance of the study area was accomplished. IX. FINDINGS No prehistoric or historic resources of any kind were discovered during the course of the investigation. X. RECOMMENDATIONS The records search failed to indicate the presence of any recorded .prehistoric or historic resources within the boundaries of the study area. The results of our field assessment were equally negative. Therefore, since a thorough investigation has failed to reveal the presence of any cultural resources within the study area, no further work in conjunction with cultural resources, including monitoring of any future grading activities, is warranted or recommended. 1 -8- ii r • ~ ~,•'~ 1 . ~ ~~ ~~.t~ /, ~.~ _ r. f ~ :,,~ ~ n. q j •~f f. I f, ~ ~ R 'i,' ~ 1 ti 7'' f~ ~.;- ~ ,- ~~ ~ ^~ ~ r / ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ++ .. "~. ~ r ~ y c -" M ' .. rCy'ts ` ad.~+~l ~,~~v t;U.u.oa- ~ ~9 3r rti P ~ ~? ~ t ~: ~i, % i i, 5 ~~. ~' ~ F~ P h ' 4t w~ r P~ ax l " !- s T; ' 'f' }' Plate I. Top: Looking northwest across study area from the southeast project corner. Bottom: Looking northeast across property from the southwest corner. -9- O REFERENCES CITED i ~ MARVIN, JUDITH and JAY MICHALSKY 2001 Primary record for the Hawaii Supermarket (19-1.86684) on file with the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. SMITH., PHILOIv1EME C. 2001 Highway Project for Rehabilitation to the on and off-ramps along Route 10 from Los Angeles to El Monte. Caltrans District 7. .Unpublished report (LA-7183) on file with the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. -10- • 1 Appendix A: NAHC Sacred Lands File Check 1 1 1 1 • ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES July 2, 2008 Mr. Dave Singleton Associate Governmental Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission . 915 Capital Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Sacred Lands File Check for the 4.09-acre Marshall South Edison Parking Lot located. between Marshall Street and Olney Street, City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County. Dear Mr. Singleton: I am writing to you to request a Sacred Lands File Check for the above-referenced project. Briefly, Archaeological Associates has been requested by the City of Rosemead to provide information with regard to prehistoric and historic resources in the vicinity of the project. Thus, the reason for contacting your organization. Presently, project proponents plan to construct a parking ]ot within this Southern California Edison parcel which is currently occupied by an existing nursery. The study area is bounded by Marshall Street on the north, Olney Street on the south, and existing residential development on the east and - west. Legally, the project is situated within Section 24, Township 1 South, Range 12 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian (EI Monte 7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle). We look forward to hearing from you. U the meantime, if you have any questions or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (95i) 244-17$3. Very truly yours, ' - Laura S. White, M.A. Field Director LS W : file;nahc.com by fax P.O. Box 180 Sun City, CA 92586 (951) 244-1783 FAX (951) 244-0084 ~ • • ~ pi'%OSrZno3 17: n8 Fal 918 GSi 5390 \!~HC ~dJOri3 S7ATE ~F CALIFORNIA Amald 3chrrgrz9[1G9pCf,Snve rn ai NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 65&6261 Fnz (9i8)857•SS90 Web 91ta evwx.nnhe.ca.aoy ~ ~ e-mefl: da_twhc~paebell.nat July 8, 2008 Laura. S. White Field Director Archaeological Associates Pn Box 180. Sun City, CA 92586 Sent by Fax: 951-244-0084 Number of Pages: 2 Re: Proposed 4.09-Acre Marshall South Edison Parkway Lot Project: Los Angeles County Dear Ms. White' '' The Natve American Heritage Commission was able to perform a record search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the affected project area. The SLF failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. T}Ie absence of specific site information in the Sacred Lands File does not guarantee the absence of cultural resources in any 'area of potential effect (APE).' Early consultaiiori with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. Enclosed are the nearest tribes chat may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. A list of Native American contacts are attached to assist you:. The Commission makes no recommendation of a single individual or group over another. It is advisable to contact the person listed; if they cannot supply you with specific information about the impact on cultural resources, they may be able to refer you to another tribe or person knowledgeable of the cultural resources in or near the affected project area {APE). Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude the existence of archeologicaf resources. Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in Section 15370 of the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project. Also. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally discover8d archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be fo8owed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a'dedicated cemetery. Discussion of these should be included in your environmental documents, as appropriate. If you have any questions about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to contact. me at (916} 653-6251. Sincerely, Dave SIn$taron Program Analyst Attachrnent: Nate American Contact List s 0 i • • o7%0b-`:0ie8 1.7:08 F.4S 916 BSi 1390 \:1HC Native American Carus Los Angeles County . July 8, 2008 lA City/County Native Arnerican.lndian Comm Ron Andrade, Director 3175 West 6th Street, Rm. 403 Los Angeles CA 90020 (213) 351-5324 (213) 386-3~5 FAX Ti'At society Cindi Aivitre 6515 E. Seaside Walk, ~C Gatxielino Long Beach . CA 90$03 calvitre C yahoo.com (714} 504-2468 Cell 7ongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Roses, Tribal Admin. Gabrielin0 Tongva tattnlawG~gmail.corn 310-570-6567 ~J 001 GabfiebrtolTongva Council ~ Gabtieliroo Tongva Nation Sam Duntap, Tribal Secretary 761 Terminal Street; B10g 1. 2nd fbor Gabrielino Tongva Los Angeit3s CA scxrrt office Qtongvatribe.net (213) 489-5001 -Office 1909) 262-9351 -Cell (213) 489-5002 Fax Galxielkto Tongue Indians of California Tribal Council Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources saso Slauson, Ave, suite ts~ r~wie Gabrielino Tongva Culver City ~ CA 90230 gtongva@verizon.net 562-761-6417 -voice 562-925-7989-fax \_ Gabrieleno(Ton4va San Gabriel Band of ttAk55ion Anthony- Nbrales, Chairperson PO Box 693 Gabriefino Tongva San Gabriel CA 91778 ChiefflBwifeC~ao-.com (626) 286-16;12 (626) 286-7758 • Horne (626} 286-1262 Fax r ~ 7Na Itet b cvrnfM only a0 n! the date of Nk, document. DbHIbullon of thks 9& does met relbve~arty petaom o1 Y neagorWLtltty 9a ddined In SeL11an 71150.5 of the Hoetth and Safety Cede, SUCt1O1150l1194 Wthe PuW k Remutresa Code OTW Seetloao 5097.90 a! the PtYW k Reswacc a Code- Tmis Ilad b Only appgcoble for corrta.-png b[e1 t~ttve Mwtcmfs Mth ra9ard to ctd4irel tesotatxs for the P-ODO6e a.0li-eiere Ma~a1~ Swath Exotdan Pmking Lrt PrOle~ loc&fed Fn the City of fiOderttaadC: Loa Arrgcles CowaY, C9~ormla Mr ,rhkh a Satii'ed Lends Fp0 09Brch and N9'tlM AmerlC0l1 COtneeta @St wi8l9 Rtqua~ed- . i • • Appendix B: Native American Consultation o . • 0 A ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES July 8, 2008 Mr. Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary Gabrielino/Tongva CouneiU Gabrielino Tongva Nation 761 Terminal Street, Bldg. 1, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 RE: The 4.09-acre Marshall South Edison Parking Lot located between Marshall Street and Olney Street, City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County. Dear Mr. Dunlap: Archaeological Associates has been retained to conduct a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the above-mentioned 4A9-acre parcel. Presently, project proponents plan to construct a parking lot within this Southern California Edison parcel which is currently occupied by an existing nursery. The study area is bounded by Marshall Street on the north, Olney Street on the south, and existing residential development on the east and west. Legally, the project is situated within Section 24, Township I South, Range 12 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian {E! Monte 7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle-see attached map). A records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton indicated that the property has not been previously surveyed. No prehistoric or historic resources have been recorded within the boundaries of the subject property. A sacred lands file check has been requested from the NAHC. We are seeking input from the tribe with regards to places of importance that may or may not have been previously identified. In particular, if the tribe is aware ofthe presence ofprehistoric or historic resources within or adjacent to the project area, we would very much like to hear from you. In the meantime, if you have any questions. or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 244-1783. Very truly yours, Lawn S. White, M.A. Field Director LS W : fi le;marshal l edison attachment F'.C). Box 180 Sun City, CA 92586 (95t) 244.1783 fAX{951)244-00$4 1 1 City of Rosemead Zone Change OS223 - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ - _ Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot APPENDIX c Noise Impact Study v • t i i i i i NOISE IMPACT STUDY SCE EASEMENT PARHING CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Phil~Martin Associates Attn: Phil Martin ' 18551 Von Karmen Avenue Suite 140 Irvine, CA 92612 -Date: July 23, 2008 • NOISE SETTING Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound wave. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. ~, The unit of sound pressure expressed as a ratio to the lowest sound level detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity is called a decibel (dB). Because sound or noise can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing, decibels are a logarithmic progression used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise levels at maximum human sensitivity are factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as dB(A). Any further reference to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be A-weighted. Time variations in noise exposure are normally expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of-the. time varying period (called Leq), or as a statistical description of the sound level exceeded over some hourly fraction. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the .evening and. at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Noise Standards State law (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 6, Section T25-28) requires that indoor noise levels in habitable rooms of multi-family dwelling units be limited to a 45 dBA CNEL. Since the average attenuation factor for structures with closable windows exceeds 20 dB, a 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise exposure level is typically considered to be a desirable maximum exterior noise loading. Exterior standards articulated in local general plans apply to recreational exterior space (patio, porch, pool/spa, etc.). They apply to those sources that are pre-empted from local control (traffic on public streets, airplanes, trains, etc). Because the City of Rosemead can not directly regulate the noise generation from these sources, it controls the land uses that may be exposed to given transportation noise sources. For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use; the City of Rosemead limits the amount of noise crossing the boundary between the two uses, including noise from the movement of vehicles on private property. For regulated on-site sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes very specific limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The City standard is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.), and 45 dB at night (10 p.m. - 7 a.rn.). One-half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter periods. The City of Rosemead noise standards for adjacent residential uses are shown in Table 1. t f • • Table 1 ROSEMEAD NOISE ORDINANCE LIMITS (Exterior Noise for Residential Uses) Maximum Allowable Duration of Exceedance 30 minutes/Hour (L50) 15 minutes/Hour (L25) 5 minutes/Hour (L8) 1 minutelHour (L 1) Never (Lmax) Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060 Noise Level Not to be Exceeded 7AMtolOPM lOPMto7AM (Daytime) (Nighttime) . 60 dB 45 dB 65 dB 5.0 dB 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 65 dB ~.. SCE Parking Lot Noise Report 7.23.08 2 • The Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy equipment to not operate until 7 a.m. during the week, and to not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line. (8.36.030.A.3). Noise standards are adjusted upward if baseline levels already exceed any of these thresholds. Baseline Noise Levels Short term on-site noise measurements were made in order to document existing baseline levels in the project area. These help to serve as a basis for projecting future noise exposure from a project upon the surrounding community: Noise monitoring was .conducted on Thursday, July 10, 2008, from 12:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m., at two area locations. Meter 1 was located on-site along the northern site perimeter. Because of difficulty accessing the site, Meter 2 was placed along the southern perimeter of the easement. Measurement locations are shown in Figure 1 and summarized below. Meacnred Nnise Levels (dRAI Site No. Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 .L90 1 60.4 71.0 48.5 64.5 59.5 56.0 51.0 2 61.3 86.0 55.5 61.0 59.5 58.5 57.0 Monitoring experience shows that 24-hour weighted CNEL's can be reasonably well estimated from mid-afternoon noise readings. CNEL's are approximately equal to mid-afternoon Leq plus 3 dB (Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, 1998). Existing on-site noise levels in the lower 60's would equate to CNEL's of 62-64 dB. Such levels are within the recommended exterior residential noise standard of 65 dB CNEL. SCE Parking Lot Noise Report 7.23.08 3 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e s s t • • Figure 1 Noise Monitor Locations Meter 1 t , . ~~, , .~,.-, ~; as H C ~ C' L - u'1 ~T~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a~ 1~ ~ r ~~ °r1~,~5 ~ r ~ ~,tiaT~a r ~ ~~h yi ~ y ~ y ~< `~ E , ~' r ry% i -~ ~r .~t F "~ I ~ ~, ~ ,,,;.d ` ~ ; p ~ '`~....- L ~ k+a.? r' '"t~ ~ ~~ ' ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ r rt - ~ ,~~._. t v ~ CIA ~~ ~E ti ~.. ". i ~g ~ ~ k~ ~ .k•r ~' ~ rd >q ~rJ w ,`~ f -: '~., ~~~ r Z~' ~. ~l sy a~ s ..~;' ~ ~l ~~~n,' r ~Gn { -, .~~ t ~... f~ E~ ~ ~ °fi; : ~~~ f ~~T`CE t.~'"`'R ""1 -~c ~ ~~~ ~ `~`'~... ~ .. ~ 'N7r~ ~ ~~ E' ~ 1TUVr ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1`k~ ~_r.i ~,~~ '• 'r9 ~ ~ k_ iy `~yd~~1 ;~~~c-~'I T "a~ ,~- - ~r~ ~~ t LT :. t ~y ~ ~ . ~ ~ r r a r: ~. ~ r"'~S~ ,:-'~ ~~Y f 'i~ ~i7~ .s~f i - i P' i E MT ~ I~ = '•'~© !~ ~ ~i l }~* ~*,rza ~ , M-- ~~p a -° ~~ rr 1 ,~ ~ F c w ~. 'I~ f pia i~iL~ ~~r ~~ Tit y~. -f n N9 -~~ --. ..~ "''+~ sN""'y ~. ~~1 ~ ~ ~ i y~ ~ y 6C is'4s~ ~ y, n~, o ~ `:1 ~ ~ ~. t"r. I ' ?~tG~~ F ~^ ~~ 7.: p ``I .iEs -/ t[ 'W' ~ C~ ` F o .f . r: of r"J ~ r- 1' ~1c- '-1 ` I ! --'-~ _ ~S -t -~ f~; ~~`~.P~ v:" l`a h t~ ~ `. ~' ~, ~ ,-_, _~~~~, i ~~" ~. ~'~' 1 G{ " ~ ~y ~ ~y ri ~~. r ~ `~ F ~ r ~W ~ ~P ^ ~'} T ~ ~ 1 ! :I ~ ~ ~ f ~~ ~ ~~ t k 1 ~ ~ ,,1 Y r...~ ,~,,.]f E, s~~~'c~r"wl ~ y 7r 1.' 'k .'k ~..`„1~, - ~ Ln ~* ' ~ ~ ~ f {~ ;'% I'1 „kl'' ~~ r ~ ~7 - ...n Z' ~~.-~r +~;~ ~1 ~,~"" ~ F y t~ ~ ~r~ t ~~, ~ i~ "b ~~f~`-~.'~, "d .~ ' ~ '[ 7.J ~.c ~~-~ Ly ~ ' 4~ ~ , G d~ '~, i•; I , ~y$ 4, ,~,}~ ~~, '~.~~_ i-~ ~ i srr' ~ J :at t~~y ' ~. ~. ~~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ '-.l ,.~,~11~~ v ~ K' I~_ ~ 6~``l ~ r...-..~~ $ LEA IW ~~ k~' ~t'~ ~ ~~`~ ~ ~ y 'cam l ~ e~ ~R'' `=~ /~~ /j, y rq~ ,-st"if ,~~-#-~t~~~j`~i'~~ ~d~,9~~ 1~~~`y'...t•~'~ ;~ ~t~' ~ ~_'._Y i~; ~~`S~ n ~C r r~~ ~~1 1 's~ ~. ~ _ ~' ~ I .i1 ~ :v, .: ~, K~ , ! Y5 j r `~ ~ I ~ ~~; `: "-~ ~s~ o L~~11ct~~r , ~~, ~rf' ~-~_.~. "'~ ~I ~'~.~,a .- 3 ~ ~ti ~_ ,..,_ .. ~. _ - _ _ --~ - - .___.__ _.. - _ __ _. .~;a _. __.~ SCE Parking Lot Noise Report 7.23.08 4 NOISE IMPACTS Standards of Significance. • CEQA Guidelines identify significant impacts as those that cause standards to be exceeded or substantially worsened. Project activities that cause a violation of the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance-would be considered to have a significant noise impact. The project itself does not create. or encourage new trips. Congregants who currently park along the street will be encouraged to utilize the parking lot instead. Although there will be a slight noise impact for residences adjacent to the proposed parking lot during Friday evening and Sunday morning services, the noise impact for residents currently exposed to street parking will be lessened or eliminated. The proposed parking usage noise associated with the arrival and departure of congregants and staff will occur within the daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. The daytime noise standard at the closest sensitive receptor is 60 dB Leq. An impact is. considered significant if it "substantially" worsens an existing unacceptable noise environment. Parking lot noise relative to the closest neighbors east and west of the proposed project is the only applicable long-term noise analysis criterion. This as well as short-term noise from short-term construction, are analyzed below. Construction Noise Impacts Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated by large, earth-moving equipment sources. During paving, equipment is generally less noisy. Figure 2 shows the typical range of equipment noise during various construction phases. The construction of a parking lot is the only substantial construction activity required to implement the project. Because the site is flat and requires no substantial grading, construction noise will be on the lower end of the noise generation range shown in Figure 1. Maximum noise levels from paving activities will likely be around 80 dB at 50 feet from the source. The City of Rosemead standard is 85 dB as a maximum. The City noise standard during minor project construction will be met within .50 feet of any site improvement activity. Adjacent residences will not be subjected to excessive construction activity noise. Noise generation will be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. by- the municipal code, and is prohibited on Sundays and major holidays. SCE Parking Lot Noise Report 7.23.08 5 s t t t 0 • . Figure 2 Typical Construction. Equipment Noise Generation .Levels Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet • 70 80 90 100 Compactors (Rollers) ~ ~ Front Loaders c ~ ~ Backhoes ' > ° ~ Tractors ~ ° w '~ Scrapers, Graders o Pavers ~ U `6 E Trucks a~ c ;, ~ Concrete Mixers .Q Concrete Pumps ~ ~ a N ~;~ Cranes (Movable) ~ a ~ ~ Cranes (Derrick) IIII~ .~ w .Pumps s . Generators • ~ cn Compressors Pneumatic Wrenches ~~ a ~- Jack Hammers and Rock Drills E ~~ _.~ "' Pile Drivers (Peaks) Vibrator ~_ ~ Saws Source: EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, December 31,1971; "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations." C:IUSERSIPHILIPRDJECTSIROSEMEAD CHURCH PARKING LOTINOISE REPDRTIFIG 2 TYP CNSTRTN EQP N GEN LVLS.DOC ~ ~ • • Parking Lot Activity Noise Impacts Parking lots are associated with noise from the arrival or departure of a stream of cars. These cars are generally slow-moving. Because trucks will not be using this lot, the noise from very slowly moving cars is very low. The lot can accommodate approximately 148 cars. If the proposed parking lot were fully utilized and if all 148 cars were to arrive or depart the lot during a single hour, the calculated traffic noise is 52 dB at the closest home (FHWA-RD-77-108), for ~ an assumed 25 mph travel speed. This level is less than the adopted 60 dB significance threshold. It would exceed the 45 dB nocturnal threshold if all 148 cars departed after 10 p.m.. However it is not anticipated that the parking lot would be utilized post 10 p.m. and it is unlikely that all the parking spots would be utilized or that the possible 148 vehicles would arrive or depart in a single hour. It should therefore be noted that this is an "LEQ" calculation. The 50th percentile level is lower than 52 dB because 148 cars per hour represents 2-3 cars per minute, and each car will be in close proximity to any residence for only a few seconds. The 50th percentile noise level will be more influenced by background noise conditions from ;much higher volume noise sources (such as area roadways) rather than from vehicle arrival or departure. Any possible off-site noise intrusion could derive from a.variety of single-event noises that would be audible above the low-60 dB background noise level. Single event arrival/departure noise maybe occasionally audible at the nearest homes in the evening from Friday services closest to the eastern or western site perimeter. Parking lot activity noise has been measured at a variety of locations. Not every vehicle or every behavior has identical noise characteristics. However, there is a fairly broad consensus on the approximate noise levels from parking lots based on numerous measurement experiences. As a worst-case, parking lot activity noise was presumed to-originate at a distance of 30 feet from the source to an off-site residential receiver. The peak noise levels likely to be experienced are summarized in Table 2. Activating a car horn directed at the receiver may cause the single event noise standard of 80 dB to be exceeded at the nearest residence by a substantial margin. Similarly, a car alarm may also cause a violation of standards, particularly if the alarm operates through the vehicle's forward directed horn. Operation of a very loud radio might not cause the Lmax threshold to be exceeded, but the loud thumping of the bass speaker is a nuisance. Most other parking/deparking noise is predicted to be less than the applicable Lmax standard, but the character or time of the noise could still be perceived as intrusive even if ordinance levels are not exceeded. Because the proposed lot is to be utilized by church congregants, the behavior of the lot users is likely to be more restrained than it might be for younger drivers. SCE Parking Lot Noise Report 7.23.08 7 v A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . • Table 2 Single Event Parking Lot Activity Noise (At the nearest residence at 30 feet from source to receiver, dBA Lmax) Max. Im Noise source Auto horn directed at receiver 94 82 Car alarm Shouting and laughing persons 63 62 Door slam 59 En ine startin u Tires ueal while idling into arkin s of ~ nversation at 3-5 feet se aration l N 5 ~ 54 co orma Alarm "chi "during activation or deactivation di 52 Unk. o Boom box car ra Mnt~rcvcle acceleration Unk Source: Edgemar Building Parking Lot Noise Study, Santa Monica, 1998. r~ SCE Parking Lot Noise Report 7.23.08 8 • MITIGATION Construction noise impacts during construction of the parking lot will be reduced by limiting the hours of operation, location of activities and/ or noise levels of equipment used in construction. Specific measures to implement these objectives include: • Construction activity hours shall comply with the Rosemead Municipal Code. • Construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating mufflers. • Construction staging areas shall be located away from the closest homes. Parking lot uses ending by 10 p.m. will not cause the Rosemead noise standard to be exceeded at the nearest residential property line, even if all 148 vehicles entered or exited the lot in the same hour. Background -noise Leq's are higher than the expected noise generated by parking lot usage. Late evening departure vehicle noise could exceed the adopted significance threshold in the unlikely event that substantial traffic occurs after 10 p.m. Parking lot closure by 10 p.m. is recommended to eliminate the potential single event noise nuisance. SCE Parking Lot Noise Report 7.23.08 9 :... k.', 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Rosemead ~ ® - • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change 05-223 ~ ~ ~ ~ - First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Parking Lot APPENDIX D Traffic Assessment • " .. ; KOA CORPORATION ` ~`' PIANNiNG & ENGINEERING ' TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: June 20, 2008 To: Mr. Chuan S. Wang From: Bob Cheung • L Subject: First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Edison Parking Lot Traffic Assessment [JA5299X] INTRODUCTION This memorandum documents the findings of the traffic assessment conducted for the proposed usage of the Edison site for parking by the First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley. The applicant (Church) is proposing to utilize the Edison site to accommodate overflow of parking demand during Friday evening and Sunday morning services. This study assesses the potential traffic and parking impacts due to the proposed parking usage of the Edison Site. The Edison site is located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue. STUDY METHODOLOGY Based on discussions with City staff, the Friday evening and Sunday morning analysis will focus on current parking trends (on-street and off-street), and estimate the potential traffic and parking shifts due to usage of the Edison site. As part of the study, 2008 traffic counts were conducted at the intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street and the four parking lot driveways along Marshall Street and Walnut Grove Avenue. In addition, surveys were conducted at both on-street and off-street parking facilities serving the Church. The off- street parking sites include the north and south parking lots which serve the Church. On-street parking survey was conducted along Marshall Street between Walnut Grove Avenue and Bartlett Avenue (east of Walnut Grove Avenue) and between Walnut Grove Avenue and Earle Avenue (west of Walnut Grove Avenue). On-street parking survey was also conducted along Walnut Grove Avenue north of Marshall Street. The following summarizes the results of the traffic/parking assessment. EXISTING 2008 CONDITIONS Intersection and Driveways Operations Traffic counts for the study intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street and the four Project driveways were conducted during Friday (5/30/08) between 5 PM and 8 PM. Traffic counts were also conducted on Sunday (6/ I /08) between 9 AM and I I AM. The traffic count data is provided in the appendix. First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Traffic/Parking Study June 19, 2008 LOS ANGELES OAKLAND ONTARIO C)ftANG E COUNTY SAN DIEGO t 1 1 1 1 KOA CORPORATION L. _~ FLfaNNING & ENGINEERING Based on the ICU methodology for capacity analysis, the intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street is currently operating at LOS D during Friday evening peak hour and LOS A during Sunday morning peak hour. Table I summarizes the level of service results. " Table Existing intersection Level of Service Summary Study Intersections Friday PM Sunday AM V/C or Del/Veh LOS VIC or Del/Veh LOS I Walnut Grove Ave & Marshall St 0.869 D 0.554 A 2 Walnut Grove Ave -North Lot Driveway [a] I I.0 B 10.3 B 3 Marshall St -North Lot Driveway [a] 14.7 B . 10.9 B 4 Marshall St -South Lot Driveway [a] 12. I B 10.4 B 5 Walnut Grove Ave -South Lot Driveway [a] 13.0 B 9.3 A Notes: [a]: Stop controlled intersection. Average delay & corresponding LOS shown The four Project driveways were analyzed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for stop-controlled intersections. The delay (in terms of seconds) and corresponding LOS are for the most constrained movement(s) at the intersection. Constrained movements include major street left-turns and minor street approaches. Based on the HCM methodology, the four Project driveways are currently operating at very .good levels of service (i.e. LOS A and B). The level of service worksheets. are also provided in the appendices. Parking Utilization ~ As part of the study, a parking utilization survey was conducted for both on-street and off-street parking. Table 2 summarizes the results of the utilization survey for both Friday and Sunday. The parking utilization was conducted in 15-minute intervals. The following summarizes the results: First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Traffic/Parking Study 2 ' June 20, 2008 LOS ANGELES OAICLAND C~NTARIt7 OR,4Nc:~E COUNTY SAN C71EG© -`"'~ O [~~ ~1 ^ O ~l Z a~ ~W O Z "l.. Q a r+~ Y N {A L~ ~ 1"' ~ N ~.+ 7 b0 __ L a • O t C O O e\° O ~ O ~ O e\° O e O e O ~° O ZE O ~ O ~ O a~° O e° O ~ Z Q N ~ = C ~ Lvpi 3 c ~ F N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q M O M O O O O ~ .gyp ~ N m N N O M Q - O - O O O O N N m ~ m a O 9 O O O O O O O ~ ~ ^~ ~ Q ~ t P A Q ~ - O ~ to O O O O O O O N N P f - ~ 3 ~ H Z N m o m o 0 0 o a o ~ - e° - a\° 0 Z - O - O O O O O O N N f x O x O x O ;e O x O ;e O x O ae O ;e O x o x 0 x 0 N d O F N Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ °' ~ 0 ae 0 ae 0 o\° 0 a\~ 0 ~° 0 a 0 \° 0 o\° 0 ~ 0 a° 0 a° 0 Q _ ~ W = j N ~ N ~ H O O O O O O O O O O O O F ~ Q W y O O a. O e O e O O x O x O ,e O ,e O ~ O e O H L ~ C 0 "' Z O O O O O O O O O O O O W P O O P N O ~O ~ m L ~ 'O P r r - N M vi .o in o O F ~ f n n N ~ f N ~ N CMD O J ~ T° O N a\° N \ e o N N ~ O N ~ f N ~ O X m f X W 1~ 1~ O) P u ' N P N N O P - ~ N ~ f Y p e N ~ N ~ N ~ N e N ~ N ~ ~ ~1 e P ~ P e N e W J n O Z N F a ~n N ~ s o M N L a ~n ~ N E d o O N L a ~n N E a m E a Y ~O E a o O _ ~ a N N L a m ~ ~ a h f ~ F o_ o O ?'~ O. O. _ cif ~ ~ a h ~ F a N ~ ~ a rOn Y1 ~G ~ ~ a Q N .C ~ ~ a O ~G ~ ~ ~ N ~C ~0 ~ ~ a n ~G 1~ ~ E a f ~O 1~ ~ E a O t~ n ~ E a ~ h 1~ ~ a M 1~ 0 ~ d Y 1~ e Me L f V a f I i 1 Y . • ~ t d a° ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ a° O C O > N ~ ~ O O O O O O ~ Z Q N - - - - - ~ i = C N O N j C L N ~ N N N N N N Q O O - P P O O O O . d > O M Q P N i0 N M M M M M L' m O 9 O 2e P O O O O O O Q d ~ P - - - - Q L , - N j y P O) P P P P P ~ O - - - - - ~ 3 .~ yE m ~ m d° o 2° o d:' S 2~ S \° S d: S L N - 0 Z O O N N N N N N A N P ~O O m W N N V V N OD n 1~ O d O F N ~O ~O m N f M M 1~ Q d ~ M M f f f f f d O C d P O~U ~O\D K ~ ~ ~ N Q ~ C 9 N d) N .O .~ 1~ .O ~D ~O GO e j > ~ , N N p ypj d) P - P N P P P N Q UJ ~ ae O m ~ ae ~ a° d) a° P ae GO O m N t ~ L. 0 N Z O) n P - N N N N f N f N Y N ~ ~ O ~ O O ~~ o 'D N b P A P O - - - w O F ^ f W P N N O ~O O ~0 N ~O t+C ~D m ~O ~'° ~ o a~ ae N~ ~ ~ P a° P O J L `~ < N Op GO J O ~ O N - l~ P P N Y h Y wl Y a N o N ~ P ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O L J ^ - - CO - - - Z N ~ - N N N N N Q ~ Q ~ Q Q O o Q v~ Q O M Q v~ v Q O o ?~ a - T N p P O - G - O - G - - n H Q O P Q ~- ~ Q m ~ Q Y ~ Q O O Q 1- O Q m O Q Y O 0 w_ 0 ZA `l ~'"' n `~ , !L ~~~..y/ 'M U ~_ O! Z O 'p 1 N x 4/) O b0 C_ cn ~ w L J cd ui V G LR1 vs r O >. v f\~ L .~ ,f{~ V C 0 V L L U fd V C ~ N w L_ C ~ ~ • ' KOA CORPORATION • .." PLANNING & ENGINEERING ' Friday Evening Parking Conditions ' • The North Lot parking demand peaks at 58% (68 vehicles) of capacity. • The South Lot parking demand peaks at 93% (43 vehicles) of capacity. i • No noticeable church related parking was observed along Walnut Grove Avenue north of Marshall Street. ' • No noticeable church related parking was observed along Marshall Street west of Walnut Grove Avenue. • Some church related parking was observed along Marshall Street east of Walnut Grove Avenue. Peak demand observed at 58% (18 vehicles) of capacity. Sunday Parking Conditions ' The North Lot parking demand peaks at 103% (123 vehicles) of capacity. Note that demand exceeds capacity due to double parked cars. Parking capacity based on physically striped stalls. ' • The South Lot parking demand peaks at 98% (45 vehicles) of capacity. • Noticeable church related parking was observed Walnut Grove Avenue north of Marshall Street between 100% (22 vehicles) of capacity. • Noticeable church related parking was observed along Marshall Street west of Walnut Grove Avenue. Peak demand observed 85% (47 vehicles) of capacity. • Noticeable church related parking was observed along Marshall Street east of Walnut Grove Avenue throughout the entire AM period at or near capacity. FIND INGS . i l • y operat ng Traffic operation at the intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street is current at acceptable levels of service.' During Friday evening, the intersection level of service is LOS D. The ' majority of traffic traveling through the intersection is mainly due to commuting traffic. During Sunday morning, the intersection is operating at excellent level of service (LOS A). • The four church driveways are all operating at very good levels of service during both Friday evening and ' Sunday morning conditions. • During Friday evening services, off-street parking seems adequate to accommodate the Church parking demand. ' t First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Traffic/Parking Study June 19, 2008 L©SANGE'LES C7AKtAN[7 UNTARIfl C?RAidGE C~~1NTY SAN ~IEGC7 • ~ • KOA CORPORATION PLAIdRlIPJCr & ENCr11VEER3NG • Observed on-street parking 'on Marshall Street east of Walnut Grove Avenue during Friday :evening services appears to be used more for convenience than for need as there were observed available parking. spaces in both the north and south lots. • No noticeable church related parking was observed along Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street west of Walnut Grove Avenue during the Friday evening period. • During Sunday morning services, off-street parking was observed to be used at full capacity. • There were noticeable church related parking along Marshall Street (east of and west of Walnut Grove Avenue) and along.Walnut Grove Avenue north of Marshall Street during Sunday morning. • Noticeable on-street parking was also observed along Marshall Street west of Walnut Grove Avenue during Sunday morning. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS • Currently during Friday evening services, the parking demand from the Church appears to be accommodated by the parking lots. Some on-street parking was observed but no significant parking issues are identified. • During Sunday morning, parking demand is significantly higher as compared to Friday evening. Both parking lots are at/over capacity and there is significant on-street parking observed. • Based on the survey results, the proposed usage of the Edison site as an alternative parking lot would be recommended. This should alleviate some of the on-street parking demand during Sunday morning period. ' • The implementation of the Edison Parking would unlikely reduce parking along Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street east of Walnut Grove Avenue unless on-street parking restrictions are also implemented. • Since church patrons are currently observed parking on Marshall Street west of Walnut Grove Avenue, the shift in traffic patterns due to the implementation of the Edison parking site is not expected to create significant changes to the current traffic patterns. • The intersection of Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street is currently operating at LOS A during the Sunday peak hour. Any traffic shift as a result of the. Edison parking lot would unlikely create traffic impacts to cause traffic operations at the subject intersection to deteriorate to an unacceptable level of service (i.e. LOS E or F). • It is recommended that Church post "Parking Lot Full" signs visible to drivers on Walnut Grove Avenue. Signage is to advise and direct drivers to use the Edison Lot when the church North and South Lots are full. This would avoid circuitous traffic patterns in the area and maintain intersection operations at Walnut Grove Avenue/Marshall Street. First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Traffic/Parking Study_ June 20, 2008 ~ 5 LOSANGELES OAKLANt~ ONTARIO ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO 1 1 1 • I~OA CORPORATION .a PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • We would recommend the implementation of a shuttle service between the church site and the proposed Edison site. This would reduce pedestrian-to-vehicle conflict at the intersection and maintain/improve pedestrian safety. First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Traffic/Parking Study 6 June 20, 2008. i,©SANGELES C7AKLAN1a C7N1"r~Rit~; {RANGE CC}UN7Y SAN ~iEG© • ~ I~OA CORPO~tATION _.a PLANNING & ENGINEERING t ~ ~ . APPENDICES First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Traffic/Parking Study June 20, 2008 LOS ANGELES OAKLANa ONTARIO ORANGE Ct~UNTY SAN DIEGC3 ' KOA CORPORATION I ~~ ." PLANNING & ENGINEEFtiNG • , \ J ' TRAFFIC COUNTS 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 First Evangelical-Church of San Gabriel Valley =Traffic/Parking Study ~ June 20, 2008 ~ 8', L05 ANGELES OAKLAND UNTARIC~ ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO I~t~~S~~.~~®~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ Prepared by: Nadi®nal ®ata i~ Surveying Services N-S STREET: Walnut Grove Ave DATE: 5/30/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Marshall St DAY: FRIDAY PROJECT# 08-2257-005 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1' 0 0 1 0 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 15 232 47 8 170 10 17 53 23 59 34 11 679 5:15 PM 29 259 75 11 .194 10 22 43 15 60 34 5 757 5:30 PM 20 281 65 11 203 18 22 43 17 62 29 12 783 5:45 PM 23 276 66 13 182 19 14 fi3 24 63 37 8 788 6:00 PM 20 250 71 15 213 11 9 34 19 72 40 9 _763 6:15 PM 18 238 59 5 176 11 16 27 21 57 34 9 671 6:30 PM 19 282 56 8 186 12 12 30 19 28 14 15 681 6:45 PM 23 208 40 8 175 10 12 25 20 39 29 6 595 7:00 PM 23 170 51 9 176 16 14 27 17 35 21 7 566 7:15 PM 24 141 43 10 '175 10 15 31 20 51 22 8 550 7:30 PM 12 155 50 14 144 8 8 23 7 46 19 4 490 7:45 PM 15 154 41 10 116 7 5 16 15 42 28 5 454 TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 241 2646 664 122 2110 142 166 415 217 614' 341 99 7777 PM Peals Hr Begins at: 515 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 9Z 1066 277 50 792 58 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.980 0.941 CONTROL: Signalized 67 183 75 257 140 34 3091 0.804 0.890 0.981 1 1 1 1 Prepared by: ., Nate®nal ®a~a ~c Suir~eying ~ewices N-S STREET: Walnut Grove Ave DATE: 6/1/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Marshall St DAY: SUNDAY - PROJECT# 08-2257-005 NORTHBOUND SOUT1iB0UND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR 5L ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 _ 0 8:00 AM ' 8:15 AM 8:30 AM .8:45 AM 9:00 AM 15 122 39 14 .145 6 9 21 13 35 24 8 451 9:15 AM 16 116 43 ' 15 137 12 4 I5 22 32 21 14 447 9:30 AM 14 106 31 12 147 9 4 15 27 30 23 7 430 9:45 AM 13 149 28 14 145 8 4 10 19 38 22 5 455 10:00 AM 16 136 29 5 145 8 2 14 17 35 21 5 433 10:15 AM 12 138 30 8 162 9 13 13 17 34 12 14 462 10:30 AM 24 137 26 3 171 6 8 26 27 35 18 5 486 10:45 AM 19 163 29 6 157 14 6 26 20 37 20 11 508 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11;30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 129 1067 255 77 1209 72 55 140 162 276 161 69 3672 AM Peak Wr Begins at: 1000 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 71 574 114 22 635 37 29 79 81 141 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.899 0.964 0.775 CONTROL: Signalized 71 35 1889 0.908 0.930 • • Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Walnut Grove Ave DATE: 5J30/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead COUNT TYPE: Pedestrians E-W STREET: Marshall St DAY: Friday PROJECT# 08-2257-005 NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG E-W W-E E-W W-E S-N N-S S-N N-S TOTAL a b c d e f g h ~ 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 5:15 PM 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 7 .5:30 PM 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 6:00 PM 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 4 7:00 PM 0 0 0 3 1 5 0 1 10 7:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 19 7:30 PM 0 0 2 2 2 26 0 0 32 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 41 NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG TOTAL E-W W-E E-W W-E S-N N-S S-N N-S TOTAL VOLUMES = I 1 O I li 9 I 6 97 1 0 3. I 127 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 700 PM PEAK - VOLUMES = 1 0 3 5 3 90 0 1 103 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 CONTROL: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-5 STREET: Walnut Grove Ave DATE: 6/1/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead COUNT TYPE: Pedestrians E-W STREET: Marshall St DAY: Sunday PROJECT# OB-2257-005 NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EASE LEG WEST LEG E-W W-E E-W W-E S-N N-S S-N N-S TOTAL a b c d e f g h 6:00 AM 6;15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7;00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 0 0 2 6 2 55 2 1 68 9:15 AM 0 0 3 36 2 80 0 4 125 9:30 AM 0 : 0 1 26 0 58 0 1 86 9:45 AM 0 0 1 16 2 20 0 6 45 10:00 AM 0 0 1 7 0 6 0 2 16 10:15 AM 0 0 0 2 2 5 3 i 13 10:30 AM 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 7 10:45 AM 1 0 0 7 1 1 0 4 14 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG TOTAL E-W W-E E-W W-E S-N N-S S-N N-S TOTAL VOLUMES = I 1 0 I IO 103 I it 225 15 19 374 I AM Peak Hr Begins at: 900 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 7 84 6 213 2 . 12 324 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.000 0.583 0.668 0.583 0.648 CONTROL: • Prepared by: Na~iofnal ®ata ~c Surveyifng Setv~ces N-5 STREET: Walnut Grove Ave .DATE: 5/30/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Dwy #1 DAY: FRIDAY PRO]ECT# 08-2257-OOi NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: IN IN OUT 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 1 0 0 1 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 1 0 0 1 6:00 PM 1 0 0 1 6:15 PM 0 1 0 1 6:30 PM 0 1 0 1 6:45 PM 0 1 0 1 7:00 PM 0 1 0 1 7:15 PM 0 1 0 1 7:30 PM 1 3 0 4 7:45 PM 1 2 0 3 TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 700 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 2 7 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.500 0,583 0.000 0.000 0.563 CONTROL: • • N-S STREET: Walnut Grove Ave DATE: 6/1/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Dwy #1 _ DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 08-2257-001 ` NORTHBOUND 5OUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ERA WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: IN IN OUT 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM ' 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 5 3 ~ 0 8 9:15 AM 7 4 1 12 9:30 AM ! 2 5 3 10 9:45 AM 0 0 2 2 10:00 AM 0 0 1 1 10:15 AM 1 0 0 1 10:30 AM 1 0 0 1 10:45 AM 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM - TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 16 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 35 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 900 AM VOLUMES = 0 0 14 12 0 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.500 0.6 CONTROL: PEAK 0 0 0 ,a o 0.000 ~, 0 6 32 0.500 0.667 • • InterSecti®n Turning ®ve ent Prepared by: Nadi®nal ®ata ~c Starveying Services N-S STREET: Marshall St DATE: 5/30/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Dwy #2 _ DAY: FRIDAY PROJECT# 08-2257-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL N7 NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: Illegal OUT OUT IN IN 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 2 3 0 0 5 5:15 PM 2 9 0 0 11 5:30 PM 0 9 0 0 9 5:45 PM 1 12 0 0 13 6:00 PM 1 11 0 0 12 6:15 PM 1 3 0 0 4 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 3 0 0 3- 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 1 3 0 0 4 7:30 PM 2 1 0 0 3 7:45 PM 2 3 0 0 5 TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 12 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 515 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 4 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.865 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.865 CONTROL: 1 1 1 1 • InerSec~in Turning ®veen Prepared by: Kati®nai ®ata & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Marshall St ~ DATE: 6/1/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead . E-W STREET: Dwy #2 DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 0$-2257-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: ~ Illegal OUT OUT IN IN 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:OO.AM 3 3 ~ 0 0 6 9:15 AM 4 3 0 0 7 9:30 AM 2 3 0 1 ~ 6 9:45 AM 2 1 1 0 4 10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 10:15 AM 2 3 1 1 7 10:30 AM 1 1 0 0 ~ 2 10:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1L•00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM - 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 32 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 900 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 11 PEAK HR. FACTOR: CONTROL: 0 10 0 0.750 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.000 0.250 0 0 23 0.250 0.821 • • _ Prepared by: data®Inal ®ata 8c Surveying Services N-S STREET: Walnut Grove Ave DATE: 5/30/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Dwy #3 DAY: FRIDAY PROJECT# 08-2257-003 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: _ IN IN Ille al OUT Illegal OUT 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 3 3 0 0 6 5:15 PM 7 8 0 1 16 . 5:30 PM 4 3 0 0 7 5:45 PM 5 7 0 .0 12 6:00 PM 3 6 0 0 9 6:15 PM 3 2 0 0 5 6:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 6:45 PM 0 4 0 0 4 7:00 PM 5 3 0 0 8 7:15 PM 3 2 0 0 5 7:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 7:45 PM 4 3 0 0 7 TOTAL NL: NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 40 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 82 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 515 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 19 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.679 0.750 0.000 0 1 44 0.250 0.688 CONTROL: 1 1 1 1 ~~t~~~~~t~®~ TU~t11~~ ®~~ ~~t Prepared by: Kati®nal ®ata ~ Surveyang Selrvices N-S STREET: Walnut Grove Ave DATE: 6/1/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET:. Dwy #3 DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 08-2257-003 ' NORTHBOUND. SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR ~ SL S1- SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: IN IN Illegal OUT ~ Illegal OUT 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM ' 9:00 AM 12 2 0 ~ 0 14 4:15 AM 6 5 0 0 11 9:30 AM 3 1 0 0 4 9:45 AM 1 1 0 0 2 10:00 AM 2 1 0 '~ 0 3 10:15 AM 4 1 0 0 5 10:30 AM 1 Z 1 1 5 10:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 11:15 AM ~ 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR - SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 29 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 ~0 1 44 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 900 AM PEAK VOLUMES = . 0 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0 22 9 0.458 0 0 _. 0 0.450 o a o 0.000 l 0 0 31 0.000 0.554 CONTROL: • •~ ~~~~~~t'~~ ~~~~~~~ ®~~ ~~ Prepared by: -Nati®nal ®ata & Sunreyitag Sewices N-S STREET: Marshall St DATE: 5/30/2008 LOCATION: C ity of Rosemead E-W STREET: Dwy #4 DAY: FRIDAY PROJECT# 08-2257-004 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND ~ WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: OUT OUT IN IN 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM ' 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 ' 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 .6:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1 6:15 PM ~0 ~ 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 1 1 0 2 6:45 PM 1 1 3 3 8 7:00 PM 0 0 3 0 3 7:15 PM 0 0 5 4 9 7:30 PM 0 1 15 8 24 7:45 PM 1 0 15 10 26 TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 0 2 0 3 42 0 0 0 0 26 73 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 700 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 0 1 PEAK HR. FACTOR; 4.000 0 1 38 0 0 0~ 0 22 62 0.500 0.633 0.550 0.596 CONTROL: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • r: ntersecti®n l'urneng ®ve ent Prepared by: :Kati®na9 ®ata ~ Su~reying Ser,rices N-S STREET: Marshall St DATE: 6/1/2008 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Dwy #4 DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 08-2257-004 NORTHBOUND ~, SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: OUT OUT IN IN 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 0 0 12 11 23 9:15 AM 0 0 22 16 38 9:30 AM ~ ' 2 0 li 4 17 9:45 AM 0 2 2 3 7 10:00 AM 1 0 2 1 4 10:15 AM 3 0 1 2 6 10:30 AM 1 0 1 1 3 10:45 AM 2 1 0 1 4 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 0 9 0 3 51 0 0 0 0 39 102 AM PeaEc Hr Begins at: 900 AM PEAK VOLUMES = PEAK HR. FACTOR: CONTROL: 0 0 0 2 0 2 47 0 0 0 0 34 85 0.000 0.500 0.534 , 0.531 0.559 KOA CORPORATION ,~ PLANNING & ENGINEERING LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Traffic/Parking Study 9. June 20, 2008 LO5 ANGELES OAKLAND ONTARIO ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO • • Existing PM Mon Jun 9, 2008 09 :26:17- Page B-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss .as Cycle Length ~) Method (Base Volume Alternative ) intersection #1 Wa lnut Grove Av & Marshall. St ' Cycle {sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.-869 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec} Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 86 Level Of Service: D ' 9r'k**~c'kit***~k***~I'i'** *~k***~t**'k ~Y ri"k*******~k*****'k*~t*****ir******eY ~f et*** 'k**** **it tk***1t tF ~r* Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bound We st Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Spl it Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 --- 2 0_ 1 ---------- 1 0 1 1 0 ~~--------------- 0 1 0 0 1 ---------------~~ ~~ 0 1 ----- 0 0 1 ----------~ ------------.i-- Volume Module: . Base Vol: 92 1066 277 50 792 58 67 183 75 257 140 34 Growth Adj: 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Initial Bse: 92 1066 277 50 792 S8 67 183 75 257. 140 34 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~ PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 92 1066 277 50 792 58 67 183 75 257 140 34 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Reduced Vol: 92 1066 277 50 792 58 67 183 75 257 140 34 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 92 1066 277 50 792 58 67 163 75 257 140 34 Saturation Flow Mo dule: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 ~ 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 ' Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00. 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.86 0.14 0.27 0.73 1.00 0.65 0.35 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 2982 218 429 1171 1600 1036 564 1600. ' ------------I----- Capacity Analysis ---------- Module: ~~--------------- ~~---------------~~ -=--- ----------~ Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.33 0.17 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.02 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** ' Traffix 7.9.0215 {c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK ii ~, • Existing PM Wed Jun 11, 2008 14:53:49 Page 9-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) *****,e********,r*******************************w***,r***********************.**~*** Intersection #2 Walnut Grove - North .Lot Driveway *******,r********x*************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 11.0] **************************,r********************,t**,to***************tr************ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------~~---------------~~---------------~I---------------~ Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1165 2 7 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1165 2 7 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1165 2 7 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 1165 2 7 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~I---------------~ Critical Gap Module: - Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 Fo1lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: .xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1'167 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 584 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 606 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 460 Move Cap.:' xxxx xxxx xxxxx 606 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 460 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.00 ------------~---------------I~---------------~~---------.------~~---------------~ Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 11.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by MOVe: * * * B * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT = LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 11.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * B * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. *******************************,r****************************************~******* Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK • Existing PM Wed Jun 11, 2006 14:53:49 ~ Page 10-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Marshall - North Lot. Driveway ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: BL 14.7] ' Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R - L T R L T R ---------------I --------------~I ----------=-~---------------11 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign ---------------II Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include ' Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 - -----------II -- 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ---------------II---------- -----~ II-- - ------------I------------- Volume Module: . Base Vol: 0 0 0 1 0 1 38 472 0 0 431 22 ' Growth Adj: 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1 0 1 38 472 0 0 431. 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1 0 1 36 472 0 0 431 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 1 0 1 38 472 0 0 431 22 ---I---------------I~-- -----~i --------- -------- Critical Gap Module: ----- ---- ---------------I~---- -- Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Fo1lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ' ------------I---------------II---------------II Capacity Module: ---------------II---------------1 Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 990 990 442 453 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 276 248 620 1118 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx. Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 268 240 620 1118 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ' Volume/Cap:. xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.00 0.00 = 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ----------I I --- -----------~~ ------------I---------------II--- Level Of Service Module: ---------------I - - 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 374 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 14.7 xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * - * * B * A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 14.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B * ***********,r,t,r*****,t***,r*****w**,t*,t*,t*,t****,t,t,t,r*,t***,t*,r****,r*****,t******,t*****tr* Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.. ' Traffix 7.9.0215.(c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK Existing PM Wed Jun 11, 2008 14:53:49 Page .11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative} ***.*,t***i~****w*,r**,t***,t*,t,t,t******,r****vr*********,k,r,t,t,t****,r*,t*****~r,t*,t*,t,t*,t,r***** .Intersection #4 Marshall - South Lot Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh):' 0.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.1] ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~.---------------~~---------------~~---------------I~---------------~. Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 0 0 1: 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 4 0 41 0 0 0 0 473 0 0 453 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 0 41 0 0 0 0 473 0 0 453 0 User Adj: 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 4 0 40 0 0 0 0 473 0 0 453 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 4 0 40 0 0 0 0 473 0 0 453 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Fo1lowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------I---------------~~---------------~~---------------I~------=--------~ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 926 926 473 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 301 271 595 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.,: 301 271 595 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.00 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------~---------------II---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx• LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 548 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 12.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B ApproachDel: 12.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLO5: B * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK • ~ • Existing PM W ed Jun 11, 2008 14:53:49 Page 12-1 ------------------=--------- Level ----•----------p----------~-------------------------- Of Service Com utation Re ort 2000 HCM Unsigna lized Method (Base Volume Alternative) . Intersection #5 Walnut Grove - South Lot Driveway ' **************************** **************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B( 13.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound ' Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R = -----I ------------~--------------- Control: Uncontrolled --------------~~---------- ~~---------------il Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include ' Lanes : 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: -, Base Vol: 0 1435 19 24 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1435 19 24 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 User Adj: 1:00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. I.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1435 19 24 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 1435 19 24 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --------------- Critical Gap Module: ~I-------- ~~---- ~~---------------~ Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 Fo1lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ~' ------------~--------------- Capacity Module: ~~---------------~~---------------~I---------------~ Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1454 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 727 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 471 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx -371 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 471 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 371 ' Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.00 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ' Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 13.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx. LOS by Move: * * * B * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ' SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ' ApproachLOS: * * ******tr**,t********,t***********w,r,r*tr******,r***,t**,k~k*****,t***,r,t****,r,r,r*,t*,t******** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 1 ' Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK • • Existing Sun Mon Jun 9, 2008 09:26:24 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU I(Loss as Cycle Length ~) Method (Base Volume Alternative} Intersection #1 Walnut Grove Av & Marshall St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.554 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay {sec/veh) xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******,t***,t:t**,t*,r,t*,t**,t***,t,r**,t*,t,t**ic***w*******,t*,t,t****,t**,t****,t**,t************ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L' - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --I 11 II---------------II------------- -I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0. 1 0 0 1 ------------I---------------~I---------------II---------------II---------------i Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 574 114 22 635 37 29 79 81 141 71 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 574 114 22 635 37 29 79 81 141 71 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 574 114 22 635 37 29 79 81 141 71 35 Reduct Vol:, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 71 574 114 22 635 37 29 79 81 141 71 35 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 71 574 114 22 635 37 29 79 81 141 71 35 ------------~---------------~I---------------I~---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment:- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.89 0.11 0.27 0.73 1.00 0.67 0.33 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3024 176 430 1170 1600 1064 536 1600 ------------i---------------II---------------II----=----------II------____~-----I Capacity Analysis Module: _ Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.18 0.07 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling. Assoc. Licensed to KATZ.OKITSU, MONTEREY PK ~. Existing Sun ~ We d Jun 11, 2008 14:54:07 Page 9-1 Level O f Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignal ized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ***************************** *************************************************** Intersection #2 Walnut Grove - North Lot Driveway ***************************** *************************************************** Average Delay {sec/veh): 0.1 .Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.3] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L T R - L T R L T R L T R --- --~ 1- - = --I ------------I------------ Control: Uncontrolled --- . ----- -----------II---------------1 I--- Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign ' Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 0 0 1 1 0 --- --I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I---------------II---------------II-~--------------I - ------------I--------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 624 14 12 694 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 624 14 12 694 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 624 14 12 694 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVOlume: 0 624 14 12 694 0 0 0. 0 0 0 6 ' I- I Critical Gap Module: I-------- II---- II-------- Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 Fo1lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 636 xxxx xxxxx_ xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 319 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 956 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxx 683 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 956 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 683 ' Volume/Cap: .xxxx xxxx xxxx = = "0:.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0:.01 -----------=---II---------------I ----~ - ------------~-------- Level Of Service Module: I--~-------------II 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.0 ' Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.3 LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ' SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * P; ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxaoocx 10.3 ' ApproachLOS: * * * B *,t***,t****,t**,t*****,r,r******** ,r***********,t,t***rr,t******w*,t,t,t*******,r*,t****~-,t*:t,t** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ' *********,t**.***,r***,t**w,r**,t** *,t*,r**,r*****,t***********,t*****,r***,r***,t*,r,r********* t ' Traffix 7.9.0215 {c} 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREX PK • Existing Sun Wed Jun 11, 2008 14:54:07 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Marshall - North Lot Driveway Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.9] ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T.- R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---------------~~---------------~I---------------~~---------------~ Control: -Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ------------~---------------~I---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 2 0 2 47 166 0 0 247 34 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 2 0 2 47 168 0 0 247 34 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 2 0 2 47 168 ~ 0 0 247 34 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 2 0 2 47 168 0 0 247 34 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------I---------------II---------------~~---------------~~--------.-------~ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 526 526 264 281 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 516 460. 780 1293 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 501 443 780 1293 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by MOVe: * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 610 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx. SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ~0.0 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.9 xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * B * A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachL05: * B Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK Existing Sun Wed Jun 11, 2008 14:5.4:07 Page 11-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ' Intersection #4 Marshall -.south Lot Driveway ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.4] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T ---R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------~~----------- -I~---------------~~---------------~ Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled t Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------------~---------------~~---------------j~---------------~~---------------~ - Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 0 X10 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 281 0 ' Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 Initial Bse: 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 281 0 veer Adj: 1.00 l.oo l.ao i.oo l.oo l.o0 1.00 1.00 l.oo i.oo"l.oo l.oo ' PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 T.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 281 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume.r 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 281 0 ' Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------~---=-----------~I---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ t Capacity Module: ' Cnflict Vol: 451 451 170 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 570 507 679 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 570 507 679 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.00 0.01 ,xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: ' 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx .xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by MOVe: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 685, xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx •xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx• ' SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd COnDel:xxxxx 10.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 10.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachL05: B * * * i ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. i~ Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 1 • • Existing .Sun Wed Jun 11, 2008 14:54:07. Page 12-1 ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Walnut Grove - South Lot Driveway ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh) 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.3] ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ------------~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------I. Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 759 22 9 848 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 .759 22 9 848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 759 22 ~ 9 848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 759 22 9 848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 Fo1lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 781 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 391 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 845 xxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 614 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 845 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 614 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxsr xxxx xxxx 0.00 ------------I---------------~~---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx-xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd Conbel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. t*****,tw*********,r****************,t*,t,t+t#**,r,k************,t*,r*,t**,t***+c**+k****,t**** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK '''= ~' _ r • FIRST EVANGELICAL CHURCH OF SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CHURCH PARKING LOT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Prepared for: The City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 (626) 569-2100 Prepared by: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. 18551 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 140 Irvine, California 92612 (949) 520-0503 ~ OCTOBER 2008 ATTACHMENT F ' 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 Introduction This is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley Church Parking Lot project. It has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6 which, among other things, states that when a governmental agency adopts or certifies a CEQA document that contains the environmental review of a proposed project, "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." The City of Rosemead is the lead agency for the project, and is therefore, responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation prior to final approval of the proposed project. 1.2 Project Overview The project includes a proposed zone change (Zone Change OS-223) to allow the construction of the parking lot within an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) easement. The project will change the existing A-1 (Light Agricultural) zone to P (Automobile Parking) zone to allow the development of a surface parking lot on the northerly 2.56 acres of a 4.01 acre site located in an existing SCE easement. An ,existing nursery will remain on the southerly 1.45 acres. The site is designated Public Facilities land use by the Rosemead General Plan and the parking lot use with the P zoning is allowed and consistent with the Public Facilities land use designation. The parking lot will provide parking for members and visitors of the First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley that currently park along the public surface streets adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the Church. The proposed new parking lot will eliminate the need for Church members to park on the public streets on Sunday morning and Friday evening. The parking lot proposes to .provide 148 parking spaces, including 145 standard spaces and 3 handicap spaces to meet the off-site parking needs of the Church. 1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Procedures This MMRP includes the following information: (1) mitigation measures that will either eliminate or lessen the potential impact from the project; (2) the monitoring milestone or phase during which the measure should be complied with or carried out; (3) the enforcement agency responsible for monitoring mitigation measure compliance; and (4) the initials of the person verifying the mitigation measure was completed and the date of verification. The MMRP will be in place through all phases of a project including project design (preconstruction), project approval, project construction, .and operation (both prior to and post-occupancy). The City will ensure that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. Each mitigation measure is listed and categorized by impact area, with an accompanying discussion of: • The phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored; ^ Project review and prior to project approval ^ During grading or building plan check review and prior to issuance of a grading or building permit First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Church Parking Lot -Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 2 • ^ On-going during construction ^ Throughout the life of the project The enforcement agency; and The initials of the person verifying completion of the mitigation measure and date. The MMRP is provided as Table 1 (Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program). First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Church Parking Lot -Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 3 • • Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure Milestone Agency Compliance No. Air Qualit ' 1. The following dust control measures shall be Prior to the start City of Rosemead implemented prior to the start of construction and of construction Building maintained throughout construction: on on-going Department • Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas. during Initial • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and construction in il l d term ate so ements .an implement plan e disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. Date • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Water exposed surfaces under current disturbance 3 times/day. • Cover all stock piles with tarps. • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. • Wash/sweep site access 'points within 30 minutes of any observed visible dirt spilling on public streets and at the end of the workday. • All construction equipment shall be staged as far from adjacent residents as possible. 2. The following exhaust emission mitigation On-going during City of Rosemead ' measures shall be implemented throughout project construction Building construction: Department . • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks Initial i t d h pmen . an eavy equ • Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped Date with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. • Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy e ui ment where feasible. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3. The project applicant shall submit a Phase I site Prior to the City of Rosemead assessment to the Building Department prior to issuance of a Building the issuance of a grading permit to provide grading permit Department evidence there are no hazardous materials on the Initial, area proposed for the parking lot. If hazards are identified they shall be removed or remediated as recommended by the Phase I assessment and to Date the satisfaction of the City prior to the, start of grading. First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Church Parking Lot -Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 4 • • H drolo and Water Qualit 4. The following mitigation measure is recommended Prior to the City of Rosemead to reduce potential surface water discharge impacts issuance of a Building from the parking lot to the nursery adjacent to and grading permit Department " south of the parking lot. ~ Southern California Edison shall prepare a covenant and agreement for approval by the City that requires the project applicant to hold Initial all three (3) Edison parcels as one. The once approved by the covenant and agreement , City, shall be recorded at the Los Angeles Date County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Noise 5. Construction activity hours shall comply with the On-going City of Rosemead Rosemead Municipal Code. throughout Building project Department construction Initial Date 6. Construction equipment shall be equipped Prior to the start City of Rosemead with properly operating mufflers. of construction Building and on-going Department throughout Initial project construction Date 7. Construction staging areas shall be located Prior to the start City of Rosemead away from the closest homes. of construction Building Department Initial Date 8. Friday parking lot hours shall be 7:00 p.m. On-going City of Rosemead and close at 10:00 p.m. throughout the Planning Division life of the . and Public Safety project Division Initial Date Land Use 9. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State On-going City of Rosemead and local laws relative to the approved use throughout the Building including the requirements of the Planning, life of the Department, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments: project Planning Initial Division, and Public Safety Division Date First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Church Parking Lot -Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 5 • • 10. Planning staff shall have access to the subject On-going City of Rosemead property at any time during construction to throughout Planning Division Initial monitor progress. project construction Date 11. The mitigation measures and mitigation Prior to the City of Rosemead monitoring and reporting program shall be copied issuance of a Building directly onto development plans submitted tb the building permit Department and Planning and Building Departments for review. Planning Division Initial Date 12. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles,' On-going City of Rosemead vehicle parts, equipment, or trailers. All trash and throughout the Planning Division debris shall be contained within a trash receptacle life of the and Public Safety located near the bus shelter. The design ,and project Division Initial location of the trash receptacle shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. All trash shall be removed from the site Date on a daily basis by the security guard. (Modified by Planning Commission, October 6, 2008.) 13. All trash, rubbish and garbage receptacles shall be On-going City of Rosemead regularly cleaned, and inspected and maintained throughout the Planning Division in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. life of the and Public Safety project Division Initial Date 14. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed free On-going City of Rosemead and litter free state in accordance with Sections throughout the Planning Division 8.32.010, .020, 030, and .040 of the Rosemead life of the and Public Safety Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, project Division Initial accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash and debris. All trash containers shall 6e stored in the appropriate trash enclosure Date at all times. Any new litter and graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24- hour Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569- 2345 for assistance. 15. The parking area, including handicapped spaces; On-going City of Rosemead shall be paved and re-painted periodically to City throughout the Planning Division standards to the satisfaction of the Planning life of the and Public Safety Department. In accordance with Chapter 17.84 of project Division Initial the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking venues hall be striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly Date manner. First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Church Parking Lot -Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 6 16. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code ,Section Prior to the City of Rosemead 22511.8, at least two (2) percent of the required issuance of an Building parking stalls shall be designated for handicapped occupancy Department and Initial space. A letter by the property owner shall be permit and on- Planning Division given to the City authorizing enforcement. going throughout the Date life of the project 17. The parking space markers, including On-going City of Rosemead double striping, wheel stops, and throughout the Planning Division handicapped, shall be re=painted life of the and Public Safety periodically to City standards and to the project Division Initial satisfaction of the Planning Department. Date 18. All open area not covered by concrete, asphalt, or On-going City of Rosemead structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a throughout the Planning Division regular basis. life of the and Public Safety. project Division Initial Date 19. The ~ property shall comply with all appropriate Prior to the City of Rosemead. building, fire and health department regulations. issuance of an Building occupancy Department permit and on- Initial going throughout the life of the .Date project 20. The developer shall comply with the City's storm Prior to the City of Rosemead water ordinance and Los Angeles County`s issuance of an City Engineer and SUSMP requirements with respect to planning occupancy Building and development of the site. .permit and on- Department Initial going throughout the life of the Date project 21. The applicant shall submit a fmal landscape and Prior to the City of Rosemead irrigation plan to the Planning Division for the SCE issuance of a Building Site prior to the issuance of building permits. The building permit Department and landscape and irrigation plan .shall include a Planning Division Initial sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. All Oleander shrubs shall be replaced with Sweet Bay shrubs (Laurus Nobilis). (Modified by Date Planning Commission, October 6, 2008.) First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Church Parking Lot -Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 7 • 22. The light standards within the SCE parking lot On-going City of Rosemead shall operate during the nighttime use of the throughout the Planning Division parking lot on Fridays only. All lights shall be life of the , and Public Safety Initial turned off by 10:00 p.m. by means of an project Division automatic timer. Date 23. The applicant shall submit a fence plan to the Prior to the City of Rosemead Planning Division for review and approval prior installation of Planning Division to installation. The fencing proposed along project required Marshall Street shall consist of a combination of fencing Initial decorative split-face block and wrought iron, and the total height shall not exceed 6'-0." The block ~. wall portion of the fencing along Marshall Street Date shall have a height of 3'-0." The fencing between the parking lot and the wholesale nursery shall consist of wrought iron, and the total height shall not exceed 6'-0." All wrought iron fencing shall consist of a minimum gauge of 1 '/z inches. All bock walls installed along the east and west perimeter of the .parking lot shall consist of precision block, within a minimum one course of split-face block, and the total height shall not exceed 6'-0." All precision block and split- face block shall be tan. 24. Block walls along the east and west property lines Prior to the City of Rosemead on the Southern California site shall not 'be issuance of a Building installed until the applicant has informed all building permit Department and property owners adjacent to the site in writing of for the Planning Division Initial the timing and location of installation. perimeter block wall Date 25. If the nursery tenant is not contracted to continue On-going City of Rosemead its operation within the southern 1.45 acres of the throughout the Planning Division site, then this area shall be improved with same life of the landscaping and the block walls that are proposed project .Initial for the parking lot area. If the: nursery tenant ceases its operation within the southern 1.45 acres of the site, then this area shall be improved with Date the same landscaping and the block .walls proposed for the parking lot area, within 90 days from the date the nursery operation ceases. 26. The parking lot operation shall be limited to On-going City of Rosemead Sundays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 throughout the Planning Division p.m., and Fridays between the hours of 7:00 p.m. life of the and Public Safety and ]0:00 p.m. A security guard shall be project Division Initial responsible for unlocking and locking the parking lot gates on Sundays and Fridays, as well as protecting the lot and its users during the hours of Date operation. First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Church Parking Lot -Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 8 • • 27. Full" signs The Church shall post "Parking Lot On-going City of Rosemead , visible to drivers on Walnut Grove Avenue to throughout the Planning Division Initial advise and direct drivers to use the SCE lot when life of the and Public Safety the existing lots are full. project Division Date 28. Two vans shall provide apick-up and delivery On-going City of Rosemead service between the Southern California Edison throughout the Planning Division site and the Church site. The van drivers and the life of the Initial security guard shall communicate with mobile project phones to monitor the van services and to make calls for emergency assistance if needed. Date 29. Shuttle vans shall come to a complete stop, and On-going City of Rosemead turn off their engines at pick-up and drop-ff throughout the Planning Division Initial points. The van engines shall not idle at any time life of the during pick-up and drop-off. (Added by project Planning Commission, October 6, 2008.) Date 30. Upon the review and approval of the Planning. On-going City of Rosemead Division, signs shall be installed within the throughout the Planning Division Initial parking area to prevent noise and loitering from life of the disturbing the adjacent residences.' (Added by project Planning Commission, October 6, 2008.) Date First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel Valley -Church Parking Lot -Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 9 • • FINDINGS Zone Change 05-223 At the- October 6, 2008 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended. the City Council approve Zone Change 05-223 to change the existing A- 1 (light Agricultural) zone to a P (Automobile Parking) zone for the development of a surface parking lot on an existing Southern California Edison right-of-way, located on the existing Southern California Edison right-of-way on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue, and commonly known as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 5371-013-801, per the Los Angeles County Assessor's current tax roll, subject to mitigation measures. At that same hearing the Planning Commission recommended additional mitigation measures, in addition to .the mitigation measures presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,- be adopted and incorporated into-the project to reduce potential project impacts. Consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073.5 (c)(3), the additional mitigation measures that were recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate any unavoidable significant effect. Rather, the additional mitigation measures are recommended to more effectively mitigate impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(a), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the project. The mitigation measures that were recommended by the Planning Commission were added to the MMRP that will be considered by the City Council along with the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to action on the project. ATTACHMENT G • • CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 6, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lopez at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers at 8838 E. Valley Blvd, Rosemead. Commissioner Gay led the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice-Chairman Kunioka delivered the invocation. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Lopez, Vice-Chairman Kunioka, Commissioners Gay and Vuu ABSENT: Commissioner Cam EX OFFICIO: Agaba, Bermejo, Everting, Lockwood, and Yin 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS: Attorney Yin explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: Chairman Lopez asked if anyone would ,like to speak on any items not on the agenda, to step forward. None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR -These items are considered to be routine actions that may be considered in one motion by the Planning Commission. Any interested party may request an item from the consent calendar to be discussed separately. A. Approval of Minutes -September 15, 2008 Chairman Lopez asked for a motion for approval of the items on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Kunioka had 2 corrections on page 7. Chairman Lopez asked for amotion-for approval with corrections. MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VUU TO WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT CONSENT CALENDAR. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 1 of 23 • Vote results: YES: GAY, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Design Review 08-05 And Conditional Use Permit 08-05 -The City has received Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications from Arad Kenderian of Valley Auto Services proposing to expand an existing auto repair facility and refurbish his existing commercial property in order to rehab and improve the physical appearance of the site. PC RESOLUTION 08-25 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08-05 AND DESIGN REVIEW 08-05 TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTO REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 8737 VALLEY BLVD. (APN: 5391-007-020). Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 08-05 and Design Review 08-05 for a period of one (1) year and adopt Resolution 08-05, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. Presentation: Associate Planner George Agaba Chairman Lopez asked if there any questions for staff. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if there was another facility like this that proposed atwo- story auto repair shop in the City. Associate Planner Agaba stated that the second floor facility will provide extra storage indoors instead of having everything outdoors. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if there is a current condition of approval for outside storage or if this a new issue. Associate Planner Agaba stated there is a current condition that requires the applicant to have all materials stored in the building. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated before we consider adopting this condition there is a current condition that prohibits outdoor storage. City Planner Everting stated there is a standard condition that mentions no outdoor storage for commercial buildings, and that it is typically only allowed in the industrial zone. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 2 of 23 • Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned, so it is already a condition? City Planner Everling stated yes. Chairman Lopez questioned if the applicant has been cited previously for outdoor storage. Associate Planner Agaba stated no and that the applicant has not had any problems with code enforcement. Commissioner Vuu questioned what is the standard size for a trash enclosure because this one seems too small for just one? Associate Planner Agaba stated the standard size requirement is 10' X 6'. City Planner Everling stated that the second story of the property will be used for storage only. Commissioner Vuu questioned if there was a standard size. City Planner Everling stated yes there is a standard for trash enclosures and it is also based on input from Consolidated Disposal. Senior Planner Bermejo read the code requirement. Commissioner Gay questioned what other materials other than tires are going to be brought in for storage in a 2,275 square feet second floor space? Associate Planner Agaba stated the applicant has only mentioned tires and the applicant is present to answer that question. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated that he understands the building to be 28 feet tall and 53 feet away from the adjoining residents to the north, how large will this structure appear? Associate Planner Agaba stated that the existing alley is 20 feet wide and the proposed building is set back 20 feet, so there will be a buffer of 40 feet and it is not directly adjoining the residential so there is no significant impact of privacy issues. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated there are no windows on the north side of the building and he is trying to figure out the angle of how large the building would appear. City. Planner Everling stated he thought the single family homes behind the shop are elevated. Associate Planner Agaba stated yes they are. City Planner Everling stated the wall between is also a retaining wall. Commissioner Vuu questioned, can a condition be added to have aself-closing trash enclosure? Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 3 of 23 • • City Planner Everting stated yes, aself-closing, self-latching door enclosure condition could be added. Chairman Lopez stated we will now open to the public. Matt Jeng, Architect, 713 W. Duarte Rd., Arcadia, and Arad Kenderian, Owner, 8737 E. Valley, stated they are there to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Mr. Jeng stated that Mr. Kenderian, the owner of this business has been here for a few years in the community and they have been working with the Planners. Mr. Jeng stated the trash enclosure condition was fine and as far as storage goes, the business is mostly tires and the tires will be the majority of what is stored. Mr. Kenderian stated that a few auto parts but mostly tires will be stored on the second floor of his business. Chairman Lopez stated you want to open up the base and use the space on top for storage. Matt Jeng stated that the repair area does not increase too much in size so there will not be much waste generated and that is why they have the minimum trash enclosure size. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned how will tires be disposed and will customers get charged a fee. Arad Kenderian, applicant stated yes there is a disposal fee for tires and tires get picked up by an outside company. Commissioner Gay questioned "if the tires that need to be disposed will be stored upstairs until they get picked up. Arad Kenderian stated they have room downstairs and if they need to use upstairs they will until the tires get picked up. Chairman Lopez stated the direct question is the tires will not be stored outside and when they get picked up they will be inside. Arad Kenderian stated that is correct. Commissioner Vuu stated he has concerns with safety due to not enough outdoor lighting. Matt Jeng, Architect pointed out the lighting fixtures to the Commission and pointed out 6 light structures and emphasized the entrance. Chairman Lopez stated anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this project. Brian Lewin, 9501 Ralph Street, a resident stated the trash enclosure should also be locked so the public cannot have access to it. Mr. Lewin stated this is an auto repair facility and he is also concerned where fluids such as oil, coolants, fuel, will be stored. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 4 of 23 • • Associate Planner Agaba stated during the process of this application staff contacted the City's Consultant who is in charge of NPDES and he indicated because this is an existing project it would not require any additional NPDES permitting, however it is subject to Los Angeles County Health Department requirements. Brian Lewin stated he is requesting that a condition be added prohibiting the fluids to be stored outside or if they are stored outside they will be in properly contained environments, so there will be no possible of run off into storm drains and that cars will not be worked on outside. Chairman Lopez asked if the applicant would like to address any of these issues that have been brought up. - Arad Kenderian stated the Fire Department regulates oil storage and other fluids that are processed. Chairman Lopez questioned applicant if anything was stored outside the facility. Arad Kenderian stated no, there is not. Brian Lewin stated that the Fire Department really doesn't care about storm water regulations. Chairman Lopez stated as long as we have our conditions that is how we will monitor it. Chairman Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this project. See None Chairman Lopez stated anyone wishing to speak against this project. Barbara DeLory, 4030 Bartlett Avenue, stated she is not sure if she is against. this project and that she just received the letter and after listening to presentation she wanted clarification with the amount of square footage for storage. Associate Planner Agaba stated there are two storage areas one on the first floor and one on the second floor. Barbara DeLory stated that there is a lot of storage. Associate Planner Agaba stated the applicant needs a lot of storage for tires and that the lot size is small and there is no room for expansion that is why he would like the second story. If the applicant was to expand he would lose parking space.. Barbara DeLory questioned if there was going to be junk cars behind the building like there is now? Associate Planner Agaba stated that there is a condition that states that vehicles, vehicle tires, vehicle parts and equipment cannot be stored outside. No outside storage at any time. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 5 of 23 • • Barbara Delory questioned if the trash bin will be inside a gate? Chairman Lopez stated yes it will be in a separate enclosure. Barbara Delory stated that she took some digital pictures and she was not able to bring them but when you look from the alley the back fence is full of trash. She also stated that you can see nothing but trash, junk cars, tires, and drums. Associate Planner Agaba stated the proposal is to clean up the facility. Barbara Delory questioned, then there will be not cars stored outside at all? Associate Planner Agaba stated no, as long as applicant complies with the conditions of approval. Barbara Delory stated there are conditions that are now in place.that they are not following. Associate Planner Agaba stated the proposed development is too clean up the property; the applicant will have to improve the landscaping, restripe the parking lot, remove the junk, install a trash enclosure, and remove and replace the fence on the north side, once all the improvements are done it will improve the neighborhood. Barbara Delory questioned the access to the alley and asked if the building will be built right next to the alley? Associate Planner Agaba stated there will be a gate in the middle and the building is about 40 feet from the alley. Vice=Chairman Kunioka stated that there is 35-foot building set-back. Associate Planner Agaba stated yes there is 35 feet plus 20 feet to alley so there is a total of 55 feet. Barbara Delory asked, did I hear that there would not be any exterior lighting? Chairman Lopez stated there is in front of the business, sides, and some to alley. Barbara Delory stated she walks in that alley in the evening and she would appreciate lighting. Associate Planner Agaba stated there is lighting in parking lot. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if it illuminates the alley? City Planner Everting questioned if there were any wall packs going on that north elevation? Associate Planner Agaba stated no there is no lighting proposed for the second floor elevation. There is a light pole in the northwest corner of property about 15 ft. to the alley Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 6 of 23 • • and 14 ft. from the back gate. There should be adequate lighting but if the Planning Commission would like to add a condition to add lighting to the north elevation it may impact the neighbors. City Planner Everling stated the Commission could also increase the wattage of the parking lot light. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated that we don't want glare but there is some concern about illuminating the alley, and questioned if that something we would like to do. City Planner Everling stated it would probably be better to:increase the wattage of the parking lot lighting. Commissioner Vuu questioned if it was possible to put a light by the gate? City Planner Everling stated it may be possible to move the light pole closer to the property line adjacent to the alley. Associate Planner Agaba stated the light pole could be moved closer to the property line and seeing there is no residential it could light up the whole alley. Chairman Lopez questioned if the alley had lighting at all right now. Associate Planner Agaba stated no. Chairman Lopez stated if we put lighting it will have to be low recessed because we don't want glare into neighbor's properties. City Planner Everling stated the light can be shielded to go downward., Chairman Lopez stated if we are going to do this we need to do that because we do not want light to go into residential we strictly want it to go into the alley. Barbara Lelory stated she has some concern of seeing people during Fate hours of the evening doing some sort of social gathering two to three times a week in the parking lot and office of the Auto Repair Facility. Chairman Lopez directed Barbara Lelory's concerns to applicant and asked if they would like to respond. Arad Kenderian, applicant stated that they have a foosball table and a few friends come to play foosball on occasion. Matt Jeng, Architect, 713 W. Duarte, Arcadia, stated he thought the purpose of the lighting was not to spill over the fence and that is why they choose the low sodium fixture which is more expensive. He also stated he did not feel it was the property owner's responsibility to light up the alley. Chairman Lopez stated that he agrees with that statement. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 7 of 23 • • Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated it is a potential security matter for your property and the one behind you. City Planner Everling stated it makes for good planning sense to require lighting of the alley. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated maybe we can figure out the number of fixtures and deploy the light bulb fixtures. City Planner Everling stated there is a couple of ways you can do it; you could increase the height of the light pole or change it from low pressure sodium to metal halide, which is much brighter and keep the height where it is at. Chairman Lopez questioned the applicant if access for deliveries was going to be from the alley or strictly from Valley Boulevard. City Planner Everling stated it is one way drive aisle from Valley to the alley. Chairman Lopez stated then that justifies why we need lighting, you will have access with people coming out into the alley Commissioner Vuu stated there may be people walking in the alley. Chairman Lopez stated we may need lighting for that purpose and applicant can work with staff on how much lighting will be needed. Chairman Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak against this project. See None Chairman Lopez asked if there are any other questions for staff. Commissioner Vuu stated he did not see a condition for surveillance, and questioned if surveillance was only required for commercial uses and not for office uses. Associate Planner Agaba stated that it is a standard condition for more security sensitive projects, but if the Planning Commission would like to add camera surveillance to conditions, they could. Chairman Lopez questioned if the front entrance is going to be closed off or is it going to be wide open like it is now. Associate Planner Agaba stated-yes it is, they are proposing a gate but it will not be that tall, applicant has indicated he does not want a fence along Valley Blvd. Chairman Lopez asked if the gate is still going to be open like it is now. Associate Planner Agaba stated yes it is. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 8 of 23 Chairman Lopez questioned the applicant if he has had any problems with break-ins or issues like that in regards to whether they will need surveillance cameras or not. Arad Kenderian, 8737 Valley Boulevard, applicant stated he has not had problems with break-ins. Chairman Lopez questioned the applicant if he really did not have an issue with break-ins. Arad Kenderian stated no. Chairman Lopez stated since applicant has been there for 15 years with no cameras and has had no problems maybe we can leave it open and if there is a problem we can bring it back and require security cameras but at this time we don't really need them. Arad Kenderian applicant stated he might do the cameras anyway. Chairman Lopez stated they are considering making it a condition. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated that he recalls seeing cars parked behind the auto shop and questioned the applicant if the expansion were to happen, would you let cars park back there or will you be surprised to get cited. Arad Kenderian applicant stated that sometimes cars will be parked for just a little while. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if he means overnight parking will be allowed. Chairman Lopez questioned if will it would be long term parking like for 6 months. City Planner Everting stated the condition states no outdoor storage at any time. Chairman Lopez stated that applicant will be parking and working on vehicles indoors only. Adrad Kenderian applicant stated yes only indoors. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated lets make sure we have all the conditions we are trying to add before we make a motion to approve. One was the- self-closing and self-latching lock trash enclosure and locked overnight, make sure all storage and work is inside the building, and lighting of alley especially by the rolling gate. Commissioner Gay stated the issue of making sure the waste materials like oil and things like that are stored in proper containers and properly disposed of and no work is to be done outside on the vehicles. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VUU, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GAY TO APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 08-05 and Design Review 08-05 Subject to Conditions. Vote results: YES: GAY, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ AND VUU Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 9 of 23 NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. Zone Change 05-223 -First Evangelical Church of San Gabriel is proposing a satellite parking lot on an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) right of way, located on the south side of Marshall Street between Earle Avenue and Rockhold Avenue. The parking lot will provide 148 off-street parking spaces for Church members and guests, which will eliminate the need to park on public streets adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the Church. First Evangelical Church is located at 3658 Walnut Grove Avenue, approximately two blocks east of the project site. PC RESOLUTION 08-26 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-223 AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET BETWEEN EARLE AVENUE AND ROCKHOLD AVENUE (APN: 5371-013-801). Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 08-26 and that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council APPROVE Zone Change 05-223 and ADOPT the mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit G, as well as staff's recommended mitigation measures, attached as hereto as Exhibit B. Presentation: Senior Planner Sheri Bermejo Senior Planner Bermejo stated she, along vvith the Architect, and Phil Martin & Associates are available to answer questions: Chairman Lopez asked if there were any questions for staff. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if the lighting was going to be operated 7 days a week or just on Friday nights. Senior Planner Bermejo stated no just on Friday evenings. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated that looking at the staff report and the Mitigated- Declaration it looks like there really is not a need for extra parking on Friday nights. Senior Planner Bermejo stated that is correct, according to traffic studies there is currently enough on-site parking for Friday nights. Commissioner Gay stated in reading the MND they mentioned that there is a covenant to hold the three Southern California Edison parcels as one. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 10 of 23 • • Senior Planner Bermejo stated that is correct, the purpose of the mitigation measure is to reduce Hydrology and Water Quality impacts. The project proposes to install a storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3/ of an inch of surface water runoff from the parking lot, as required by law. In order to eliminate the a potential impact due to increased surface water flows from the parking lot into the adjacent nursery, the project will have to control both parcels with a covenant. The church has to be in control of this entire parcel. if the Church lost control of all parcels, and there was an increase or change of water flow, they would be in violation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Commissioner Gay questioned if there are a total of 3 parcels. Senior Planner Bermejo stated they are three tied parcels. Commissioner Gay asked Senior Bermejo if she could point out the three parcels Senior Planner Bermejo stated that in the staff report, on page 18, Exhibit "D" indicates the property lines. Commissioner Gay stated he sees them and questioned if the 3/4 of an inch of rainfall would flow to the existing nursery property. Senior Planner Bermejo stated yes, and the remaining water from the nursery will eventually flow to the catch basin storm drain. Commissioner Gay questioned, so it will run off into the storm drain eventually. Senior Planner Bermejo stated yes, that is what is taking place today. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated it is not feasible to use that water for ground water. Senior Planner Bermejo stated she would have to refer that question to her environmental consultant. . Commissioner Gay stated that was the same question he had and if we could get an impervious area to catch the extra water on to this other lot to minimize the amount of water run off for recharge. City Planner Everting stated that he and Senior Planner Bermejo had a discussion about this same issue and they had a discussion .with the Fire Department of allowing the use of decomposed granite (DG) for the parking area which is just rocks but the Fire Department would not allow that due to compaction. They would not achieve the necessary compaction for fire trucks. Commissioner Gay stated what he was referring too was the east ahd west area by Olney and staying off the access road to catch additional water for treatment or try to get it back in. Senior Planner Bermejo stated this is a pervious area, it is dirt and water will naturally soak back into this area. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting:. October 6, 2008 Page 11 of 23 Commissioner Gay stated so there will be minimal water run off. Senior Planner Bermejo stated that is correct. Chairman Lopez questioned is that sand soil or hard clay soil? If it is hard clay soil that means it will just sit more and not absorb into the ground quickly. Senior Planner Bermejo stated she did not have that information with her. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated since this has been used as a plant nursery and has been compacted for some time. Chairman Lopez stated this is a big thing for just a Sunday use, how many parking spaces are we asking for. Senior Planner Bermejo stated they are asking for 148. Chairman Lopez questioned how many do they have now existing north of the school they use. Senior Planner Bermejo stated they have a total of 136; there are 32 on the church site and 104 across the street on the North Campus. Chairman Lopez questioned, that does not accommodate their activities. We are talking close to 200 spaces for a Sunday, and now we are adding another 148. We are looking at a total of maybe 600 people showing up for a Sunday afternoon. Senior Planner Bermejo stated the parking study documents state that there is currently parking on Marshall Street and along Walnut Grove and the purpose of the parking lot is to take the parking off the street and put it in a parking lot. Chairman Lopez stated, and now we are adding more pollution from .the cars to the community in that area and that is a concern. Commissioner Gay stated you are looking at 10'/z hours of usage in a week. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated there are 136 spots on the campus parking that is a lot of parking and then there is street parking based on the traffic counts. Too add another 148 parking spots seems like a lot and it seems that people would rather park next to Church rather than .across or down the street. Chairman Lopez stated the shuttle probably would not be used. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he really did not see the need for an additional 148 spaces and suggested that maybe they could find somewhere else for cars to parka He also questioned if the parking lot was redesigned or restriped will they have to go through the City for example if they stack their parking? Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 12 of 23 s • Senior Planner Bermejo stated they would have to leave that open to have Fire Department access. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated the other place for potential parking is by Janson School and question if there is a possibility of that project. Senior Planner Bermejo stated you can confirm with applicant but she believed they were already using a portion of the schools parking. Chairman Lopez questioned if there are any more questions for staff. Chairman Lopez stated we will now open the hearing to the public: Chuan S. Wang, (applicant) 802 Prima Vera Rd., Glendora stated he is a spokesperson for the Church and he has reviewed the staff report and his concern was the limit on Friday through Sunday. For Special Events he would like to request to go by "case by case". Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated in terms of parking you have already explored other options. Chuan S. Wang stated yes they already use Janson School for parking and in regard to the traffic count study, it may have been done when church members met at homes instead of at church. He definitely feels there is a parking shortage and 148 additional parking spaces will meet the current need and give us a little more room for expansion in the next couple. of years. . Chairman Lopez asked if the applicant has different meetings and questioned if they were meeting every day of the week? Chuan S. Wang stated no. Chairman Lopez questioned are the 136 parking spaces all used for your meetings Chuan S. Wang stated yes. Commissioner Vuu stated his concern is that the Church Members are not going to use this parking lot and will want to park close to the Church so how will the Church address that the members not to park on the street and use the parking lot. Chuan S. Wang, applicant stated that his goal would be to educate his members to use the parking lot instead of curbside parking. Commissioner Gay questioned how many members are in the congregation. Chuan S. Wang, applicant, stated there are over 700 on Sunday. Commissioner Gay questioned how many different services are offered on Sunday. Chuan S. Wang, applicant, stated 2 services, one in English and one in Mandarin. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 13 of 23 Commissioner Gay questioned how long are the services? Chuan S. Wang, applicant, stated the services are usually are 1'/2 hours. After the service, people usually stay for lunch. We also have Sunday school. . Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated there was concern that not all the members of your congregation are from Rosemead, and questioned how many members from your congregation are from Rosemead? Chuan S. Wang ,applicant, stated he was not sure of that status, they are an ethnic church and there are members from Arcadia and Temple City, but most of the congregation is from Rosemead. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated there are houses on the east and west of the property line and the Nursery is secure, there are camera's focused on the entrance, and questioned the applicant if they were considering, installing security monitoring? Chuan S. Wang, applicant, stated yes we can consider it. Vice-Chairman Kunioka asked if the perimeter wall is a little higher maybe 8 ft. instead of 6 ft. the residents may feel a little safer, but only if residents wanted it. Commissioner Gay stated the .Oleander Plant is poisonous and it is fast growing, but questioned if there are any other options you would have other than Oleander. Simon Lee, Architect, 140 W. Valley Blvd., San Gabriel, stated that the Oleander Plant is poisonous and that trees could not be under power lines, but yes there could be other options. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if trees are not allowed under power lines, is there a maximum height that is allowed to grow there? Simon Lee, Architect stated 15 ft. is the height limit established by Southern California Edison. Vice-Chairman Kunioka asked if there was turt proposed under the power, lines. The presentation board looks like there is grass. Is it going to be grass. Simon Lee, Architect stated yes it is going to be grass. Commissioner Vuu stated that he noticed that the existing parking lot on the North Campus it is not very well maintained. Chuan S. Wang, applicant stated that is part of the mitigation measures we want to improve the landscaping. Mr. Wang stated the purpose of this parking lot is to have members not park on the curbside, the parking lot will have one van at all times to drive members to church so they will not have to walk. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 14 of 23 Commissioner Gay questioned if, Southern California Edison is coming in with a 66 KB Line on the right hand side of the property Michael Orduno, Southern California Edison, 2104 Vista Del Sol, Chino Hills, stated no in the future they will be bringing in 220 kV line one on the west side, and that there is a vacant line, down the middle and that there is 66 kV on the edge of the 220 kV. Commissioner Gay questioned what is the height of your 66 kV cable? Michael Orduno, SCE, stated the 66 kV cable is probably 70-80 ft. high. Commissioner Gay questioned if the Tehachapi Line is coming through the property.. Michael Orduno, SCE, stated that part of the Tehachapi Line will probably be coming down and the main corridor is coming down the 605 Freeway. Commissioner Gay questioned but nothing here. Michael Orduno, SCE, stated there will be a future 220 kV on a vacant tower. Commissioner Gay questioned will there be a 100-foot. footprint around the base? Michael Orduno, SCE, stated it will remain the same,as how it exists now. Commissioner Gay stated that should be about 50 ft. Michael Orduno, SCE, stated that he noticed most of the concerns are about parking on the street and he has been working on this project for about 4 years now and is in favor of this project, but if he was a member of this church and saw that the church was spending all this money for the parking lot he would make sure all the members used it. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if the lease were to end, would the property return to its pre-existing condition. Michael Orduno, SCE, stated the lease was 45 years with a couple of 10 year options he is not sure, but if they would be required to return the property, it would go back to its original condition. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated that in the past there have been efforts fo try to build parks and his impression was that Southern California Edison was not particularly agreeable of these proposals. Michael Orduno, SCE, stated that they started a Secondary Land Use Program about 10 years ago, they were almost bankrupt and it was another way to generate millions of dollars. We have gone through that phase and now we have brought in the new Tehachapi line, we have about 125 projects that we had agreements on so we are honoring those agreements. We are working with cities and environmental people to put in parks now. Chairman Lopez questioned it there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 15 of 23 See None Chairman Lopez questioned if-there was anyone wishing to speak against this project. Albert Aragon, 3638 N. Earle Avenue., stated this project is going to affect his family on Earle Avenue and stated that he thought that the Edison. Company had a law that prohibits building under their wires. He knows that this project was turned down once and he would like an explanation. The Fire Department turned it down and they are not here. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated that the general policy is they do not allow permanent structures. City Planner Everting stated that is correct the .Fire Department does not allow permanent structures under the power lines. Albert Aragon, a resident stated that ,there are two grammar schools nearby St. Anthony's and Janson School and the traffic is so bad in the morning and afternoon that you cannot even drive. He also states that he is against this proposed parking lot. Michael Orduno, SCE, stated that Southern California Edison does allow parking underneath our lines we do it for colleges, schools, and auto dealerships., Albert Aragon, resident stated he did not know that and thanked. Mr. Orduno. Lucille Aragon, 3638 N. Earle Avenue, a resident stated she has been living here for over 50 years and enjoys her peace and quiet. She also states that the cars and lights will disturb her peace and quiet, she is against this project and her neighbors are also. She feels that the church does not need it for twice a week and the Church members already park in the street. She also states her neighbors could not come to this meeting because they are sick or did not have. a ride. On Sundays the streets are full but there are a lot of streets for them to park on. People at the nursery are going to lose their jobs and she is there in behalf of them also. Where are they going to go without their jobs. Female Resident, 8549 Walnut St., stated that she has been a resident here for 30 years and she does agree that there is a .problem on Sunday mornings .with traffic. Her driveway is blocked on Sunday's due to parking on the streets. Her concern is on Friday nights'from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. there may be loitering in the parking lot by kids or strangers. She has no problem with Sunday morning because there is light and there is no need to be concerned about safety. Another concern she has is that why would someone want to wait 15 minutes for the van shuttle when they can park on Marshall and be at the Church within 5 minutes. She also feels there is no need for the parking lot on Friday nights. There may be graffiti written alt over the wall or someone's house getting broke into, what are the chances of someone attending that parking lot 24/7 or cameras being installed at this parking lot? Chairman Lopez questioned if anyone else was wishing to speak against this project. See None. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 16 of 23 , Chuan S. Wang, applicant, stated that we do propose having a security guard on Friday nights to prevent graffiti and loitering. Chairman Lopez questioned if the van will be ran on Friday nights. Chuan S. Wang, applicant, stated not on Friday nights. Chairman Lopez stated so if the van is not running on Friday nights that means they have to walk to the Church. Chuan S. Wang stated he meant yes and the van will run every 15 minutes. Commissioner Gay questioned if 6-8 passenger will be used. Chuan S. Wang stated they are vans with 8 seats and they will have two vans. Chairman Lopez stated that if this does come to an approval he is requesting that they do not leave the vans running between trips. They need to be shut off so they are not standing idling with exhaust fumes and this should be added to the requirements or you purchase hybrid vehicles. Chairman Lopez questioned that this will only be used on Friday nights and Sunday morning, and if confirmed that if he drives by on a Wednesday, no one would be parked there? There are no other stipulations to use it on other days? City Planner Everting stated only if there is a special event. Chairman Lopez questioned if the lot was used for a special event would they have to come to the Planning Commission for approval. Senior Planner Bermejo stated they added a mitigation measure to allow only Friday and Sunday and we will not allow special events. Chairman Lopez stated so there is not any special events on Friday and Sunday. Chuan A. Wang, applicant, stated they did put in a request for case by case for special events. It does cause some concern if they are not allowed to use it for special events. Chairman Lopez stated he understands that, but special events could be at any given time and the concern here is if you have a weekend event and it is a 3 day event then the usage of that parking lot becomes way beyond what our intentions are. Chuan A. Wang questioned if special events such as holidays are permitted? Chairman Lopez stated he has concerns with this project, the community, the noise, the pollution, and this does not mean he is against this project but he is concerned that this is a lot of money for just 2 days. It is a difficult task to say yes or no. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 17 of 23 • • Attorney Yin stated one of the concerns we have with your application for the Special Events is that Special Events consideration was not studied in the environmental report. Senior Planner Bermejo stated it is difficult to analyze impacts created by Special Events. Attorney Yin stated if your application includes the use of the parking lot for Special Events then he would recommend that we actually put this back and bring it back for consultation of staff because this was something that was not in the environmental report. So if you want to deal with the application without Special Events we will proceed. Commissioner Vuu stated he had a question how does staff actually know if persons parking in the parking lot are active members of the congregation. Chuan A. Wang, applicant stated there are a lot of newcomers and it would be difficult to know. Security will be on site and will help with recognizing non-members. Chairman Lopez questioned if the parking lot across the street will be cleaned up, will it be repaved and restriped. Chuan A. Wang stated yes that will get done first, staff has been working very hard. Chairman Lopez stated that the security guard be aware of noise when he is there on Friday nights and Sunday, Sunday is a day of rest and one of the neighbors did bring up that they enjoy their peace and quiet. Attorney Yin stated perhaps the Commissioners can require posting signs to keep the noise down in the residential neighborhood and staff can work out the language with the applicant. Chairman Lopez asked for other questions. Commissioner Vuu stated that he had a question for staff there is a mitigation measure for a trash enclosure but, he cannot find an enclosure on the site plan. Senior Planner Bermejo asked for clarification what number is that. Commissioner Vuu stated it is mitigation measure #11. Senior Planner Bermejo read mitigation measure #11 for the record. She also stated there will not actually be a trash enclosure on site. They will actually have to pick up all trash and dispose of it at the church facility. Consolidated Disposal will not be having pick up service here. Commissioner Vuu stated so there will not be service here and questioned if there is a need for it. Senior Planner Bermejo stated no what we will require are trash receptacles but not trash enclosures. She did not feel they would be generating that much trash to use a trash enclosure and the responsibility should be on the church to pick it up and dispose of it. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting.' October 6, 2008 Page 18 of 23 • • Commissioner Vuu stated what happened to the Northern Campus parking lot, if the church member has the responsibly to pick up it seems that every time he drives by it does not seem well contained. City Planner Everling stated what we are looking at is to put a trash receptacle next to the bus shelter for people that will have trash and they can throw it into the receptacle. The security guard should be responsible for taking the trash on a daily basis. Chairman Lopez stated he had one more question; the church is not going to use the parking lot for storage of vehicles or anything just for parking on Friday or Sundays. Chuan S. Wang stated no. Senior Planner Bermejo stated to clarify one thing the Commission asked if there was going to be grass underneath those towers. The plan actually called for decorative gravel would you like to put in a mitigation measure for sod installed instead. Michael Orduno, SCE, stated they would prefer gravel instead due to equipment ruining the proposed sod. Chairman Lopez questioned if there were any other questions for staff. See None. Chairman Lopez stated he needs a motion for approval with all the mitigation measuress that we are asking. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated on mitigation measure #11 it should say all trash should be removed weekly or on a daily basis. On mitigation measure #22 there is a misspelled word on the 4t" line from the bottom, the first word is misspelled. Add mitigation measure #27 No Idling. Add mitigation measure for to prevent No Loitering. Add a mitigation measure on cleaning up Northern Campus Parking Lot prior to approval. City Planner Everling stated during the process Sheri and I were talking to our Land Use Attorney Joe Montes and that such condition/mitigation cgnnot be added to this zone change application. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he was curious to why this was a Zone Change rather than a Conditional Use Permit application. City Planner Everling stated we were advised that legally we can not condition the clean up of that North Parking Lot in relation to the zone change due to nexus issues. Vice-Chairman questioned if that would be a code enforcement issue? City Planner Everling stated that it is the willingness of applicant to clean it. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated you would not want to approve it before clean up occurs. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 19 of 23 • • City Planner Everling stated that would be up to the Commission's discretion. Chairman Lopez stated basically this would be a code enforcement issue. P Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated in terms of security surveillance, is that something that the Commission can require of the applicant? City Planner Everling stated yes. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated that he understands the property owner's concerns, it is a residential area and in terms of the 10 ft. tall block wall he is not sure if he is prepared to move on that item. At this point he would tend not to make a motion on this item. He would be inclined to table. City Planner Matt Everling questioned if he was making a recommendation for Denial. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if there is a separate issue on the certification of the mitigated negative declaration that is separate from the Zone Change? City Planner Everling stated the Commission would have to make a recommendation to adopt the MND as well as recommend approval of the Zone Change to the City Council, as they both go hand in hand. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated in the mitigated negative declaration he did not, see any discussion about the security issues that we are talking about. He does not know if that is part of CEQA, he read the CEQA documentations elsewhere and he could not tell. City Planner Everling stated under the initial study checklist there is nothing that talks about security camera systems or security lighting. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated this is not a formal issue. Commissioner Vuu stated that he also tends to agree with Vice-Chairman Kunioka in not approving it, he feels there is a need for the parking lot for members but he is concerned for residents too. He feels there is really not a need for this large parking lot and people will park in the street anyway. Chairman Lopez stated so we are looking for a motion for Denial or to Table the item. City Planner Everling stated that to table the item would only mean direction for staff to work out issues with applicant and then come back. If the Commission is having a hard time with this issue then it would more than likely be a recommendation for Denial. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he does not want to recommend anything that the neighbors may not want, the mitigation of security issues, and the 8 ft. block wall at the property. Senior Planner Bermejo stated the Rosemead Municipal Code wall height is limited to 6 ft. We can check with our attorney to see if Planning Commission could have authority to increase height limit to set the standards. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 20 of 23 • Attorney Yin stated no. C Senior Planner Bermejo stated then a mitigation measure cannot be made to increase the wall height. Attorney Yin stated if you feel new mitigation is proposed by the Commission perhaps the one option would be to Table the item so staff can work with the Community to see if these are addressed on. Chairman Lopez stated he thinks we should bring the Community to this project and get their views and explain what is being done to the walls because it helps us if the Community is okay with it. City Planner Everting questioned if the Commission would want some kind of outreach program for the residents? Most of the residents that live in that area have difficulties with medical issues and would make it difficult for staff and a lot of the people may not want to participate. His concern is that we Table the item and we have the Outreach but we don't get any feedback and then we come back to the Commission without any real answers. Chairman Lopez stated we are getting a lot of new projects coming into our City and some are tied into the Community and this is a good place to start. He is not against this parking lot but he is really excited to get the Community on this. Can we send out notices to the, Community to both streets and set up a night and we go to the streets and talk to those people? Let us go ask questions and explain about what they are doing and if they understand a little more they may be okay with it. Attorney Yin stated he is not sure if we can do this, but maybe we can set up a Special Meeting and send notices out. .Have transportation available and let residents sign up and sign waivers. We can discuss the new mitigation measures that are proposed by the Commission and see if it addresses there concerns and if at this point if they don't show up or can't make it or they don't want to show up, then you know you've done all you can directly. Senior Planner Bermejo stated the City did this once where the City worked with the applicant who prepared a mailer and sent out a letter. Staff reviewed the applicant's letter to make sure content was correct and we attached a copy of site plan and other additional information and it was sent to adjacent residents as well. The cost of preparing that should be put on the applicant; staff can verify that the mailer and addressed letter is correct. Chuan S. Wang, applicant, stated we have already done this twice already. Commissioner Gay stated we should go forward with that kind of outreach. It would also be for the Church to come up with a plan on how to keep people from parking on Marshall and those streets. Chairman Lopez stated let's try Sheri's suggestion, let's get information to the community and table it to at least our next meeting. If they respond or don't respond at least it helps us in making a decision. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 21 of 23 • • City Planner Everling questioned if that was Rose Liquor? It is on Brookline and Valley on the South/East corner. Is that by the mobile home park? Commissioner Vuu stated yes it is across the street from it. City Planner Everling stated he will look into it. Chairman Lopez questioned if Universal Bank had they cleaned it up? City Planner Everling stated no but Sheri and I have gone over with applicant and spoke with the owner and he is aware of the problem. Chairman Lopez stated what is the problem they need to pick up all the trash? City Planner Everling stated the owner has a couple of sofas and he has called Consolidated to have them picked up, the owner understands that there is a problem and says he cleans up the trash and it is there the next day. Chairman Lopez questioned is he still doing construction? City Planner Everling stated yes. Chairman Lopez questioned how about the street and sidewalk right there on Ivar it is just as trashy? Attorney Yin stated if any one of the Commissioners has questions for staff you would do it during the Matters for Staff or Matters of Chairman. Chairman Lopez stated he has a question for him. Phil Martin with Phil Martin and Associates, 18441 Block Harmond Ave., Suite 140, Irvine, spoke briefly about the wall issue on the Church parking lot. . 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF NONE 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Lopez adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:24 p.m. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VUU to ADJOURN UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. M E/R~ Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: October 6, 2008 Page 23 of 23