Garvey Earle Plaza MNDCity of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page i
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 .......................................................................... 5
1.5 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5
1.6 Cumulative Projects .......................................................................................... 11
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................. 17
3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION .................................................. 20
3.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Agricultural Resources ...................................................................................... 24
3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 25
3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 34
3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 36
3.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 41
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................... 43
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................. 46
3.9 Land Use........................................................................................................... 50
3.10 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 56
3.11 Noise ................................................................................................................. 57
3.12 Population and Housing .................................................................................... 67
3.13 Public Services ................................................................................................. 68
3.14 Recreation ......................................................................................................... 70
3.15 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................ 71
3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 83
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................ 87
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................... 89
4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 91
Appendices
Appendix A – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix B – Geotechnical Report
Appendix C – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix D – Hydrology Report
Appendix E – Noise Report
Appendix F – Traffic Report
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page ii
LIST of FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Regional Location Map ................................................................................................... 2
2. Local Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................... 3
3. Aerial Photo .................................................................................................................... 4
4. Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 6
5. North/East Building Elevations ........................................................................................ 7
6. South/West Building Elevations ...................................................................................... 8
7. Landscape Plan .............................................................................................................. 9
8. Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................ 10
9. On-Site Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 12
10. Off-Site Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 13
11. Photo Orientation Map .................................................................................................. 14
12. Cumulative Projects – Aerial Photo ............................................................................... 16
13. Photometric Study ........................................................................................................ 23
14. General Plan Map ......................................................................................................... 52
15. Zoning Map................................................................................................................... 53
16. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels ............................................ 66
17. Study Area Intersection ................................................................................................ 74
18. Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................ 75
19. Project AM Peak Trips .................................................................................................. 76
20. Project PM Peak Hour Trips ......................................................................................... 77
LIST of TABLES
Table Page
1. South Coast Air Basin Emission Forecasts (Emissions (tons/day) ................................ 26
2. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2011-2015) ............................................................... 27
3. Daily Emission Thresholds ............................................................................................ 28
4. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet ........................................................................... 29
5. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) .................... 30
6. Daily Operational Impacts ............................................................................................. 30
7. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) ..................................................................... 31
8. Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) ............................................................... 32
9. Operational Emissions .................................................................................................. 33
10. Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits ............................................................................... 58
11. Measured Noise Levels (dBA) ...................................................................................... 59
12. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline)........................... 59
13. Project Traffic Noise Level Increases (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) .............. 60
14. Human Response to Transient Vibration ...................................................................... 64
15. Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities .................................................... 64
16. Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction ............................................... 64
17. Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................. 72
18. Existing 2017 Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ........................................... 79
19. Baseline 2019 Level of Service at Study Area Intersections With and Without Project .. 80
20. Estimate Project Water Consumption ........................................................................... 88
21. Estimated Project Wastewater Generation ................................................................... 88
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The City of Rosemead (“Lead Agency”) has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the purpose of identifying and evaluating the potential impacts that could occur with
proposed Design Review 16-04 (DR 16-04) for the construction of a mixed-use project. The
project is located on approximately 0.874 acres and includes 35 residential units, 7,520
square feet of retail/restaurant use, and 116 parking spaces, including compact and
handicap spaces, in a four-story building with one level of subterranean parking. The
project proposes that 20% of the apartments will be low-income that allows a thirty-five
percent (35%) density bonus.
It is the intent of this environmental document to identify the potential environmental impacts
that can be expected to occur with the development of the proposed project, including the
demolition of the existing buildings and site improvements, and provide feasible mitigation
measures, when required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to reduce
impacts to less than significant levels. Approval of the site plan is required by the City.
1.2 LOCATION
The project site totals approximately 38,070 square feet (0.874 acres) and is located in the
City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map.
The project site consists of two parcels (APN 5288-004-041,057) and is located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue as shown in Figure
2 – Local Vicinity Map. An aerial photograph of the site is shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photo.
The project site is designated in the General Plan as Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30
du/ac) and the zoning is C-3D and RC-MUDO (Medium Commercial with
Residential/Commercial Mixed-use Design Overlays). The existing land use and zoning
designations allow the uses proposed for the site.
The General Plan land use designations adjacent to the site include Mixed-use:
Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) to the north, west, east and south. The zoning is C-3-
MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-use and Design
Overlays) to the north, west, east, and south.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is developed with a used car lot and two single-family residences. The
project will require the demolition of the existing structures and site improvements to allow
the construction of the proposed four-story, mixed-use development consisting of 7,520
square feet of retail/restaurant use on the first floor and 35 residential units on the second
through fourth floors. Of the 35 apartments, excluding the manager’s apartment, there will
be eight apartments on the second floor, nine apartments on the second floor along with a
gym, kid’s room, lounge and library, and 13 apartments on both the third and fourth floors.
The project includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which allows
density bonuses up to 35% for low-income housing. As a result, six (6) of the apartments
will be available for low-income households for a minimum of 55 years and 29 market rate
apartments for a total of 35 apartments.
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 1Regional Map
N
*
Site Location
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Google Maps, 2017
Figure 2Local Vicinity Map
ProjectLocation
N
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 3Aerial PhotoSource: Google Earth, 2017NPROJECTLOCATIONEarle Ave.
Earle Ave.Garvey Ave.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 5
New landscaping will be provided within a 5’-wide landscape setback along the northern
project boundary. A 0’ setback is proposed along the east project boundary that abuts the
footing for the existing motel to the east. A 12’ public area consisting of a 5’ landscape
setback and 7’ sidewalk is proposed along the west and southern project boundary to
separate the project from the adjacent streets, which includes Earle Avenue to the west and
Garvey Avenue to the south.
The project proposes both surface and subterranean parking. The project proposes a total
of 116 parking spaces, including 86 standard spaces, 25 compact spaces, four handicap
spaces and one designated loading space for the commercial uses. Of the 116 parking
spaces, 70 standard spaces, including two handicap spaces, for project residents are
proposed for the subterranean parking structure and 46 standard spaces, including two
handicap spaces and a commercial loading zone, are proposed for ground level parking.
The project proposes eleven more parking spaces than required by the Rosemead
Municipal Code. The project also proposes 14 bicycles spaces with 7 spaces on the first
floor and 7 spaces on the subterranean level.
The building is 55’ in height, which includes the height of the decorative parapet. There is
one point of access to the site, which is from Earle Avenue. The Earle Avenue entry
provides an entrance to the surface and subterranean parking structure. An eleven foot,
two-way driveway from Earle Avenue is located at the northwest corner of the site and will
provide access to both the surface and subterranean parking. A portion of the surface
parking level in the northeast area of the site will be open to the sky while the remaining
area of the ground floor will be occupied by the commercial use, restaurant and retail space.
Delivery vehicles for the retail and restaurant uses on the ground level will have access from
Earle Avenue. Delivery trucks will be restricted to two axle trucks with a maximum height of
8’6”. Delivery trucks will not be allowed to park along either Earle Avenue or Garvey
Avenue. A 12’ wide public realm is proposal along the south and west sides of the project
and includes a five foot landscaped parkway and a 7’ sidewalk.
The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 4. Building elevations of the proposed building
are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The conceptual landscape plans showing the types of
landscape materials proposed for the site are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.
1.4 INTENDED USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead as the Lead Agency to
evaluate the project’s environmental impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures
to reduce 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, City of Monterey Park and the County of Los Angeles, on
the south by the City of Montebello, and the City of El Monte and South El Monte on the
east. The City of Rosemead is 5.5 square miles in size with a residential population of
54,9471 people.
1 Cities and Towns (Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions), retrieved 02/23/2016
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Simon Lee & Assoc., Architects
Figure 4Site Plan
N
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Simon Lee & Assoc., Architects
Figure 5 North/East Building Elevations
N
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Simon Lee & Assoc., Architects
Figure 6 South/West Building Elevations
N
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 7Landscape PlanSource: Two Trees Design, Inc.N
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 8Landscape PlanSource: Two Trees Design, Inc.N
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 11
The project is located in an urbanized area that is developed with single-family detached
homes to the north, commercial uses to the west, east, and south. Photographs of the
project site and the surrounding land uses are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Figure 11 is a
photo orientation aerial showing the locations of the photos in Figures 9 and 10.
The land uses surrounding the site include:
North
General Plan – Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30-du/ac; 3 stories)
Zoning – C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay)
Land Use – Single-family detached residence
South
General Plan – Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30-du/ac; 3 stories)
Zoning – C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay)
Land Use – Commercial
East
General Plan - Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30-du/ac; 3 stories)
Zoning - C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay)
Land Use - Commercial
West
General Plan - Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30-du/ac; 3 stories)
Zoning - C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay)
Land Use – Commercial
1.6 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
The City of Rosemead identified four projects that, along with the proposed project, could
have cumulative impacts. The four projects include:
A. Garvey Garden Plaza – The project proposes to develop a 1.13-acre site at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue with 46
residential units and 11,860 square feet of retail/office use in a four-story building
with one level of subterranean parking. The site is currently developed with three
commercial buildings and four residential homes.
B. Garvey 168 Plaza - The project proposes to develop a 0.698-acre (30,397 square
feet) site at 8479 Garvey Avenue with two buildings totaling 36,100 square feet with
24,725 square feet of residential condominiums and 11,375 square feet of
commercial use.
C. Garvey Del Mar Plaza – The project proposes to develop a 1.14-acre site at the
northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue with 60 residential units,
including 12 low income units, and 15,553 square feet of retail space.
D. 9048 Garvey Avenue – develop a 2.1-acre site with 48 residential units and 6,500
square feet of retail space.
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.A. Used car businessB. Dollar Car Rental companyC. Project site as seen from Earle AvenueFigure 9 On-Site PhotosSource: Phil Martin & Assoc..D. Existing residences on the site
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Source: Phil Martin & Assoc..E. Motel adjacent to and east of siteF. Residence north of siteG. Car wash west of siteFigure 10 Off-Site PhotosH. Commercial uses south of site
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 11 Photo Orientation MapSource: Google Earth, 2017/ Phil Martin & Assoc.NPROJECTLOCATIONEarle Ave.
Earle Ave.Garvey Ave.A
E
B
HGCD
F
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 15
An aerial photograph showing the location of the four cumulative projects is provided in
Figure 12. There are no additional cumulative projects that along with the proposed project
could have potential cumulative impacts.
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 12Cumulative Project Location MapSource: Google Earth 2017, Phil Martin & Assoc.N
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 17
2.0 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact
The environmental 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
Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Services Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination
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
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 18
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) 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).
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) “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).
5) 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.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
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.
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.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 19
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
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.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 20
3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, 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 project site and the surrounding properties are not designated a scenic
vista by the City of Rosemead General Plan. The most predominant scenic vista open to
the Rosemead community is the San Gabriel Valley mountain range approximately 8 miles
north of Rosemead. The existing residents adjacent to and north of the project site will not
have to look across the site to view the San Gabriel Mountains. The closest residents that
will have to look across the site to the mounts are residents approximately 370 feet south of
the project. Their direct views of the San Gabriel mountain range will not be significantly
blocked by the project. The resident’s south of the project will continue to have distant
mountain views. The project will not have any significant scenic vista impacts because there
are no City adopted scenic vistas that are visible from the area adjacent to or surrounding
the site that would be significantly impacted by the project.
b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to or near a state-designated, or
eligible scenic highway.2 The project will not impact any existing scenic resources, historic
buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with a one-story building
with a business for auto sales and rentals. The commercial building is located along the
north property line with a parking lot between the building and Garvey Avenue. The existing
auto repair building and all site improvements will be demolished for the project to be
developed.
The building setbacks along the south, west and north project boundary of the project will be
landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcover. The landscaping
proposed along the west and south project boundary will provide improved aesthetic
buffering of the project for motorists and pedestrians on Garvey and Earle Avenues
2 State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenichighways/
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 21
compared to the existing condition that has minimal landscape materials. Adjacent to the
proposed 6’ fence wall along most of the length of the north project boundary will be a
combination of 24” box trees, shrubs and groundcover. Once mature, this landscaping will
provide buffering of the project for the residents adjacent to and north of the site. A 42”
fence wall is proposed for approximately 20’ of the north project boundary from the west
property line east to provide landscape buffering of a proposed electrical transformer at the
northwest corner of the site. The 42” fence wall and landscaping will buffer the proposed
8’x10’ electrical transformer pad from motorists and pedestrians that travel past the site on
Earle Avenue and the residents immediately adjacent to and north of the site.
There are no trees on the project site. However, there are seven existing street trees along
the south side of the site within the Garvey Avenue right-of-way. The project proposes to
remove four of the existing seven trees and plant five new replacement trees along the
project frontage on Garvey Avenue. The project also proposes the plant three street trees
along the west side of the site within the Earle Avenue right-of-way where currently there are
no street trees. None of the four existing street trees along Garvey Avenue that will be
removed are oak trees.
In addition to planting eight new street trees, the project proposes to plant trees, shrubs and
groundcover within the landscaped setback areas along the south, west and north project
boundary. The project perimeter landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the project for
pedestrians and motorists on Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue compared to the existing
condition.
The project will improve the existing aesthetics of the site with the construction of a new
multi-story building, new landscaping and site improvements. Elevations of the proposed
building are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The proposed four-story building will be more visible
to area residents and businesses compared to the existing one-story building due to the
height and density of the new building. As stated previously, the proposed building is four
stories in height compared to the existing one-story building on the site. Because of its
height, the project will also be more visible to residents further from the site compared to the
existing building. While the project will be more visible than the existing development on the
property, the project will not significantly degrade the existing visual characteristics of either
the site or the surrounding due to the variations of building relief and heights. The proposed
building is mostly 50 feet in height, with the exception of the 5-foot parapet that extends the
maximum height of the building to 55 feet. Other buildings in the area tare approximately 30
feet in height or less. The Rosemead Municipal Code allows a maximum height of 45 feet
for mixed use buildings in the C-3D and RC-MUDO (Medium Commercial with
Residential/Commercial Mixed-use Design Overlays) zone. The project applicant is
requesting a concession to allow the development of the proposed 55 foot building with an
allowed building height of 45 feet.
The project will change and reduce the privacy of the resident’s north of the project due to
the height of the proposed four-story building. The proposed building will allow project
residents along the north side of the building to have views of the residential units and rear
yards of the residents to the north compared to no views of the resident’s north of the site
from the existing site. Views north of the site by the project residents would reduce the
existing privacy of the residents that are closest to and north of the project.
Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.28.030, the project is not required to provide any
setbacks from the property lines, with the exception of a minimum 10-foot setback from the
residence north of the site. The project proposes a 12-foot “Public Realm” setback from
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 22
Earle Avenue and Garvey Avenue. The Public Realm will include existing and new street
trees, concrete sidewalks, landscaping, street lighting, street furniture and other pedestrian-
oriented amenities. Required street trees have a maximum distance of 30 feet or less, on
center. Street trees are proposed along both Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue adjacent to
the site including four streets trees along Garvey Avenue and eight trees along Earle
Avenue for a total of twelve street trees. The City will require that street trees are provided
and comply with RMC Chapter 17.28.030and Chapter 12.48.
The existing structure on the site is an older commercial building. The building is an older
structure and show signs of delayed maintenance and repair compared to other buildings in
the immediate project area. Compared to the existing development on the property, the
project would improve the aesthetics of the site with a new building that is current with other
newer development in Rosemead in terms of design and architecture. The replacement of
the existing older building on the site with a new four-story building with residential units and
ground floor commercial uses along with new site improvements, including landscaping, will
significantly improve the existing aesthetics of the site. Project compliance with all
applicable development standards in RMC 17.28.030 will reduce project aesthetic impacts
for adjacent residents, businesses, pedestrians, and motorists on Earle Avenue and Garvey
Avenue to less-than-significant.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate new sources of light
and glare compared to the existing conditions with the increase in the amount of
development proposed for the site. The increase in development proposed for the site will
increase the amount of light and glare generated from the site compared to the existing light
and glare on the site.
Light
In compliance with RMC 17.88.020, a photometric study was requested by the City. A
photometric study was prepared and based on the proposed types and electronic
technologies of the outdoor lighting fixtures, including light pole heights, to illuminate the
site. The results of the photometric study are shown in Figure 13.
The photometric analysis shows that the project will generate minimal off-site light to the
residences north of the site. As shown, the foot candles of the light from the site to the
residence adjacent to and north of the site is 0.0. The measured foot candles of light from
the project on Earle Avenue is also 0.0. The measured foot candles of light from the project
on Garvey Avenue adjacent to and south of the site ranges from a low of 0.0 to a maximum
of 0.8. The central courtyard on the second level will have outdoor lighting on the building.
The lighting within the central courtyard is calculated to have foot candle levels from a low of
0.6 at the north end of the courtyard and the north side of the proposed building to a high of
6.2 within the central courtyard adjacent to the building. The central courtyard lighting is not
calculated to extend onto and significantly impact the residence adjacent to and north of the
project.
The lighting in the industry recognizes a maintenance horizontal luminance of 0.2 foot-
candles. For comparison purposes, a medium to bright moon light is approximately 0.3 foot
candles.
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 13Photometric StudySource: CEG Engineering, Inc.N
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 24
Based on the photometric study, the lighting plan, as currently proposed, will generate light
hotspots ranging from 0.6 to 6.2 foot candles within the on-site central courtyard. While the
proposed building exterior wall-mounted lighting fixtures will have light hotspots closest to
the building and gradually reduce as the light travels to the north of the courtyard, the
photometric study shows that the project lighting will not extend off-site and impact the
residence adjacent to and north of the site. However, a change in the type, height and
design of the exterior building fixtures could change the results of the photometric study.
The following measure is recommended to reduce on- and off-site lighting impact to 0.1 foot
candles and less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant
shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning
Division that incorporates the following light reducing
measures as applicable:
Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control
and/or different lighting distribution.
Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of
proposed lighting fixtures.
Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
• Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies
• A combination of the above.
Glare from the windows and metal surfaces of the proposed building could impact adjacent
land uses that are glare-sensitive, especially the existing residences north of the site. A
proposed 6-foot fence wall is proposed along the north project boundary from the east
property line to approximately 20 feet east of Earle Avenue where the wall steps down to 42”
tall. In addition, six trees are proposed to be planted in the 10-foot landscape set-back
along the north property line. The 6-foot fence wall and the trees, once mature, will serve to
block and eliminate ground level glare impacts to the residents adjacent to and north of the
project. Glare from the apartment windows and metal building materials above the ground
floor could extend to the resident’s north of the project.
For the most part, the windows on all building floors that could generate glare are recessed
into the building. Because the windows are recessed and somewhat set-back into the
building, glare from the windows will be minimal. Overall, glare by the project to area
residents, pedestrians, and motorists will be less-than-significant.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.2 Agricultural Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 25
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 project site is developed with a commercial use and two residences.
There are no agricultural uses either on the site or within the immediate vicinity of the site.
The California State Department of Conservation was contacted to determine the California
State Important Farmlands Map designation for the site. The Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) considers the City of Rosemead an urban area. Therefore,
none of the soils have been mapped and the NRCS has no plans to map the soil in the
future. The project site has no farmland designation. Because there are no agricultural
uses on or in close proximity to the site, the project will not impact existing farmland.
b) No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the project applicant is
not requesting a zone change to allow agriculture use on the property. The project site and
the surrounding properties are developed, located in an urbanized area, and not used for
agriculture. Therefore, none of the properties are in a Williamson Act contract. The project
will not have a conflict or impact any agricultural use or land that is in a Williamson Act
contract. The city does not have any zoning that allows commercial farming activities.
c) No Impact. None of the proposed project activities could result in or encourage the
conversion of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses since there are no agricultural uses
either on or adjacent to the site.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
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?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 26
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 and greenhouse assessment was prepared by Giroux & Associates. A copy of
the air quality and greenhouse gas assessment 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 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), carbon monoxide (CO) and 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.
Table 1
South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts
(Emissions Tons/Day)
Pollutant 2010a 2015b 2020b 2025b
NOx 603 451 357 289
VOC 544 429 400 393
PM-10 160 155 161 165
PM-2.5 71 67 67 68
a2010 Base Year. bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.
Source: California Air Resources Board, California Emissions Projection Analysis Model, 2009
The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in
August 2003. The 2003 AQMP was approved by EPA in 2004. The Air Quality
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 27
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.
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.
Development, such as the proposed mixed-use 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 the impact significance
of planned growth is determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation
control measures that can be implemented on a project-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-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 a project-specific basis.
The project will not significantly affect regional air quality plans because as shown in Table 6
below, the operations of the project will not generate any air emissions that exceed adopted
SCAQMD thresholds. Because the project will not exceed and significantly impact adopted
SCAQMD air emission thresholds, the project will not impact the AQMP.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The air emissions that will be generated by the
project are associated with the demolition of the existing on-site improvements, project
construction and the operation of the project upon completion of construction.
Because the project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, the SCAQMD sets and
enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. Long-term air quality
monitoring is carried out by SCAQMD at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby
stations that monitor the full spectrum of pollutants. Ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-2.5 and
nitrogen oxides are monitored at the Pico Rivera air monitoring facility, while 10-micron
diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is measured at the Azusa air monitoring station. Table
2 shows the last five years of monitoring data from a composite of the data resources.
Table 2
Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2011-2015)
Pollutant/Standard 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ozone
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 1 5 2 7 6
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 1 6 3 7 11
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 0 0 0 5 2
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.11 0.101 0.121 0.107
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.092 0.081
Carbon Monoxide
1-Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 28
Pollutant/Standard 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1-Hour > 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0
Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.5 1.7
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.07
Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)
24-Hour > 50 g/m3 (S) 8/61 6/61 6/61 21/60 12/59
24-Hour > 150 g/m3 (F) 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/60 0/59
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 63 78 76 94 101
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5)
24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F) 1/114 1/119 0/114 0/xx 3/118
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 41.2 45.3 29.1 35.1 52.7
xx - data not available, S=State Standard, F=Federal Standard
Source: South Coast AQMD – Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone, CO, NOx and PM-2.5
Azusa Monitoring Station for PM-10
data: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD
has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality
impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily
emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds shown in Table 3 are recommended
by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA.
Table 3
Daily Emission Thresholds
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.
Construction Emissions
Dust is typically the primary pollutant of concern that is generated during grading activities.
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.).
Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10
pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures
(RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for
fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions
can be reduced to 1-2 pounds per day per disturbed acre.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 29
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 to comprise 10-20 percent of PM-10.
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 causing any adverse health
hazard.
The CalEEMod was developed by SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate construction
emissions and operational emissions for a residential or commercial project. CalEEMod
calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as
well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CalEEMod 2013.2.2
computer model was used to calculate emissions from the default construction equipment
fleet and schedule anticipated by CalEEMod as shown in Table 4.
Table 4
Construction Activity Equipment Fleet
Phase Name and Duration Equipment
Demolition (10 days)
1 Concrete Saw
2 Loader/Backhoes
1 Dozer
Grading (2 days)
1 Concrete Saw
1 Dozer
2 Loader/Backhoes
Construction (100 days)
1 Small Crane
2 Loader/Backhoes
3 Loader/Backhoes
Paving (5 days)
4 Concrete Mixers
1 Paver
1 Roller
1 Loader/Backhoe
Utilizing the equipment fleet in Table 4, the following estimated worst-case daily construction
emissions are listed in Table 5.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 30
Table 5
Construction Activity Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
Maximal Construction Emissions 60.5 12.7 10.5 0.0 1.8 1.0
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
As shown in Table 5, the peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be
below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for mitigation. The only model-based
mitigation measure applied to the project was to water all exposed dirt at least three times
per day during construction as required per SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize
the generation of fugitive dust.
The incorporation of the following measure will reduce project construction emission impacts
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 2 During construction, the contractor shall apply water three
times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to
manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or
staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction
areas.
Operational Emissions
The operational emissions for the proposed uses were calculated using CalEEMod2016.3.1
for a project build-out year of 2019. The operational emissions for the project are shown in
Table 6.
Table 6
Daily Operational Impacts
Operational Emissions (lbs./day)
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2
Area 2.7* 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 889.1
Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.9
Mobile 2.2 5.8 24.0 0.1 3.7 1.1 4,823.1
Total 4.9 5.9 30.0 0.1 3.8 1.1 5,885.1
SCAQMD
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 -
Exceeds
Threshold? No No No No No No NA
Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix * Assumes natural gas hearths for residential use
In addition to motor vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of “area source”
air pollution to be generated from on-site energy consumption (primarily landscaping) and
from off-site electrical generation (lighting). These sources represent a minimal percentage
of the total project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion
of these emissions adds negligibly to the total significant project-related emissions.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 31
As shown in Table 6, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD CEQA significance
thresholds. As a result, the project operational emission impacts will be less-than-
significant.
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 Localized 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.
For the project, the primary source of possible LST impact would occur during demolition
and construction activities. 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 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.
The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant
screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5-acre disturbance
sites for varying distances. For this project, the most stringent thresholds for a 1-acre site
were used.
The applicable thresholds and project construction emissions are shown in Table 7. The
LST emissions thresholds were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As
shown in Table 7, all on-site project emissions are below the LST for demolition and
construction. The project will have less-than-significant LST emissions.
Table 7
LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)
LST 1 acre/25 meters
South San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Thresholds 673 83 5 4
Max On-Site Emissions 11 13 2 1
CalEEMod Output in Appendix
*excludes construction commuting, vendor deliveries and possible emissions associated with haul trucking.
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.” 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 in some parts of the infrared
spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of
the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 32
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.
Statewide, the framework to develop implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way.
Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency,
from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Thresholds
In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines
for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws
as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA
Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A
project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment, or
Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG
emissions.
Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be
evaluated. The process is divided into quantification of project-related GHG emissions,
making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if
impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG
guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility.
Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards.
CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers
most appropriate”. The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG
emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod.
The selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration the level of GHG
emissions that would be cumulatively considerable. In September 2010, the SCAQMD
Working Group recommended a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2(e) for mixed-use projects. This
3,000 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis.
Construction Activity GHG Emissions
The build-out timetable for this project is estimated by CalEEMod to be two years. During
project construction, the CalEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction
activities will generate the annual CO2(e) emissions shown in Table 8.
Table 8
Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e))
CO2(e)
Year 2018 106.8
Amortized 3.6
*CalEEMod Output provided in appendix
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 33
The SCAQMD GHG emissions policy for construction activities is to amortize construction
emissions over a 30-year lifetime. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from project
construction activities are 106.8 MTCO2(e) per year, which is less than the threshold of
3,000 MTCO2(e). Therefore, the project GHG impacts are less than significant.
Operational GHG Emissions
The operational and annualized construction emissions were calculated and shown in Table
9. The annual GHG emissions are calculated to be 977.4 metric tons CO2(e)/year, which is
less than the significance threshold of 3,000 MT. The operational GHG emissions are less
than significant.
Table 9
Operational Emissions
Consumption Source MT CO2(e) tons/year
Area Sources* 11.8
Energy Utilization 175.2
Mobile Source 738.1
Solid Waste Generation 24.1
Water Consumption 24.6
Amortized Construction 3.6
Total 977.4
Significance Threshold 3,000
Exceed Threshold No
Assumes natural gas hearths for residential use
Consistency with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies
The City of Rosemead has not developed or adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for
the purpose to reduce GHGs. Therefore, the applicable GHG planning document for the
project is AB-32. As shown above, the project will not have a significant increase in
construction or operational GHG emissions. As a result, the project will generate GHG
emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 ton/year threshold. Thus, the project
would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.3 “b)” above, the air emissions
generated by the project during demolition, construction and the life of the project will not
exceed any State air emission thresholds. 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. Rather, SCAQMD recommends a project’s 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 daily construction or operational air emissions
will exceed the thresholds recommended by SCAQMD, the project will not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. 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).
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 34
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 site are considered pollution-sensitive to
any project related emissions. The residences east and south of the project are considered
sensitive receptors to air emissions. Although air emissions will be generated during project
construction, as presented in the air quality assessment, the project emissions will not
exceed adopted air emission thresholds. The project will not exceed air emission thresholds
as discussed in section 3.3 “b)” above, and as a result, will not expose sensitive receptors to
any substantial pollutant concentrations.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction the residents adjacent to the
construction activity may detect some odors from the operation of the on-site motorized
construction equipment. There will be less than nine pieces of construction equipment
operating on the site at any time. The potential for all nine pieces of equipment to operate
simultaneously is considered to be low. Therefore, the odors that will be generated by the
operation of the construction equipment are not anticipated to significantly impact area
residents. Once construction is completed all odors from the operation of construction
equipment will cease. The California Building Code (CBC) will require the installation of
mechanical equipment to reduce odors of any restaurants that operate within the building.
The installation of all CBC required mechanical equipment for all restaurants will reduce
odors as required by the CBC. The project is not anticipated to have any odors that would
significantly impact area residents or pedestrians in the area. Odors by the project will be
less than significant.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.4 Biological Resources
Would 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?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 35
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 site is disturbed and completely developed with a commercial building,
paved parking lot and other commercial site improvements. There is no landscaping or
trees on the property. There is no native habitat on the site to support native wildlife.
materials are not classified or considered to be rare or endangered plant species. In
addition, there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the site. Any wildlife that may exist on the
site would be non-native wildlife associated with urban development, such as domestic dogs
and cats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, mockingbirds, etc. There are no plants or wildlife on
the site that are designated or will 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. The project will not impact any biological resources,
including plants or animals.
b) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are developed with commercial and
residential uses. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities either
on the site or on any of the adjacent surrounding properties. The project will not impact
riparian or sensitive habitat.
c) No Impact. There are no wetlands either on or adjacent to the site. The project will not
impact wetlands.
d) No Impact. The project is developed with a one-story commercial building, a paved
parking lot and commercial site improvements. The surrounding properties are developed
with residential and commercial uses. There is no native vegetation or bodies of water on or
surrounding the site. Therefore, neither the project site nor adjacent properties support the
movement of migratory fish or wildlife or support a nursery for wildlife. 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 since there is no habitat on or adjacent to the site that supports wildlife.
e) No Impact. There are no trees on the site. However, there are eight trees in the street
right-of-way of Earle Avenue and Garvey Avenue adjacent to the site. The project proposes
to plant eight new trees along Earle and Garvey Avenues and retain three of the existing
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 36
street trees along Garvey Avenue. Thus, the project will provide eleven street trees
adjacent to the site. There are no oak trees on the site. Therefore, no oak trees will require
protection or replacement in compliance with the Rosemead Oak Tree Preservation
Ordinance. The project will not have any oak tree impacts.
f) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan. The project will not impact any habitat or natural community
conservation plan.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
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 any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The existing building on the site is not classified as, or a candidate as a
historical resource by either the City of Rosemead or the State because they do not meet
the criteria for a historical resource. The demolition of the existing building and other site
improvements would not have any historical resource impacts.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site is located in an urbanized area
that has been disturbed due to development activities on both the project site and the
adjacent properties. Because the project site has been disturbed in the past associated with
grading and construction of a commercial building, any cultural resources that may have
existed near the surface have been previously unearthed or disturbed. There are no
records of any recorded archaeological resources either on or adjacent to the project site.
Despite previous disturbances of the project site in the past that may have displaced
archaeological resources on the surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources
could exist below the surface area of the site that was previously undisturbed during
grading.
As a result, Mitigation Measures No. 3 through 6 are recommended to reduce potentially
significant archaeological and Tribal resource impacts to previously undiscovered resources
that may be encountered during project grading and construction to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 3 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional
archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 37
Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an
Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel
prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training
session shall be carried out by a cultural resources
professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards. The training session shall include a handout and
will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may
be encountered during earthmoving activities and the
procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of
archaeological monitors, and, the general steps a qualified
professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a
salvage investigation if one is necessary.
Mitigation Measure No. 4 In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed
during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities
shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so
that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet
shall be established around the find where construction
activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified
archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s)
and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed
to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological
resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be
evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets
the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be
determined to be prehistoric, Native American
Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted and Native
American construction monitoring should be initiated.
The project developer and the City shall coordinate with the
archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The plan may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment
of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing
and analysis.
Mitigation Measure No. 5 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional
archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic
Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below 2’ feet
to determine if construction excavations have exposed or have
a high probability to expose archaeological resources. After
the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks
shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified
archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that
construction excavations have exposed or have a high
probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction
monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required.
The project developer shall retain a qualified archaeological
monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a
professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 38
forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor
shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g.,
grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger
Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth-moving
construction activities may require multiple archaeological
monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the
rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known
archaeological resources, the materials being excavated
(native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation,
and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological
resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced
to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project
archaeologist.
Mitigation Measure No. 6 The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified
professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall
prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological
monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the project
developer, the South Central Costal Information Center, the
City, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned
agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project
and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a
description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the
resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA,
and treatment of the resources.
c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site is located in an urbanized area
that has been previously disturbed by past development activities. Given that the project site
has been disturbed, any cultural resources that may have existed at one time likely have
been previously unearthed or disturbed. No paleontological resources are known to exist
within the immediate project area. However, two previously recorded fossil localities (LACM
7701-7702 and LACM 6350-6361) are located within a three-mile radius of the project site.
While paleontological resources are not anticipated to occur in shallow areas of the site,
deeper on-site excavations may uncover vertebrate fossil remains that could be considered
significant. Any substantial excavations in the proposed project area, therefore, should be
closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains without
impeding development. As a result, the following mitigation measures are recommended to
reduce potentially significant paleontological impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 7 The project developer shall retain a professional
paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a
Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel
prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training
will include a handout and will focus on how to identify
paleontological resources that may be encountered during
earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in
such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors;
notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of
resources; and, the general steps a qualified professional
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 39
paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage
investigation if one is necessary.
Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project developer shall retain a professional
paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct periodic
Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six (6)
feet to determine if construction excavations have extended
into the Miocene Puente Formation or into Pleistocene older
alluvial deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check,
further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of
the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist
determines that construction excavations have extended into
the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial
deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological
Resources will be required. The project developer shall retain
a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the
guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who
meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present
during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or
clearing/grubbing) into the Puente Formation or into older
Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth-moving
construction activities may require multiple paleontological
monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the
rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known
paleontological resources and/or unique geological features,
the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils),
and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and
type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological
features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to
part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified
professional paleontologist.
Mitigation Measure No. 9 In the event that paleontological resources and/or unique
geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing
activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or
diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can
be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be
established around the find where construction activities shall
not be allowed to continue until appropriate paleontological
treatment plan has been approved by the Applicant and the
City. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer
area. The project developer and the City shall coordinate with
a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set
forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an
appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may
include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations
to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the
paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce construction delay,
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 40
the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing
rock samples for initial processing.
Mitigation Measure No. 10 Upon completion of the above activities, the professional
paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results
of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used
in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected
and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the
project developer, the City, the Natural History Museums of
Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate
or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of
the project and required mitigation measures.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. No known human remains exist or are
anticipated to exist on the site. Because the project site has been disturbed, no human
remains or cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed or impacted by the project. Any
buried human remains would have been uncovered, collected, and/or destroyed at that time
of the initial grading and development of the site. However, these findings do not preclude
the existence of previously unknown human remains below the ground surface, which may
be encountered during construction and excavation associated with the proposed project.
Similar to the discussion regarding archaeological resources above, it is also possible to
encounter buried human remains during construction given the proven prehistoric
occupation of the region, the identification of multiple surface archaeological resources
within a half- mile of the project site, and the favorable natural conditions that would have
attracted prehistoric inhabitants to the area. As a result, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce potentially human remain impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 11 requires that in the unlikely event that human remains are
uncovered the contractor shall be required to halt work in the immediate area of the find and
notify the County Coroner, in accordance with Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, who must
then determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a
supervising archaeologist, determines the remains are or appear to be of a Native
American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission for further
investigations and proper recovery of such remains, if necessary. Impacts will be less than
significant with implementation of mitigation.
Mitigation Measure No. 11 If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the
project, the City of Rosemead and the project developer shall
comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
The City of Rosemead and the project developer shall
immediately notify the County Coroner and no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to
PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of
Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The
NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most
Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the
remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the
landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate
dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary
objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 41
shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project
archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-
SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD
identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner
rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation
provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked,
fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the
landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter
the human remains and items associated with Native
American human remains with appropriate dignity on the
property in a location not subject to further and future
subsurface disturbance.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.6 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
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?
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?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 42
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A geotechnical engineering investigation was prepared by Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation.3 A copy of the geotechnical investigation is included in Appendix B.
a i) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead is in a seismically active region.
The nearest known active fault to the project site is the Upper Elysian Park Fault located
approximately one mile away. The Upper Elysian Park fault is considered to have the most
significant effect to the site from a design standpoint.4
There is a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone in the south-central area of the
city.5 The project is located approximately one-half mile north of and outside the designed
Fault Zone. As identified in the City of Rosemead (2008) Safety Element, the project site is
not located within or near a fault hazard management zone.6 The potential for a surface
rupture on the project site is considered low due to the absence of known active faults at the
site.7
a ii) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The seismic ground motions at the subject site
were calculated based on existing seismic hazard maps published by the California
Geological Survey. The peak ground alluvium acceleration at the site for a 2% and 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years is estimated to be approximately 0.9538 and 0.519g,
respectively.9 To ensure the project is properly designed to take into account the identified
peak acceleration value in the geotechnical report, the following mitigation measure is
recommended.
Mitigation Measure No. 12 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be
designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.953g and 0.519g
for the 2% and 10% probability, respectively as recommended
in the geotechnical engineering investigation and approved by
the City Engineer.
a iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within the western area of a
liquefaction zone based on the State Seismic Hazard Zone map (El Monte).10 The potential
for liquefaction at the site was evaluated using a computer program, subsurface data from
on-site borings, the design earthquake (M =7.0), and ground acceleration of 0.953g (2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years) and a calculated ground water level to the depth of 5
feet below the existing ground surface. Although the computer program referenced a
ground water depth of 5 feet below the existing ground surface, no ground water was
encountered in the deepest ground boring on the site of 51.5 feet. Based on the laboratory
3 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4-Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Cal Land
Engineering Inc., April 4, 2017, Cal Land Engineering, Inc., October 10, 2017 and Cal Land Engineering, Inc.,
September 14, 2017.
4 Ibid, page 6.
5 City of Rosemead General Plan Update, June 2010, Figure 5-3.
6 City of Rosemead General Plan Update, June 2010, Figure 5-2.
7 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4-Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Cal Land
Engineering Inc., April 4, 2017, page 8.
8 Cal Land Engineering, Inc., September 14, 2017, page 1.
9 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4-Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Cal Land
Engineering Inc., April 4, 2017, page 6.
10 http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/EL_MONTE_EZRIM.pdf.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 43
test results and the computer program, the geotechnical consultant determined the site is
not susceptible to liquefaction.11
a iv) No Impact. The site is flat. The existing development surrounding the site is also flat.
The project will not be impacted by a landslide or impact any adjacent properties due to an
on-site landslide.
b) No Impact. The City will require the project developer to install and provide all
appropriate erosion control measures prior to the start of any on-site demolition or
construction and maintain the erosion control measures throughout project construction.
The incorporation of all applicable standard erosion control measures such as the use of
sand bags around the project perimeter and other measures deemed appropriate by the City
will reduce and minimize soil erosion. The project will not have any significant soil erosion
impacts.
c) No Impact. The site is developed with a one-story commercial building. Neither the
existing building nor the site improvements show evidence of unstable on-site soil
conditions. The project proposes to construct a four-story building with underground parking
and other site improvements. Based on the geotechnical report, the grading and
construction activities required to develop the project are not anticipated to cause any
unstable soil conditions either on or off-site. The project will not have any significant
unstable soil impacts.
d) No Impact. Neither the Rosemead General Plan or the geotechnical report identify any
expansive soils on the site. The subsurface soils at the basement garage floor level consist
generally of fine to coarse, silty sand and have no expansion potential. The project will not
be impacted by expansive soils.
e) No Impact. The site is currently served by the public sewer system. The City will require
the project to connect to and continue to be served by the public sewer system. The project
will not impact any soils resulting from alternative disposal systems.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, 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?
11 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4-Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Cal Land
Engineering Inc., April 4, 2017, page 7.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 44
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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 materials 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
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA)12 was prepared and is included in
Appendix C.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA, the existing uses on the site
use and generate hazardous materials associated with the existing shops and car wash on
the site and an abandoned aboveground hydraulic lift. Petroleum based oils, low emission
solvents, and coolant are stored in 55-gallon drums or smaller containers inside secondary
containment barriers. A floor drain in the car wash area connects to a multi-stage clarifier.
During the site investigation to prepare the ESA, no soil or concrete staining, corrosion or
12 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Light Industrial Property, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California,
91770, DCI Environmental Services, June 5, 2017.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 45
other signs of chemical release were observed.13 The project does not propose to use or
generate any hazardous materials that would significantly impact the public or the
environment. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
b) No Impact. As stated in 3.7 “a)” above, the proposed project will not create a significant
hazard from a release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) No Impact. Sanchez Elementary and Roger Temple Intermediate schools are
approximately a quarter mile south of the project. Willard Elementary School is
approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the site and the Rosemead Education Center is
approximately a quarter mile to the east. The project does not propose any use that would
emit or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances and impact any
schools, including Sanchez Elementary, Roger Temple Intermediate, Willard Elementary, or
Rosemead Education Center.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is currently developed with a commercial
building that is occupied by an automobile sales and car rental company. As discussed
above in section 3.7 a), petroleum based oils, low emission solvents, and coolant are stored
in 55-gallon drums or smaller containers inside secondary containment barriers and an
abandoned aboveground hydraulic life are located in the building occupied by the
automobile sales and car rental company. No soil or concrete staining, corrosion or other
signs of chemical release were observed on the site.
The Regulatory Records Research identified several properties with contamination issues
located within a 1/3rd mile radius of the project site. The listing closest to the project site is
a “case closed” Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) approximately 500 feet west of
the project at the Laidlaw Harley Davidson company at 8399 E. Garvey Avenue. Soil only
contamination was mitigated at this facility in 2008. Based on the Phase I ESA, there are no
observed conditions on the project site that indicate the site has been impacted by the
Laidlaw Harley Davison property.14 As a result, the potential for the project to be
significantly impacted by hazardous materials from the property at 8399 Garvey Avenue is
less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As discussed in 3.7 “d” above, the project site is
not located on a former or current hazardous waste site. Based on the Phase I ESA, while
one of the uses on the property uses and stores hazardous materials there is no presence
that hazardous materials have been spilled on the property.15 The project site has not been
used as a hazardous waste site in the past. Furthermore, there are no liens listed in the
United Sates Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)’s Federal Superfund Liens List,
and no known recorded land-use environmental deed restrictions pertaining to the subject
site listed in the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) liens database.
Due to the age of the buildings, including the two single-family residences, there is the
potential for asbestos and lead based paint to exist. The following measure is
recommended to mitigate the potential for the presence of asbestos and/or lead based paint
to less than significant.
13 Ibid, page 5.
14 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Light Industrial Property, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California,
91770, DCI Environmental Services, June 5, 2017, page 27.
15 Ibid, page 5.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 46
Mitigation Measure No. 13 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure,
the project developer shall provide a building survey to
determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos
and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA
Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling
criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA). If lead paint and/or asbestos containing materials
are found, all lead containing paint and/or asbestos shall be
removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint
and/or asbestos removal contractor, as applicable in
accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to
the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing
materials or lead paint.
f) No Impact. The site is sufficiently free of hazardous materials, except for the potential for
the presence of asbestos or lead paint in the buildings and the single-family residences. If
asbestos or lead paint are present, the incorporation of Mitigation Measure No. 13 above will
reduce potential asbestos and lead paint impacts to less-than-significant. From a hazards
standpoint, the site could be used as a school. There are no existing hazards or anticipated
hazards associated with the proposed project that would prevent the site from being used as
a school or the proposed project.
g) No Impact. The closest airport to the site is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4
miles northeast of the project. The project will not impact airport operations at El Monte
Airport or result in any safety hazards for project residents and employees.
h) No Impact. There are no private airports within two miles of the project. The project will
not impact or be impacted by operations at any private airport.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
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?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 47
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
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?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
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,
which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
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
Hydraulic calculations16 were prepared for the project and are included in Appendix D.
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project could generate silt and other debris
with surface water runoff during project demolition and construction, especially if demolition
and construction occur during the winter months (November – April) when rainfall typically
occurs. The quality of storm water runoff generated from the site 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 of Los Angeles, (NPDES No. CAS614001) the City of
Rosemead requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with the NPDES
16 Hydraulic Calculations, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770, Cal Land Engineering, Inc., April 5, 2017.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 48
requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. Therefore, the project 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. The project developer will be required to submit the
completed Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to the City 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.
To control surface water pollution, the project will be required, by law, to install a surface
storm water collection system to collect and treat the first ¾ of an inch of surface water
runoff from the site prior to off-site discharge. To comply with the law, all project run-off from
the roof, landscape areas and parking areas will be captured and diverted by downspouts
from the roof and catch basins from landscaped and parking areas to a biofiltration system
that will be installed in the northwest corner of the site under the subterranean parking.
After treatment, the stormwater will be pumped and discharged to Earle Avenue adjacent to
the site. Overflow from the biofiltration system will also drain to Earle Avenue.
The proposed biofiltration system in conjunction with the incorporation of all required BMPs
will allow the project to meet and comply with all applicable water quality and water
discharge requirements.
The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce water quality impacts to
less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 14 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer
shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to
the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures
including Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and
minimize water quality impacts during grading and
construction shall be installed and maintained during
construction to control water quality impacts.
Mitigation Measure No. 15 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first
residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project
developer shall install a surface storm water collection system
to collect and treat the first ¾ of an inch of surface water runoff
from the site as approved by the City Engineer.
Mitigation Measure No. 16 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first
residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project
developer shall install a biofiltration system with capacity to
filter the first ¾ inch of project generated storm water prior to
its discharge to Earle Avenue.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes landscaping along the south, west
and north project boundary and street trees along Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue and
allow on-site water percolation. The project will collect and direct the first ¾ inch of rainfall
to a biofiltration system proposed for the northwest corner of the site under the subterranean
parking structure. Once treated, the stormwater will then be pumped and discharged into
Earle Avenue adjacent to the site. Based on the SUSMP, the project will increase the
amount of the site that is pervious and available for stormwater percolation by approximately
4.68% compared to the existing condition. Therefore, the project will not deplete
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 49
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, but rather allow
more on-site runoff to percolate into the local groundwater compared to the existing
condition.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing storm water drainage pattern of the site is
generally towards the south with surface water draining mostly to the curb and gutter in
Garvey Avenue adjacent to and south of the site. As discussed in 3.8 “a)” above, while
small quantities of project generated surface water runoff from the sidewalks and driveways
will continue to be directed towards Earle and Garvey Avenues, the majority of the runoff will
be collected and discharged into a biofiltration system that is proposed to be installed in the
northwest corner of the site under the subterranean parking structure for treatment and
discharge. The project will alter the existing drainage pattern on the site from a southerly
direction to the biofiltration system proposed in the northwest corner of the site. Although
the project will change the existing surface water flow on the site, the change is flow will not
cause erosion or siltation of a stream or river because the proposed biofiltration and
discharge system proposed by the project will reduce the amount of existing runoff from the
site that is directed to the local storm drain system. The increased pervious areas on the
site for stormwater percolation compared to the existing condition will allow more stormwater
runoff to percolate into the local groundwater. By reducing the amount of runoff that will be
generated from the site, the project will reduce and have a less than significant impact to
erosion or siltation either on or off the site.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 “c)” above, surface water drainage
from the sidewalks and project driveways will continue to flow west to the existing curb and
gutter system in Earle Avenue and south to Garvey Avenue. The project is estimated to
generate approximately 0.189 cubic feet per second (CFS) of runoff less to the local storm
drain system compared to the existing condition due to the increase in the permeable
surface area proposed by the project. The project will discharge most of the surface water
runoff into a proposed biofiltration system in the northwest corner of the site for water quality
treatment prior to discharge to the local storm drain system in Earle Avenue adjacent to and
west of the site. The proposed landscaped areas throughout the site will allow on-site
percolation of storm water and reduce the amount of surface water runoff that is currently
generated from the site. By collecting and directing most of the surface runoff of the project
to the on-site biofiltration system and providing more on-site landscaped areas throughout
the site than the existing condition, the potential flooding impact by the project would be less
than significant.
e) No Impact. As discussed in 3.8 “d)” above and based on the SUSMP, the project will
generate approximately 0.189 cfs less runoff to the local storm drain system compared to
the existing condition. This reduction in surface water from the site will not exceed and will
actually incrementally increase the capacity of the existing storm water drainage system that
currently serves the project. The existing local storm drain system (curb and gutter) in Earle
Avenue and Garvey Avenue, along with the regional downstream storm drain facilities that
serve this area of Rosemead have capacity to handle the 2.723 cubic feet per second of
surface water that is calculated to be generated by the project. The discharge of the first ¾
inch of rainfall to the on-site biofiltration system in the northwest corner of the site for water
quality treatment and an increase by approximately 4.68% of the permeable area on the site
for stormwater percolation will reduce the amount of surface currently discharged from the
site. The project will not have any storm drain capacity impacts.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 “a)” above, the quality of storm water
runoff from the project is regulated under NPDES. The project will be required by law to
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 50
collect and treat the first ¾ of an inch of storm water runoff to remove debris and other
pollutants. The project proposes to install a biofiltration system in the northwest corner of
the site to collect and filter the project runoff prior to its discharge in the Earle Avenue
adjacent to and west of the site. In addition, the project proposes approximately 4.68%
more permeable area than the current condition in the form of landscaping throughout the
site to filter stormwater and allow runoff to percolate into the soil. Most of the project runoff
will be filtered and discharged after being filtered by the proposed biofiltration system in the
northwest corner of the site. During periods of high rainfall, storm water that overflows the
biofiltration system will be discharged by a drainage pipe into Earle Avenue adjacent to the
site. The project impact to surface water quality will be less than significant.
g) No Impact. The project site is not in a flood hazard zone. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) designates Rosemead to be in Zone “X”, which is outside the
100-year flood plain.17 The project will not place any housing in a flood hazard area.
h) No Impact. As noted in 3.8 “g)” above, the project is not located in a 100-year flood zone.
The proposed project is not subject to flooding and will not have an impact by redirecting or
impeding flood flows.
i) No Impact. There are no levees or dams upstream of the project that will 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 will
impact the site due to a seiche. The site is approximately twenty miles east of the Pacific
Ocean and will not be impacted by a tsunami. The site and the surrounding areas are flat
and not exposed to mudslides.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.9 Land Use and Planning
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?
17 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06037C1665FF, September 26,
2008.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 51
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 construct a mixed-use project with 7,520 square feet of retail on the
first floor and 35 residential units on the second through fourth floors. The project will not
divide the established surrounding community.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Rosemead General Plan designates the site as
Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) as shown in Figure 14, Land Use
Map. As shown in Figure 15, Zoning Map the zoning for the site is C-3-MUDO-D (Medium
Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-use and Design Overlays). The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for the site and will not
require a General Plan Amendment or zone change.
General Plan
The Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use designation allows a
maximum development of 26 units on the site18 and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.6:1 with
up to 60,912 square feet of development. The project proposes 35 residential units,
including six low-income (affordable) units that total 44,400 square feet of residential use
and 7,520 square feet of retail use on the first floor for a total development of 51,920 square
feet. The project proposes a FAR of 1.4:1, which is less than the maximum 1.6:1 FAR
allowed for the site by the Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use.
The project is consistent with the current Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3
stories) land use designation.
Zoning
The project is consistent with and meets the standards for development in the RC-MUDO
zone, including the height of the building. The height of the proposed four-story building is
50 feet and with the proposed 5-foot parapet the total building height is 55 feet. The project
applicant is requesting a concession to allow the development of the proposed 55 foot
building in the RC-MUDO zone with a maximum allowed building height of 45 feet. Other
than the requested building height concession, the project meets and complies with all other
applicable development standards, including minimum lot area, minimum lot width/depth,
setbacks and floor area ratio (FAR).
Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Overlay (RCMUDO)
The purpose of the RCMUDO is to provide opportunities for well-designed development
projects that combine residential with nonresidential uses, including, retail, business
services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities
designated with the mixed-use land use designations in the City of Rosemead General Plan,
and consistent with the policy direction in the General Plan.19
18 Based on a 0.87-acre site and 30- du/acre.
19 RMC 17.28.010 C
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 14General Plan MapSource: City of RosemeadNProjectLocation
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Source: City of RosemeadNProjectLocationFigure 15Zoning Map
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 54
The intent of the RCMUDO is to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Create a viable, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity and
reduces dependence on the automobile, through a streetscape that is connected,
attractive, safe and engaging.
2. Provide complementary residential and commercial uses within walking distance of
each other.
3. Develop an overall urban design framework to ensure that the quality, appearance
and effects of buildings, improvements and uses are compatible with the City design
criteria and goals.
4. Create quality residential/commercial mixed-use development that maintains value
through buildings with architectural qualities that create attractive street scenes and
enhance the public realm.
5. Provide a variety of open space, including private, recreation areas and public open
space and parks.
6. Revitalize commercial corridors with residential/commercial mixed-use developments
that attract and encourage market-driven private investment.
7. Encourage parking solutions that are incentives for creative planning and sustainable
neighborhood design.
The RCMUDO is an overlay zone, which may be applied to existing zoning districts as
designated in the General Plan. The RCMUDO Zone district provides the option of
developing a property under the base zone district, or developing a residential/commercial
mixed-use development under the overlay zone. In this case, the RCMUDO zone is applied
to the C-3 zone and the project as proposed is consistent with the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium
Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay) Zone.
Residential/commercial mixed-use development shall combine and integrate residential
uses with commercial, institutional, and office uses utilizing a strong pedestrian orientation.
The mix of uses may be combined in a vertical residential/commercial mixed-use building or
combined in separate buildings located on one property and/or under unified control. The
mix of uses percentage shall be as designated in the General Plan.20
The types of uses allowed with the RCMUDO zone include a variety of commercial uses,
including retail stores and businesses as allowed by RMC 17.28.030. The retail and
business uses proposed for the project have not specifically been identified at this time.
However, all future approved business for the site would have to comply with the businesses
permitted by RMC 17.28.030.
Consistent with RMC 17.28.030 C-6, the proposed 35 residential units are located on three
floors above the proposed first floor of commercial use. The project, as proposed, meets
and complies with all of the applicable RCMUDO development standards, with the exception
20 RMC 17.28.030.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 55
of the types of commercial uses allowed for the site. As noted above, all allowed
commercial uses must meet the permitted uses in RMC 17.28.030.
Design Overlay
The purpose of the design overlay zone is to assure orderly development and that buildings,
structures, signs and landscaping will be harmonious within a specified area; to prevent the
development of structures or uses which are not of acceptable exterior design or
appearance or are of inferior quality or likely to have a depreciating or negative effect on the
local environment or surrounding area by reasons of use, design, appearance or other
criteria affecting value.21
The Design Overlay requires the precise plan for the project be approved by the City prior to
the issuance of a building permit. The design review of the precise development plan
includes architecture and design, number of stories, height, fences, landscape, color,
signage, proposed uses, mechanical equipment screening, etc.22. The review and approval
of the precise development plan in compliance with the design requirements of RMC
Chapter 17.28 would ensure the project meets the City’s design requirements for
development in the Design Overlay Zone.
Density Bonus
The project proposes six low-income units as part of the proposed 35 residential units that
allows the applicant a 35% density bonus. The proposed six low-income residential units
represents 23% of the 26 proposed units. While the C-3 zone allows a maximum of 26 units
for the site, the 35% density bonus along with the proposed six low-income units, the project
is allowed to develop up to 35 residential units. Therefore, with the density bonus the
project is consistent with the C-3 zoning.
Project Concessions
The 35% density bonus allows the project applicant up to two development concessions, if
necessary. Due to several site constraints, the project applicant is requesting two
concessions from the RCMUDO development standards.
1. The RCMUDO zone allows three stories and a maximum building height of 45
feet. The project proposes four stories, including a ground floor of retail use and
three stories of apartments above the ground floor of retail for a total overall
building height of 55 feet, which includes a 50-foot tall building and a 5-foot
parapet. The project applicant is requesting a building concession from three to
four stories and an overall building height of 55 feet rather than 45 feet.
2. The RCMUDO zone allows a maximum density of 67% of residential and 33% of
commercial use. The density proposed by the project totals 85.5% residential
and 14.5% commercial use. Therefore, the project exceeds and does not meet
the maximum ratio of residential and commercial use.
The project meets the development standards for the RCMUDO zone, with the exception of
the two requested concessions. Although the project is requesting two concessions, the
21 RMC 17.28.010.
22 RMC 17.28.010
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 56
project as proposed, including the allowance of the two development concessions as
allowed due to the 35% density bonus, would not result in any significant land use impacts.
The compliance of the project with all other required development standards would ensure
the project meets all requirements for development in the RCMUDO zone. The project is
not anticipated to have any significant land use impacts.
c) No Impact. The City does not have any areas with adopted habitat or natural community
conservation plans. The project will not impact any natural communities or conservation
plans since none exist on or adjacent to the project.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.10 Mineral Resources
Would the 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. The State Mining and Geology Board classify land in California on the
availability of mineral resources. There are four Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ)
designations for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources. According to
the Rosemead General Plan Update (Figure 4-2) the project site is within the MRZ-3. The
MRZ-3 classification states the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from
the available data. As Rosemead is completely urbanized and the State has not identified
any significant recoverable mineral resources, no mineral extraction activities are permitted
within the City limits. There are no mining activities on the site or the properties surrounding
and adjacent to the site. The project will not have a significant impact to mineral resources
of value to the region or residents of the state.
b) No Impact. Based on information in 3.10 “a)” above, there are no locally important
mineral resources in Rosemead, which includes the project site. The project will not impact
any locally important mineral resource.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 57
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.11 Noise
Would the project result in:
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?
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
A noise report23 was prepared and is included in Appendix E.
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is located in an urbanized area and
adjacent to Earle Avenue, which is a local roadway on the west side of the project and
Garvey Avenue on the south that is a Major Arterial. The existing noise levels on the site
are due to the on-site activities, traffic on Earle Avenue and Garvey Avenue and daily
activities of residential and commercial uses in the vicinity of the site.
Noise Standards
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. For regulated on-site sources of
noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes limits that are considered an
acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The L50
metric used in the Rosemead noise ordinance is the level exceeded 50% of the
23 Noise Impact Analysis, Garvey Earle Plaza, Giroux & Associates, May 30, 2017.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 58
measurement period of thirty minutes in an hour. One-half of all readings may exceed this
average standard with larger excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter
periods. The larger the deviation, the shorter the allowed duration up to a never-to-exceed
20 dB increase above the 50th percentile standard. Nighttime noise levels limits are reduced
by 5 dB to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise occurring during that time period.
The City L50 noise standard for residential uses is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.), and 45
dB at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). For commercial uses the L50 standard is 65 dB during the day (7
a.m. – 10 p.m.), and 60 dB at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). These noise standards for residential
and commercial uses are shown in Table 10. In the event that the ambient noise level
exceeds any of the noise standards, the standards shall be increased to reflect the ambient
noise level.
The Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with
heavy equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays, and
to not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line (8.36.030.A.3). Construction is not
permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays.
Table 10
Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits
(Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded)
Residential Use Commercial Use
Maximum Allowable
Duration of Exceedance
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
30 minutes/Hour (L50) 60 dB 45 dB 65 dB 60 dB
15 minutes/Hour (L25) 65 dB 50 dB 70 dB 65 dB
5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 70 dB
1 minute/Hour (L1) 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 75 dB
Never (Lmax) 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB
Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060
Baseline Noise Levels
Short term on-site noise measurements were made to document the existing baseline levels
at the site and the project area. The baseline noise levels are used as the basis to calculate
future noise levels by the project to the surrounding community and existing noise levels
from the community on the project.
Noise measurements were taken at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue in
close proximity to the site. The noise levels that were measured are shown in Table 11.
The noise measurement location is representative of the noise levels that exist along
Garvey Avenue adjacent to the project site and reflect the existing worst case on-site noise
levels. The measured noise levels were approximately 71-72 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the
centerline of Garvey Avenue. The City of Rosemead considers CNELS up to 70 dB to be
conditionally acceptable for residential use and requires a noise analysis.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 59
Table 11
Measured Noise Levels (dBA)
Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90
69 79 56 72 70 67 59
Off-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts
The long-term vehicle noise impacts of the project were determined using the California
specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (FHWA
Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108). Table 12 summarizes the
calculated 24-hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along project area
roadway segments under existing conditions and with the project. Four traffic scenarios
were evaluated; the 2019 existing conditions “with project” and “without project” and 2017
“with project” and “without project”.
Table 12
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
(dBA CNEL at 50 Feet from Centerline)
Segment Existing
No Project
Existing
With
Project
2019 No
Project
2019 With
Project
Hellman Ave San Gabriel-Gladys 62.4 62.4 62.5 62.5
Stallo-Willard 61.8 61.8 62.0 62.0
Willard-Walnut Grove 64.3 64.3 64.5 64.5
Garvey Ave/ Charlotte-Delta 71.5 71.6 71.8 71.9
Earle-Willard 70.9 71.0 71.2 71.2
San Gabriel Blvd/ N of I-10 72.6 72.6 72.8 72.8
N of Hellman 72.6 72.6 72.7 72.7
Hellman-Dorothy 69.6 69.6 69.7 69.8
Park-Garvey 69.5 69.5 69.6 69.7
Walnut Grove/ N of I-10 69.5 69.5 69.6 69.6
N of Hellman 69.2 69.2 69.3 69.3
Hellman-Dorothy 68.0 68.1 68.2 68.2
Dorothy-Garvey 68.2 68.2 68.3 68.3
Garvey-Fern 67.9 67.9 68.0 68.0
Delta Ave/ Garvey-Fern 60.3 60.6 61.1 61.3
Table 13 shows the change in the noise levels due specifically to the project. As shown, the
2019 project opening year noise levels do not significantly increase. The largest project
related noise level increase is +0.1 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the adjacent
roadways and most segments show no discernable noise level increase. Because the area
is built out, the addition of project traffic to area roadways does not significantly increase and
impact the existing traffic noise environment. The cumulative analysis compares the “future
with project” to “existing” conditions and shows a maximum noise level increase of +0.32 dB
CNEL at 50 feet from roadway centerlines.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 60
Table 13
Project Traffic Noise Level Increases*
(dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline)
Segment Existing
Impact
2019
Impact
Cumulative
Impact
Hellman Ave San Gabriel-Gladys 0.0 0.0 0.1
Stallo-Willard 0.0 0.0 0.1
Willard-Walnut Grove 0.0 0.0 0.2
Garvey Ave/ Charlotte-Delta 0.1 0.1 0.3
Earle-Willard 0.0 0.0 0.3
San Gabriel Blvd/ N of I-10 0.0 0.0 0.2
N of Hellman 0.0 0.0 0.1
Hellman-Dorothy 0.0 0.0 0.2
Park-Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.2
Walnut Grove/ N of I-10 0.0 0.0 0.1
N of Hellman 0.0 0.0 0.1
Hellman-Dorothy 0.0 0.0 0.2
Dorothy-Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.2
Garvey-Fern 0.0 0.0 0.1
Delta Ave/ Garvey-Fern 0.2 0.2 1.0
*May differ by +/- 0.1 due to rounding.
Under ambient conditions, people generally do not clearly perceive noise level changes until
there is a 3 dB difference. A threshold of 3 dB is commonly used to define "substantial
increase." An increase of +3 dBA CNEL in traffic noise would be considered a significant
impact. Based on the information in Table 14, the maximum noise level increase by the
project and cumulative projects is calculated to be +0.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the
roadway centerlines. Therefore, the project and the cumulative noise level impacts are less-
than-significant.
On-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts
Although the City of Rosemead guidelines allows exterior noise levels of up to 70 dB CNEL,
a noise level of 65 dB is the level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with one's ability
to carry on a normal conversation at reasonable separation without raising one's voice. A
noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is typically the exterior noise land use compatibility guideline
for new residential dwellings in California.
The noise level on the site adjacent to Garvey Avenue is calculated to reach 72 dB CNEL at
50 feet from roadway centerline. The proposed residential units along Garvey Avenue have
balconies that front Garvey Avenue. The closest residential patios are approximately 60
feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. At 60 feet, the exterior noise level is estimated
to be 71 dB CNEL. If the patios of the units that front Garvey Avenue are required to meet
the established 65 dBA CNEL noise threshold, noise mitigation would be required. In this
case, a shield would break the line-of-sight between the receiver and noise source. A
transparent 5.5’ tall plexi-glass wall would reduce noise levels to 66 dBA CNEL and still
allow views by the residents through the plexi-glass.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 61
The central garden and recreational facility proposed for the north side of the building is
protected from off-site noise by the perimeter structures such that noise levels are calculated to
be less than 65 dBA CNEL.
The interior residential noise standard is 45 dB CNEL. For typical wood-framed construction
with stucco and gypsum board wall assemblies, the exterior to interior noise level reduction
is as follows:
Partly open windows – 12 dB
Closed single-paned windows – 20 dB
Closed dual-paned windows – 30 dB
The use of dual-paned windows for new residential construction is required by the California
Building Code (CBC) for energy conservation. The interior noise standards of the proposed
units will be met as long as the residents have the option to close their windows. Where
window closure is necessary to reduce exterior noise, supplemental ventilation is required
by the CBC with some specified gradation of fresh air. Central air conditioning or a fresh air
inlet on a whole house fan would meet this requirement.
Because the project commercial uses are not proposed to be occupied on a 24-hour basis,
the exterior noise exposure standard for less sensitive land uses is generally less stringent.
Unless a commercial project includes a noise-sensitive use, such as outdoor dining, the
potential noise exposure and noise impact is generally not considered a commercial facility
siting constraint for typical project area noise levels. Since the project does not propose any
outdoor commercial dining space, the proposed commercial uses are not anticipated to be
significantly impacted by either existing or future noise levels.
Site Operational Noise
The daily operations of the project will generate a variety of noises from a several sources.
In areas where commercial and residential uses share a common property line, it is often not
the overall magnitude of the noise that leads to noise impacts, but rather some unique
aspect of the noise event that causes a noise impact. Early morning deliveries and back-up
alarms are several sources that can create noise impacts in a mixed-use environment. Also,
late evening commercial activities, such as clean-up operations when trash is dumped, etc.
can generate noise and impact on-site and adjacent residents. Refuse collection vehicles
could be restricted to daytime hours to reduce potential commercial noise activities to on-
and off-site residents.
All residential uses require sufficient distance separation from commercial buildings to
prevent HVAC mechanical equipment on building roofs from being a nuisance. If not
possible, the HVAC equipment will need to be shielded. A typical HVAC equipment noise
level is 50 dB at 10 feet from the source. The City’s daytime noise standard is 46 dB L50 and
the nighttime residential ordinance standard is 45 dB L50. The 45 dB L50 standard is met
approximately 30 feet from a single mechanical equipment source. Multiple mechanical
units may have a larger noise impact “envelope.” The operation of multiple HVAC or other
mechanical equipment units, therefore, must be screened from a direct line-of-sight to any
off-site residences.
Ingress and egress for the project is from Earle Avenue at the west project boundary. The
main project drive aisle is approximately 50 feet from the nearest sensitive use, which are
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 62
the residences adjacent to and north of the site. The project proposes a 6-foot wall along
the north property line that will attenuate noise from the parking area to the residents to the
north. According to the traffic report, the peak morning and afternoon traffic volume is 25
vehicles entering or leaving the site. The noise level associated with 25 vehicles is 44 dB
Leq at a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The proposed 6-foot wall would reduce noise by 5
dB with a resulting noise level of 39 dB at the residents immediately north of the site. This
noise level is below the 60 dB city noise standard.
The project includes a retail and restaurant use on the first level. The noise generated by
the use of the retail space is not anticipated to significantly impact any sensitive land use
adjacent to the site. Similarly, the noise from the use of the proposed restaurant use is
controlled by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which typically requires conditions to
minimize noise impacts to area sensitive uses. Although the exact mix of commercial
tenants is unknown at this time, city mechanisms are in place to ensure that the users of the
commercial space will meet and comply with the city’s noise ordinance.
The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce noise impacts to less-than-
significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 17 Project related operational hours for the following activities are
recommended to be restricted as follows:
There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries
between the hours of 10 p.m. to 9 a.m.
Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between
the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is
restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. adjacent to a
residential property line.
Construction activities are restricted by the City of
Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is
not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use
(residences north of the site), construction noise can be
minimized with the implementation of the following
conditions:
• All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
• Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that
will create the greatest distance between construction-
related noise sources and the noise-sensitive receptors
nearest the project site during all project construction.
• Haul truck and other construction-related trucks
traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted
to the same hours specified for the operation of
construction equipment.
• To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall
not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential
dwellings.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 63
Mitigation Measure No. 18 An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the
issuance of a building permit to show that all balconies facing
Garvey Avenue have a transparent glass or plastic shield to
create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating
motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through
the earth or solid objects rather than the air. Unlike noise, vibration is typically at a
frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural (e.g., earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, sea waves, or landslides) or man-made (e.g., explosions, the action of
heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trains).
Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over
unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground-borne
vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of
items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Within the “soft” sedimentary
surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped. Because
vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance
thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction
projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco)
rather than to human annoyance.
As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude
may be characterized in three ways, including displacement, velocity, and acceleration.
Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its
original position and, for the purposes of soil displacement, is typically measured in inches
or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per
second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with
respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically,
particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration
(measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration.
Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a
vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of
vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows:
65 VdB - threshold of human perception
72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events
80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events
100 VdB - minor cosmetic damage
A vibration descriptor commonly used to determine structural damage is the peak particle
velocity (ppv), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of
the vibration signal, usually measured in in/sec. Vibration ranges are shown in Table 14.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 64
Table 14
Human Response To Transient Vibration
Average Human Response ppv (in/sec)
Severe 2.000
Strongly perceptible 0.900
Distinctly perceptible 0.240
Barely perceptible 0.035
Source: Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013.
To determine the potential vibration impacts of project construction activities, estimates of
vibration levels induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented in
Table 15.
Table 15
Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities
Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)*
Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet
Large Bulldozer 87 81 75 69
Loaded Truck 86 80 74 68
Jackhammer 79 73 67 61
Small Bulldozer 58 52 46 40
* (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 1995)
According to Caltrans, the threshold for structural vibration damage for modern structures
is 0.5 in/sec for intermittent sources, which include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick
compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction
equipment. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) (1990) identifies maximum vibration levels for preventing damage to structures
from intermittent construction or maintenance activities for residential buildings in good
repair with gypsum board walls to be 0.4–0.5 in/sec. The damage threshold criterion of 0.2
in/sec is appropriate for fragile buildings. Below this level there is virtually no risk of building
damage. The estimated vibration levels generated by construction equipment are shown
below in Table 16.
Table 16
Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction
Equipment
PPV
at 15 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV
at 25 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV
at 50 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV
at 60 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV
at 75 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV
at 100 ft.
(in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.191 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011
Loaded trucks 0.152 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010
Jackhammer 0.070 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004
Small Bulldozer 0.006 0.003 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.000
Source: FHWA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
The closest residence to the project is the residence adjacent to and north of site, which is
approximately 25 feet from the closest building façade of the project. At 15’, the calculated
vibration levels generated by the project construction equipment would be below levels
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 65
that create structural damage in fragile buildings (i.e., 0.2 in/sec). However, effects of
vibration perception such as rattling windows could occur at the nearest residences. The
Palms Motel is adjacent to and extends along the east project boundary. Only large dozers
would generate vibration levels that could impact residents of the motel.
Any grading along and near the north and east property lines should be performed with
small bulldozers, which are shown above in Table 16 to have less than 30 VdB vibration. To
ensure adequate vibration annoyance protection, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce construction activity vibration impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 19 Small bulldozers only shall be permitted to operate within 25
feet of the north and east property lines.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.11 “a)” above, project
generated noise must comply with the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance in terms of the
allowable noise levels crossing the boundary between the two uses, including noise from the
movement of vehicles on private property. The specific noise limits that are considered an
acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources were shown
in Table 11. As shown in Table 14 earlier, the project generated noise levels are not
projected to increase significantly and impact area residents or businesses. Thus, the
project will not significantly change or increase the existing levels of noise that exist on the
site. The project will not have a substantial permanent increase in the existing (ambient)
noise levels on or adjacent to the site.
There will be noise generated within the parking structure. The noise that is typically
associated with a parking structure include car starts, car doors shutting, people talking, car
alarms, car horns, tire squeal, and cars entering and leaving the structure. Based on the
estimated noise levels, the proposed 6-foot wall along the north property line will reduce
noise within the parking structure and not significantly impact resident’s north of the project.
The noise generated by the project is not anticipated to substantially increase the ambient
noise level either on the site or the immediate vicinity of the site and significantly impact
area residents. The potential noise impacts of the project will be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate short-term noise during project
demolition of the existing site improvements and grading and construction of the project,
including site improvements. Figure 16 shows the typical range of construction equipment
noise during various construction phases. The earth-moving sources are seen to be the
noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 95 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source.
Existing buildings and other noise barriers to interrupt line-of-sight conditions, the potential
“noise envelope” around individual construction sites is reduced.
The Noise Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with
heavy equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays, and
to not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line (8.36.030.A.3). Construction is not
permitted on Sunday or a federal holiday. Construction noise impacts can be mitigated to
less than significant by compliance with RMC 8.36.030 A.3 that restricts construction from 7
AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday and no construction on Sunday or a federal holiday.
e) No Impact. The closest airport is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4 miles
northeast of the site. Operations at the El Monte Airport will not expose project residents,
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 66
FIGURE 16
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 67
employees or customers to excessive noise levels. The project will not be impacted by or
impact operations at the El Monte Airport
f) No Impact. See response to 3.11 “e” above.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.12 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
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
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to replace the existing commercial
buildings and residences on the site with a mixed-use building consisting of retail space and
35 apartments. The 35 apartments include 26 two-bedroom apartments and 9 one-bedroom
apartments. Based on the type of units proposed, it is anticipated that many of the future
project residents are existing Rosemead residents and currently live in Rosemead. Any
existing Rosemead residents that move to and relocate from their existing residence in
Rosemead to the project will not increase the city’s population. For those future project
residents that live outside Rosemead and move to the site, the city’s population is not
anticipated to increase significantly.
However, at this time, it is not anticipated that a significant number of the project residents
currently live outside Rosemead and when they move to the site will significantly increase
the population of the city. As a result, the project is not anticipated to substantially increase
or induce a population growth in Rosemead. The project will have a less-than-significant
impact to the population of Rosemead.
b) No Impact. The project will require the demolition of commercial building and two existing
single-family residences on the site. The existing residents will be displaced and required to
find suitable replacement housing in Rosemead, or other areas. The displacement of the
families that currently reside on the site will not require the construction of replacement
housing because comparable replacement housing is available in Rosemead. The project,
once constructed, could provide suitable housing for the families that will be displaced by
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 68
the project. The City of Rosemead Housing Department provides various forms of housing
assistance and is available to assist any project residents that are displaced. The City
Housing Department can assist to provide replacement rental housing, senior housing,
down payment assistance, and other assistance to find suitable replacement housing in
Rosemead.
As of April 1, 2010, Rosemead had a total of 14,805 residential units, including single-family
detached, single-family attached, apartments and mobile homes and a vacancy rate of
3.8%.24 Based on a 3.8% vacancy rate, in 2010 there were approximately 562 vacant
residential units city-wide available for purchase or rent. Assuming the vacancy rate in
Rosemead is still 3.8%, or close to this vacancy rate, there is an adequate supply of vacant
housing in Rosemead to provide suitable replacement housing for the residents that would
be displaced by the project. Therefore, the existing housing that would be demolished by
the project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing.
c) No Impact. As noted in 3.12 “(b)” above, there is suitable housing in Rosemead for the
families that will be displaced by the project without the need to construct suitable
replacement housing. The apartments that are proposed by the project could provide
replacement housing for the displaced families once the apartments are constructed. The
project would have less than significant impacts to the displaced family.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.13 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department. Replacing the existing older building on the site with a new
building that meets all applicable California Building Codes (CBC) could reduce the need for
fire protection services at the site by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the future.
As a result, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the Los Angeles
County Fire Department.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Police protection services are provided by the
Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The Temple Sheriff’s Station located at 8838 Las
24 California Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 4/1/2010.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 69
Tunas Drive serves the project site. Compared to the existing condition, the project is
anticipated to increase calls for police protection due to more people and increased activity
on the site. The incorporation of security measures, such as surveillance cameras, proper
lighting, and secure doors and windows will minimize the increase in service calls to the Los
Angeles County Sheriff Department.
The incorporation of the following measure will reduce police protection impacts to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 20 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the project
developer shall install surveillance cameras, proper lighting
and secure doors and windows to the satisfaction of the Los
Angeles County Sheriff Department.
c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is in the Garvey School District.
The development of 46 residential units will generate students to schools in the District. The
District does not have a student generation rate for the types of residential units proposed.
Typically, multi-family residences generate fewer students than single-family detached
residences. The District does not differentiate between single-family detached units and
multi-family units in terms of student generation.
The District collects a development fee for residential and commercial development. The
student impact fee is used by schools to provided additional classrooms to accommodate
the students generated by residential and commercial/industrial development projects. The
project developer will be required to pay the State mandated student impact fee to the
District before building permits are issued for construction. The following mitigation measure
is recommended to mitigate the impact of the students generated by the project to the
Garvey Unified School District to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 21 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer
shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey
Unified School District.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is required to provide 5,250 square
feet of common outdoor open space. The project proposes approximately 8,500 square feet
of common open space in the form of a courtyard, library, recreation center and
landscaping, or 3,250 square feet more common open space than required. The project is
also required to provide 2,100 square feet of private open space and the project proposes
3,166 square feet, or 1,066 more square feet of private open space in the form of private
decks and covered balconies than required by the Municipal Code. The private open space
also includes the private balconies for each apartment. Therefore, the project will exceed
the amount of public and private open space that is required for the site.
It is anticipated that any existing Rosemead residents that move to the project will not
significantly increase their use of City park and recreational facilities. For those residents
that move to the site from outside Rosemead, there could be an increase in the use of City
park and recreational facilities. It is anticipated that most of the project residents will not use
City park and recreational facilities to a level that will significantly impact the existing
facilities.
The project developer will be required to pay the city-required park fee of $880 per
apartment as required by RMC 12.44.020. The park fee will be used by the City to provide
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 70
new park and recreational facilities or upgrade existing facilities for use by the residents.
The following mitigation measure is recommended to mitigate project impacts to City park
and recreational facilities to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 22 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer
shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead.
e) No Impact. There are no activities associated with the project that will require or need
public facilities or result in an impact to public facilities.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.14 Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
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
a) No Impact. The residents of the project could increase the use of and impact existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities in Rosemead or other
community in the area. The project residents could increase the use of area parks and
include Zapopan Park, a neighborhood park that is less than a quarter mile north of the site.
Other parks in Rosemead that would be available to project residents include Rosemead
Park and as well as other neighborhood and mini parks. Rosemead also has the 3.5 acre
Jess Gonzales Sports Complex park that is available for use by its residents. Rosemead
residents can also use the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, which is a 1,000 regional park
and located southeast of Rosemead and provides a mixture of recreational opportunities
including a golf course, fishing, shooting ranges, picnic areas, etc.
As discussed in Section 3.13 “d)” above, the project does not propose to provide any public
park or recreational facilities and payment of the required park fee will be used by the City to
provide public recreational facilities that can be used by the project residents. The project is
not anticipated to have any recreational impacts with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure
No. 22.
Mitigation Measure No. 23 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer
shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead.
b) No Impact. As discussed in 3.14 “a)” above, the project does not propose to construct
any recreational facilities. Therefore, the project will not construct new or expand any
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 71
existing city recreational facilities that could have a physical effect on the environment. The
project will not have any recreational facility construction impacts.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.15 Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
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 report was prepared for the project by Stantec and is included in Appendix F.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic study estimates the project will generate
approximately 740 average daily vehicle trips, including 48 AM peak hour trips and 66 PM
peak hour trips as shown in Table 17.
The project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase and completed in 2019.
Baseline 2019 traffic volumes, the estimated opening year of the project, were developed by
factoring existing 2017 volumes by an ambient growth rate of 1% and then adding traffic
from future cumulative development projects in the area.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 72
Table 17
Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Split
Split
Land Use Unit
ITE Land
Code Quantity Rate Rate In Out Rate In Out
1. Apartment DU 220 35 6.65 0.51 20% 80% 0.62 65% 35%
2. Retail SF 820 5,320 42.70 0.96 62% 38% 3.71 48% 52%
3. Restaurant SF 932 2,200 127.15 11.52 52% 48% 10.92 61% 39%
Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume Volume
Land Use Quantity
ADT
Total In Out Total In Out
1. Apartment 35
233
18 4 14 22 14 8
2. Retail 5,320
227
5 3 2 20 10 10
3. Restaurant 2,200
280
25 13 12 24 15 9
Total 740 48 20 28 66 39 27
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 73
As a mixed-use development, some internal trip capture can be expected such as tenants
patronizing the proposed commercial uses. The credit of the internal trips would reduce the
number of external trips occurring on the surrounding roadway network. For mixed-use
projects like the proposed project, internal capture rates of 9% and 39% for the AM and PM
peak hours are acceptable. However, for the worst case condition, no internal trip capture
was considered in the traffic analysis. Although the project site is served by public transit
and proposes on-site bike stalls and is within walking distance of other residential
development in the immediate area, the traffic study assumed that all external trips arrive by
motor vehicle. As a result, the estimated project trip generation reflects a worst-case
condition.
The traffic report studied 10 area intersections as shown in Figure 17. The ten studied
intersections include:
1. San Gabriel at I-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled);
2. San Gabriel Boulevard at I-10 Eastbound Ramps (stop controlled);
3. San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue (signalized);
4. San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue (signalized);
5. Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized);
6. Walnut Grove Avenue at I-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled);
7. Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue (signalized);
8. I-10 Eastbound off-ramp at Hellman Avenue (signalized);
9. Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); and
10. Walnut Grove Avenue at Fern Avenue (signalized).
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Figure 18 shows the distribution and assignment of the estimated traffic by the project. As
shown, 10% of the project traffic is assigned to/from both the east and west via the I-10
Freeway with 20% each assigned to/from the east and west on Garvey Avenue. Ten
percent (10%) and 15% of the estimated project traffic is assigned to/from the north and
south, respectively, along San Gabriel Boulevard. Five percent (5%) of the project traffic
each is assigned to/from the north and south via Walnut Grove Avenue and 5% to/from
Delta Avenue to the south.
Project Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement and Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes
Based on the estimated trip generation and project trip distribution, the project traffic
volumes are shown in Figures 19 and 20 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
To evaluate the levels of service at the 10 study area intersections with Existing 2017 and
Baseline 2019 with project conditions, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method
was used to evaluate the existing and future levels of service (LOS) for signalized
intersections and the LOS for unsignalized intersection was determined by the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations method. The target level of service to be
maintained throughout the project study area has been established by the City of Rosemead
as Level of Service D.
All of the studied stop-controlled intersections are located within the I-10 Freeway
interchange corridor and operated by Caltrans. The HCM operations method is consistent
with Caltrans requirements for unsignalized intersection analysis. The 2000 HCM
operations level of service method is based on worst-case delay for the controlled
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 17Study Area IntersectionsSource: StantecN
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Stantec
N Figure 18Project Trip Distribution
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 19Project AM Peak TripsSource: StantecN
GARVEY EARLE PLAZA | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 20Project PM Peak Hour TripsSource: StantecN
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 78
approaches. However, Caltrans uses average control delay as the basis of LOS and
generally significantly lower than worst-case delay. Therefore, the delay and LOS
associated with both values are shown for the studied unsignalized intersections.
Baseline 2017 with Project Conditions
Table 18 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the study area
intersections with the existing 2017 conditions. As shown, all of the studied intersections
currently operate at LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours with the exception of
San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue. This intersection currently operates at LOS E in
the PM peak hour.
Table 19 shows the results of the intersection level of service analysis for the Baseline 2019
conditions both with and without the project. In Table 18, the Baseline 2019 peak hour
volumes with the project shows that all of the intersections will continue to operate at LOS D
or better, with the exception of San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue that will operate at
LOS E during the PM peak hour, which is the same as the current condition.
Roadway Capacities
The existing weekday 24-hour traffic volumes on Garvey Avenue are approximately 27,000
and 29,000 vehicles per day to the east and west of the project, respectively. These
volumes are below capacity of this roadway (approximately 40,000 vehicles per day). The
weekday 24-hour volume along San Gabriel Boulevard south of the I-10 Freeway is
approximately 33,000 vehicles per day. The capacity of San Gabriel Boulevard is
approximately 40,000 vehicles per day along the segment adjacent to the site. The existing
weekday volumes on Walnut Grove Avenue vary from approximately 19,800 vehicles per
day south of Garvey Avenue to 30,500 vehicles per day at the I-10 Freeway interchange.
Walnut Grove Avenue has a daily capacity of approximately 30,000 vehicles. The existing
volumes on Delta Avenue and Fern Avenue are below the approximate 5,000 vehicles per
day capacity of these local streets.
The Baseline 2019 weekday 24-hour volumes on the roadways surrounding the project are
forecast to remain below theoretical capacity, except for traffic volumes on San Gabriel
Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue within the I-10 interchange areas. The forecast
Baseline 2019 volumes in the interchange areas are above capacity of the roadways based
on regular cross-sections within the City of Rosemead. However, it would not be unusual for
these roadways to carry higher volumes within the interchange area due to the presence of
unrestricted turning movements at freeway on-ramps.
The roadways adjacent to the project are calculated to operate below their capacity based
on 24-hour traffic volumes for the Baseline 2019 condition with the project, except for the
San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue intersection. However, as previously
discussed, the actual daily roadway capacities in these areas are anticipated to be
somewhat higher than the theoretical capacities used in the V/C analysis because of the
unrestricted ramp turning movements.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 79
Table 18
Existing (2017) Level of Service at Study Area Intersections
ICU LOS ICU LOS
3. San Gabriel Blvd / Hellman Ave
Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing (2017)
0.74
1a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)1.7 A 3.9
0.81
0.54
7. Walnut Grove Ave / Hellman Ave
5. Delta Ave / Garvey Ave
4. San Gabriel Blvd / Garvey Ave
8. I-10 EB Ramps / Hellman Ave
Existing (2017)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
0.65 B
D
A
E
A
0.75 C 0.83
0.56
D
C
A
0.85
C0.75
0.94
0.65
D
B
Unsignalized Intersections
0.74 C
0.52 A 0.55
9. Walnut Grove Ave / Garvey Ave
10. Walnut Grove Ave / Fern Ave
D
4.5
27.3
1b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
2a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
2b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
6. Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps (HCM - Sec/Delay)
2.8
8.4
A
A
A
A
C
A
Avg. Delay
(Sec/Veh)LOS Avg. Delay
(Sec./Veh)LOS
3.3
15.8
A2.1
1.5 A
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 80
Table 19
Baseline (2019) Level of Service at Study Area Intersections
With and Without Project
ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
LOSAvg. Delay
(Sec/Veh)LOS Avg. Delay
(Sec/Veh)LOS Avg. Delay
(Sec/Veh)LOS
E4. San Gabriel Blvd / Garvey Ave - Future CIP Imps (Add 1 EB/WB thru lane)0.81
Unsignalized Intersections
1a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
1b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
2a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
Baseline (2019)
4.5 A
9.7
32.418.7
Signalized Intersections
7. Walnut Grove Ave / Hellman Ave
8. I-10 EB Ramps / Hellman Ave
9. Walnut Grove Ave / Garvey Ave
10. Walnut Grove Ave / Fern Ave
4. San Gabriel Blvd / Garvey Ave
Avg. Delay
(Sec/Veh)
5. Delta Ave / Garvey Ave
AM Peak Hour Baseline plus Project (2019)PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
0.77 C
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
0.77 C0.77 C
0.85 D 0.96
0.77
Baseline (2019)
0.85 D
0.78 C 0.83 D
Baseline plus Project (2019)
0.78 C 0.84 D
0.67 B 0.67
E
0.57 A 0.59 A
C
AM Peak Hour
3. San Gabriel Blvd / Hellman Ave
0.67 B 0.66 B
0.98 E
0.57 A 0.61 B
B
0.89 D
0.56 A
0.77 C 0.89 D
0.53 A
0.79 C
0.56 A 0.53 A
2b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
6. Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps (HCM - Sec/Delay)
2.0 A 4.5 A
C18.6
3.4 A
2.0 A
2.2 A 4.9 A A
1.6 A 3.0 A 1.6 A A
C
A3.49.6 A
D32.2
A
D
0.93 E
3.1
2.2 A 4.9
0.81 D 0.94D
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 81
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
A traffic signal warrant analysis based on peak hour volumes was performed for the studied
non-signalized study area intersections for both the existing 2017 with the project condition
and the baseline 2019 with the project condition. The Walnut Grove Avenue at the Caltrans
I-10 westbound off-ramp signal was satisfied for both the AM and PM peak hours for the
existing 2017 conditions and for all subsequent scenarios. The conclusion of this traffic
signal warrants indicates more rigorous 4-hour and 8-hour signal warrants may be justified
for the existing condition at this intersection. However, project traffic will not impact this
intersection and no mitigation is required.
The project traffic will not cause any of the studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable
level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to
operate within their design capacity. The project traffic will have less than significant traffic
impacts.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.15 “a)” above, the project is estimated
to generate 740 daily vehicle trips. The traffic report reference 2019 as the traffic analysis
baseline based on the date the project is scheduled to be completed and operational. The
2019 baseline traffic volumes were calculated by factoring the existing 2017 traffic volumes
with an ambient growth rate of 1% and traffic from the cumulative development projects in
the project area. The 2019 cumulative traffic volumes were used to determine the potential
project traffic impact to the area transportation system. The 2019 traffic volumes shown
previously in Figures 22 and 23 take into the account the 1% estimated growth in area traffic
and traffic from the cumulative projects. As discussed in Section 3.15 “a” above, the project
will not have any significant cumulative traffic impacts. All area intersections will continue to
operate at City acceptable levels of service with the project and the four cumulative projects.
The project will not cause any roadways or intersections to exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, their current level of service. As a result, the project will have less than
significant cumulative traffic impacts to any area intersections that serve the project.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by Metro bus lines 70 and 770
and Rosemead Explorer fixed-route shuttle service. There are existing bus stops in close
proximity to the project at the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection of Delta
Avenue and Garvey Avenue with concrete bus pads and bus shelters. There are no bus
stops along the project frontage on Garvey Avenue.
The project will not impact the existing bus stops on Garvey Avenue at Delta Avenue. The
project does not propose to construct or install any new bus stops along the project frontage
on Garvey Avenue. Project residents and retail tenants and customers can use the two
existing bus shelters south of the site on Garvey Avenue for site access. The two existing
bus shelters will encourage residents, retail employees, and customers to use public
transportation to travel to and from the project. In addition, the project proposes a total of
fourteen (14) bicycle stalls, including seven (7) on the ground floor and seven (7) in the level
parking as required by the RCMUDO zone overlay for a viable alternative for the use of
motor vehicles.
The project will not have any significant conflicts or impacts with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation. The project will have a positive impact by
provided the required bicycle parking stalls as required by the City.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 82
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will be served by the existing
adjacent streets and intersection without any changes or modifications. The project does
not propose to change or modify any curves or other existing features to the adjacent streets
that would create a traffic hazard.
The project access driveway at Earle Avenue and the parking aisles of the parking area are
configured for adequate traffic ingress/egress and traffic volume movement throughout the
parking area in accordance with applicable agency standards. Sight distance requirements
at the project driveway at Earle Avenue and the Earle Avenue at Garvey Avenue
intersection meets agency standards. The parking proposed by the project exceeds the
required parking spaces by the City parking code.
Because of potential height restriction of 8’6” to enter the parking area from Earle Avenue,
its proximity to area residences and to mitigate potential on-site circulation impacts, the
following measures are recommended to mitigate potential circulation impacts associated
with commercial deliveries to the proposed on-site commercial uses.
Mitigation Measure No. 24 All delivery vehicles entering and exiting the site shall have a
maximum height of 8’6”.
Mitigation Measure No. 25 No vehicle deliveries shall occur between the hours of 10 PM
to 9 AM.
Mitigation Measure No. 26 All delivery vehicles shall park in the designated loading area
located on the ground-level commercial parking area.
All project driveways must meet City driveway standards for adequate site access and site
distance. The following mitigation measure will ensure the project driveways meet City
driveway standards and reduce traffic hazard impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 27 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer
shall design the two project driveways in compliance with City
driveway standards for site access and site distance.
On-Site Circulation
The proposed project driveways and parking aisles are appropriately sized and configured
for the project volumes and must meet City of Rosemead design standards before a building
permit will be issued. In addition, sight-distance requirements at the project driveways must
meet City design standards before issuance of a building permit.
The height of the entry at the driveway from Earle Avenue to the subterranean parking and
the ramp at the west side of the project to the subterranean level will restrict the height of
vehicles that can safely access the subterranean parking structure, including delivery
vehicles for the retail/commercial uses. Because of the restricted driveway heights, the
following measures are recommended to reduce potential impacts associated with delivery
vehicles to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 28 All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Delta
Avenue shall have a maximum height of 8’6”.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 83
To ensure that retail/commercial deliveries do not impact the parking spaces that are
designed for customers and employees, the following measure is recommended to reduce
delivery vehicle loading area impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 29 All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated
Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in 3.15 “d” above, the project proposes a single
ingress/egress driveway to the site from Earle Avenue. The proposed driveway from Earle
Avenue will provide adequate ingress and egress for the police and fire departments and
other emergency equipment to enter the site in case of an emergency. The proposed
driveway will be required to meet City building standards prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The project does not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency
access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. The site plan was reviewed
and approved by the City’s Traffic Consultant and the Los Angeles County Fire Department
to ensure that site access complies with all emergency access standards. Based on site
plan review by the City’s Traffic Consultant and Los Angeles County Fire Department, the
project will not have any significant emergency access impacts.
f) No Impact. The project proposes 116 parking spaces, including 70 residential spaces
and 46 commercial spaces. The total parking count also includes four handicap spaces and
one delivery truck (loading) space. The City parking code (RMC Chapter 17.112.040)
requires 105 total parking spaces, including handicap and delivery trucks. The project
proposes 11 parking spaces more than required by the City parking code. The project also
proposes 14 bicycle spaces with seven spaces on the first floor and seven bicycle spaces
on the subterranean parking level to encourage the use of bicycles by project residents and
the commercial uses. The project exceeds the four bicycle spaces required for the project
by RMC 12.32.030. The project meets the motor vehicle and bicycle parking requirements
of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The project will not have any parking impacts.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1 (k).?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 84
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
3.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As required by AB 52, the City mailed letters to
the area Native American Indians that are on record with the city that may have cultural
resources associated with the site. To date, only the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation responded to the City, or requested consultation on the project. In their May 9,
2017 letter, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation requested consultation
with the City of Rosemead. Based on information from Mr. Salas, the project site is within
the ancestral territory of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Although
the project site has been disturbed in the past with the development of the existing use on
the property, it is possible that areas of the site that were previously undisturbed could have
Tribal Cultural Resources that are important to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation. Since the project will require excavation up to approximately 20 feet below the
surface for the subterranean parking garage, it is possible that Tribal resources could exist
on the site.
On July 26, 2017, Mr. Cory Hanh with the City talked with Chairman Andrew Salas on the
telephone to discuss potential adverse effects to tribal resources that may exist on the site
and could be impacted during project development. The City subsequently submitted
mitigation measures to Chairman Salas for his review that could be applied to the project to
protect tribal resources, if present. The mitigation measures below are acceptable to
Chairman Salas and the City to protect Tribal Cultural Resources on the site and
recommended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 30 The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor
of Gabrieleño Ancestry to conduct a Native American Indian
Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to
commencement of any excavation activities. The training
session shall include a handout and focus on how to identify
Native American resources encountered during earthmoving
activities and the procedures followed if resources are
discovered, the duties of the Native American Monitor of
Gabrieleño Ancestry and the general steps the Monitor would
follow in conducting a salvage investigation.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 85
Mitigation Measure No. 31 The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor
of Gabrieleño Ancestry to be on-site during all project-related,
ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., pavement
removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing,
trenching, grubbing, and weed abatement) of previously
undisturbed native soils to a maximum depth of 30 feet below
ground surface, or the maximum depth of excavation. At their
discretion, a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry
can be present during the removal of dairy manure to native
soil, but not at the developers’ expense.
Mitigation Measure No. 32 A qualified archaeologist and a Native American Monitor of
Gabrieleño Ancestry shall evaluate all archaeological
resources unearthed by project construction activities. If the
resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall
coordinate with the developer regarding treatment and
curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If
archeological features are discovered, the archeologist shall
report such findings to the Rosemead Community
Development Director. If the archeological resources are
found to be significant, the archeologist shall determine the
appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City that shall be
taken for exploration and/or salvage in compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).
Mitigation Measure No. 33 Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the developer
shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of
the project for the respectful reburial of Tribal human remains
and/or ceremonial objects. All human skeletal material
discoveries shall be reported immediately to the County
Coroner. The Native American Monitor shall immediately
divert work a minimum of 50 feet from the discovery site and
place an exclusion zone around the burial. The Native
American Monitor shall notify the construction manager who
shall contact the Los Angeles County Coroner. All
construction activity shall be diverted while the Los Angeles
County Coroner determines if the remains are Native
American. The discovery shall be confidential and secure to
prevent further disturbance. If determined to be Native
American, the Los Angeles County Coroner shall notify the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as mandated
by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent.
In the case where discovered human remains cannot be
documented and recovered on the same day, the remains
shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be
moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 86
opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not
available, a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside working
hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to recommend
diverting the project and keep the remains in situ and
protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be
determined that burials will be removed. If data recovery is
approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken, which
includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and
sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be
approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes.
Cremations will either be removed in bulk or means necessary
to ensure complete recovery of all material. If the discovery of
human remains includes four (4) or more burials, the location
is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall
be created. The project developer shall consult with the Tribe
regarding avoidance of all cemetery sites. Once complete, a
final report of all activities shall be submitted to the NAHC.
Mitigation Measure No. 34 No scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics
shall be allowed to any Native American human remains.
Mitigation Measure No. 35 If the Los Angeles County Coroner determines the remains
represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial
shall be treated in the same manner of respect with agreement
of the Los Angeles County Coroner. Reburial will be in an
appropriate setting. If the Los Angeles County Coroner
determines the remains to be modern, the Los Angeles County
Coroner shall take custody of the remains.
Mitigation Measure No. 36 Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of
cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on
site if possible. These items shall be retained and reburied
within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation
shall be on the project site, but at a location agreed upon
between the Tribe and the developer and protected in
perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural
materials recovered.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As discussed in Section 3.16. a) above, there is
a potential for Tribal Cultural Resources to be present on the project site and exposed
during project construction. The recommended Mitigation Measures 30-36 in Section 3.16
a) above will reduce potential Native American cultural resource impacts to less than
significant.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 87
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Would 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?
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?
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) No Impact. The quality of the wastewater that would be generated by the mixed-use
project is not anticipated to include any materials that would cause the wastewater treatment
plant that would serve the project to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements
established by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will be
required to connect to the same public wastewater treatment system that currently serves
the site. The quality of wastewater that would be generated by the residential and
commercial uses proposed and allowed for the site by the Rosemead Municipal Code would
not impact the quality of wastewater of the receiving wastewater treatment plant and cause
the treatment plant to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements that are established
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will not impact wastewater
treatment requirements.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 88
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will consume more water and generate more
wastewater than the existing uses on the site due to more proposed development that the
existing uses on the property. The project is estimated to consume approximately 11,155
gallons of water per day and 10,971 gallons of wastewater per day as shown in Tables 20
and 21, respectively. The project water and wastewater needs can be accommodated by
the existing facilities and construction of new or expanded water or wastewater facilities will
not be required. The project will be required to install State mandated low flow water
fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The project will not
require the construction of any sewer or water lines and have any significantly
environmental impacts.
Table 20
Estimated Project Water Consumption
Use Units/Sq. Ft. Consumption Rate25 Consumption
Residential 46 units 160 gallons/day/unit 7,360 gallons/day
Retail 11,860 sq. ft. 320 gallons/day/1,000 sq. ft. 3,795 gallons/day
Total 11,155 gallons/day
Table 21
Estimated Project Wastewater Generation
Use Units/Sq. Ft. Generation Rate26 Generation
Residential 46 units 156 gallons/day/unit 7,176 gallons/day
Retail 11,860 sq. ft. 320 gallons/day/1,000 sq. ft. 3,795 gallons/day
Total 10,971 gallons/day
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.8 “a”, the project will not
generate more storm water runoff than the existing storm drain facilities can handle. The
project will not be required to construct any new off-site storm drain or surface water
collection facilities. The first ¾ of an inch of rainfall of any rainfall event will be retained and
discharged to a planter in the landscaping along the southern project boundary. The planter
area will treat the first ¾ inch of rainfall and allow percolation into the local groundwater.
The project will be required to retain on-site all increased surface water due to the project
with no increase in the amount of water generated from the site. Therefore, the project will
not require the construction of any storm water facilities and have a less-than-significant
impact to storm drain facilities.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water will be consumed by the retail stores, project
residents and landscape irrigation. The installation of State required low flow water fixtures
in the retail stores and residences will reduce the quantity of water that is consumed on-site.
The project will not have a significant impact on the local water supply or require new or
expanded water supplies.
e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate more wastewater to
the local sewer collection system than the current on-site uses. The project site is currently
served by an 8-inch sewer line in Garvey Avenue and the sewer line has capacity to serve
the proposed project. The project will be required to install State mandated low-flow water
25 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering.
26 County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No. 15, Service Charge Loadings, July 1, 2014-June 30, 2014.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 89
fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County has capacity to collect and treat the wastewater generated by the
project without the need to install large sewer lines or expand the capacity of the existing
wastewater treatment plant. The project is not anticipated to significantly impact the
capacity of the local wastewater treatment plant with the implementation of the following
mitigation measure to reduce wastewater impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 37 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first
residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project
developer shall install all State mandated low-flow water
fixtures.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate more solid waste from the site
than the current uses due to an increase in the amount of proposed development. The solid
waste from the project will be hauled to the Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
in the City of Whittier and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. The
MRF separates recyclable material from municipal solid waste and all residual waste is
hauled to permitted landfills and all recovered recyclable materials are recycled. The
Puente Hills MRF is permitted to accept up to 4,400 tons per day (8,800,000 pounds/day) of
municipal solid waste. The project is estimated to generate approximately 126 pounds per
day of solid waste27 of which approximately 50% is recycled and the remaining 50% is
hauled to a permitted landfill. The municipal solid waste generated by the project is not
anticipated to significantly impact the permitted capacity of any Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts landfills. Solid waste collection will be required to conform to RMC
17.74.050 B.7 in terms of collection hours, trash enclosures, screening, etc. The project will
not have any significant solid waste impacts.
g) No Impact. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and have
no solid waste regulation impact.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
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?
27 Based on a solid waste generate ration rate of 3.6 pounds/day/unit, California Department of Resources and
Recycling (CalRecycle), Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 90
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, the project will not have any impacts to special
status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration because no rare or
endangered plant or animals exist on the site. 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 property. As discussed
in Section 3.5, the project will not eliminate any examples of California history or prehistory
or substantially impact historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources since none of
these resources either exist or are suspected to exist on the site. 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, air
quality, noise, traffic, public service or public utility impacts due to the small scale of the
project. The project will not have any cumulative considerable impacts.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that will cause or
expose people to environmental effects. The development of the project as proposed will
not cause or have the potential to cause any adverse effects either directly or indirectly on
human beings.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Earle Plaza - Design Review 16-04
Page 91
4.0 REFERENCES
1. City of Rosemead General Plan, April 13, 2012
2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code
3. Giroux & Associates, Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Garvey Earle Plaza,
City of Rosemead, California, May 30, 2017.
4. Giroux & Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Garvey Earle Plaza, City of
Rosemead, California, May 30, 2017.
5. Stantec, Garvey Earle Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Rosemead,
California, May 2017.
6. DCI Environmental Services, Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, 8449
Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, June 5, 2017.
7. Cal Land Engineering, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4-
Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, April 4,
2017.
8. Cal Land Engineering, Hydraulic Calculations, 8449 Garvey Avenue, April 5,
2017.
9. OMB Electrical Engineers, Inc. Outdoor Lighting Study – Garvey Earle Plaza,
8449 Garvey Street, Rosemead, California, June 1, 2017.