PC - Item 3A - Exhibit B - Garvey Ave SP DEIR Vol I1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 | Riverside, CA 95207
951-787-9222 | www.migcom.com
V O L U M E I | MAY 2 0 1 7
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Draft Environmental Impact
Report
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific
Plan
GARVEY AVENUE CORRIDOR S PEC I F I C P L AN
DRAFT ENV IRONMENTA L I MPAC T REPOR T
MAY 2017
VOLUME 1
-This Document is Designed for Double-Sided Printing –
Please note: the reader is to assume that any pages left blank are as such with specific intent by the
document preparers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................. 1‐1 02 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................. 2‐2 03 Project Description............................................................................................................................................................... 3‐1 04 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4‐1 05 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5‐1 06 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................................................ 6‐1 07 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................................................... 7‐1 08 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................................ 8‐1 09 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................................................. 9‐1 10 Land Use and Planning..............................................................................................................................................10‐1 11 Noise...........................................................................................................................................................................................11‐1 12 Population and Housing ...........................................................................................................................................12‐1 13 Transportation and Traffic......................................................................................................................................13‐1 14 Utilities and Service Systems..................................................................................................................................14‐1 15 Alternatives...............................................................................................................................................................................15‐1 16 Analysis of Long Term Effects................................................................................................................................16‐1 17 Effects Found Not to Be Significant .....................................................................................................................17‐1 18 Preparation Team...................................................................................................................................................................18‐1
Appendix
A. Scoping Materials
B. Initial Study
C. Technical Memoranda Compendium
D. Air Quality & Climate Change Assessment
E. Cultural Resources Assessment
F. Noise Study
G. Traffic Impact & Freeway Analysis
List of Tables
Table 1‐1 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................................................................. 1‐1 Table 1‐2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ...................................................................................................... 1‐7 Table 1‐3 Less Than significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated………………………….…….……..1‐7 Table 1‐4 Less than Significant and No Impacts……………………………………….……………………..………1‐8 Table 2‐1 NOP Comments ............................................................................................................................................... 2‐11 Table 3‐1 Existing Development .................................................................................................................................. 3‐2 Table 3‐2 Existing Zoning Districts ............................................................................................................................ 3‐2 Table 3‐3 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning Districts and Land Uses………………….….…………3‐5 Table 3‐4 Development Potential ................................................................................................................................ 3‐6 Table 3‐5 EIR Development Assumptions............................................................................................................. 3‐10 Table 4‐1 Impact 4.A Determination Summary ..................................................................................................... 4‐13 Table 4‐2 Impact 4.B Determination Summary ..................................................................................................... 4‐13 Table 5‐1 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ............................................................................................... 5‐4 Table 5‐2 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary…………………………………………………..….….…5‐6 Table 5‐3 SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds (lbs/days)...................................................... 5‐16 Table 5‐4 Construction Development Thresholds……………………………………………………..…..……….…5‐21 Table 5‐5 Opportunity Sites Maximum Daily Construction Emissions…………………………..………...…5‐23 Table 5‐6 Development Scenario Operational Emissions ................................................................................ 5‐24 Table 5‐7 Operational Development Standards ................................................................................................... 5‐25 Table 5‐8 Specific Plan Build‐Out Net Operational Emissions ....................................................................... 5‐25 Table 5‐9 Impact 5.A Determination Summary .................................................................................................... 5‐27 Table 5‐8 Impact 5.B Determination Summary .................................................................................................... 5‐28 Table 5‐9 Impact 5.C Determination Summary ................................................................................................... 5‐29 Table 6‐1 Previously Conducted Cultural Reports Within the Planning Area………………..……….….6‐12 Table 6‐2 Vertebrate Fossil Localities in the Vicinity of the Planning Area……………………………..…………….…..6‐14 Table 6‐3 Impact 6.A Determination Summary .................................................................................................... 6‐18 Table 6‐4 Impact 6.B Determination Summary ......................................................................................... 6‐18 Table 6‐5 Impact 6.C Determination Summary ................................................................................................... 6‐19 Table 7‐1 Project‐Level Efficiency Standards…………………………………………………………………….….….7‐8 Table 7‐2 Development Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions……………………………………………….... 7‐10 Table 7‐3 Specific Plan Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................... 7‐12 Table 7‐4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduced Inventory .............................................................................. 7‐12 Table 7‐ 5 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary ................................................................................................... 7‐15 Table 7‐6 Impact 7.A Determination Summary .................................................................................................. 7‐18 Table 7‐7 Impact 7.B Determination Summary ................................................................................................... 7‐18 Table 8‐1 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks……………………………………………………………..…….…..8‐2 Table 9‐1 Current and Planned Water Supply for the South San Gabriel System (AFY) ..................... 9‐2 Table 9‐2 Impact 9.A Determination Summary ..................................................................................................... 9‐7 Table 10‐1 Garvey Avenue Baseline Land Use .................................................................................................... 10‐2 Table 11‐1 Ambient Noise Levels .............................................................................................................................. 11‐8 Table 11‐2 Existing Traffic Noise Contours........................................................................................................ 11‐12 Table 11‐3 Reference Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment............................ 11‐16 Table 11‐4 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria.................................................................. 11‐17 Table 11‐5 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria........................................................................ 11‐19 Table 11‐6 Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria.................................................................. 11‐20 Table 11‐7 Construction Noise ................................................................................................................................. 11‐29 Table 11‐8 West Gateway Construction Noise Levels..................................................................................... 11‐30 Table 11‐9 LA Auto Auction Site Construction Noise Levels....................................................................... 11‐31
Table 11‐10 Future 2035 CNEL Without Project Traffic Noise Contours………………………...…..…11‐33 Table 11‐11 Future 2035 CNEL with Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours ...................... 11‐34 Table 11‐12 Future 2035 CNEL Noise Level Increase.................................................................................... 11‐35 Table 11‐13 West Gateway Traffic Noise Level Impact................................................................................. 11‐40 Table 11‐14 LA Auto Auction Site Traffic Noise Level Impact………………………………………............. 11‐42 Table 11‐15 Common Construction Vibration .................................................................................................. 11‐43 Table 11‐16 Maximum Future Vibration Impacts ........................................................................................... 11‐44 Table 11‐17 West Gateway Construction Vibration Impacts...................................................................... 11‐46 Table 11‐18 LA Auto Auction Site Construction Vibration Impacts…………………………….……….….11‐47 Table 11‐19 Impact 11.A Determination Summary ......................................................................................... 11‐49 Table 11‐20 Impact 11.B Determination Summary………………………………………………………………11‐50 Table 12‐1 Impact 12.A Determination Summary.............................................................................................. 12‐6 Table 12‐2 Impact 12.B Determination Summary............................................................................................. 12‐6 Table 13‐1 Study Intersection Performance for Existing Peak‐Hour Conditions................. 13‐4 Table 13‐2 I‐10 Freeway Conditions Analysis............................................................................................. 13‐5 Table 13‐3 Intersection Peak‐Hour LOS Future (2035) Without‐Project Conditions….... 13‐7 Table 13‐4 Trip Generation Rates........................................................................................................................ 13‐9 Table 13‐5 Trip Generation Change by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) – Peak Hours...........13‐11 Table 13‐6 Study Intersection Operations – Future (2035) with‐Project Condition….... 13‐13 Table 13‐7 Significant Study Area Traffic Impacts…………………………………………………….………….13‐17 Table 13‐8 Recommended Study Intersection Mitigation Measures and Effects………………...….13‐19 Table 13‐9 City of Monterey Park Significant Traffic Impacts……………………………………….…..….13‐21 Table 13‐10 Caltrans Volume Data for Interstate 10 in Vicinity of Project………………………..…..13‐22 Table 13‐11 Interstate 10 Mainline Daily LOS Calculations……………………………………...………..…13‐23 Table 13‐12 Freeway Ramp Intersection Highway Capacity Manual Analysis…………………..…..13‐24 Table 13‐13 Freeway Ramp Queue Highway Capacity Manual Analysis………………………………..13‐27 Table 13‐14 Impact 13.A Determination Summary………………………………………………………………13‐31 Table 13‐15 Impact 13.B Determination Summary…………………………………………………………...….13‐31 Table 14‐1 Current and Planned Water Supply for the South San Gabriel System…………….…..…14‐3 Table 15‐1 Objectives Screening………………………………………………………………………………………..….15‐4 Table 15‐2 Impact Screening……………………………………………………………………………………………..….15‐4 Table 15‐3 Summer Criteria Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)………………………………………………..….15‐4 Table 15‐4 Daily Trips……………..…………………………………………………………………………………………...15‐4 Table 15‐5 Alternatives Impact Comparison Summary………………………………………………………..…15‐7 Table 16‐1 Prototypical Site – Construction Worker Gasoline Demand……………………………..…..16‐12 Table 16‐2 Prototypical Site – Construction Vendor Diesel Demand…..…………………………….…...16‐12 Table 16‐3 Prototypical Site – Construction Hauler Diesel Demand………………………………….…...16‐12 Table 16‐4 Catalytic Sites – Construction Worker Gasoline Demand…………………………………..….16‐13 Table 16‐5 Catalytic Sites – Construction Vendor Diesel Demand…..…………………………………..….16‐13 Table 16‐6 Catalytic Sites – Construction Hauler Diesel Demand………………………………………..….16‐13 Table 16‐7 Prototypical Site – Construction Equipment Diesel Demand……………………………..….16‐17 Table 16‐8 Catalytic Sites – Construction Equipment Diesel Demand…………………………………….16‐19 Table 16‐9 Specific Plan Buildout – Mobile Source Gasoline Demand…………………………………..…16‐24 Table 16‐10 Specific Plan Buildout – Mobile Source Diesel Demand…………………………………….…16‐24 Table 16‐11 West Gateway Site – Mobile Source Gasoline Demand………………………………….……..16‐25 Table 16‐12 West Gateway Site – Mobile Source Diesel Demand……………………………………..…..…16‐25 Table 16‐13 LA Auto Auction Site – Mobile Source Gasoline Demand……………………………………..16‐26 Table 16‐14 LA Auto Auction Site – Mobile Source Diesel Demand…………………………………………16‐26 Table 16‐15 Specific Plan Buildout – Indirect Electricity Demand…………………………………………..16‐28 Table 16‐16 West Gateway Site – Indirect Electricity Demand……………………………………………….16‐28
Table 16‐17 LA Auto Auction Site – Indirect Electricity Demand…………………………………………..16‐29 Table 16‐18 Specific Plan Buildout – Energy Demand by Source…………………………………………..16‐31 Table 16‐19 West Gateway Site – Energy Demand by Source……………………………………………….16‐32 Table 16‐20 LA Auto Auction Site – Energy Demand by Source…………………………………………….16‐33
List of Figures
Figure 2‐1 Future Projects Environmental Review Process…………………………………………………...…2.9 Figure 2‐2 Determination Waypoint Summary………………………………………………………………….…..2‐13 Figure 3‐1 Development Scenario Relationships…………………………………………………………….…..…..3‐9 Figure 3‐2 Impact Analysis Diagram………………………………………………………………………………….….3‐12 Figure 5‐1 Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................................................................... 5‐3 Figure 5‐2 Coast Air Basin Ozone Trend..................................................... ……………………………………………………5‐10 Figure 5‐3 South Coast Air Basin PM10 Trend...................................................................................................... 5‐11 Figure 5‐4 South Coast Air Basin PM2.5 Trend ..................................................................................................... 5‐12 Figure 5‐5 South Coast Air Basin Carbon Monoxide Trend .......................................................................... 5‐12 Figure 5‐6 South Coast Air Basin Nitrogen Dioxide Trend............................................................................ 5‐13 Figure 5‐7 Construction‐Related Criteria Pollutant Statistical Analysis……………………………….….5‐21 Figure 11‐1 Hertz Diagram…………………………………………………………………………………………….….…..11‐3 Figure 11‐2 Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix…………………………………………………………..….….11‐24
List of Exhibits Exhibit 3‐2 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning……………………………………………………………………3‐15 Exhibit 3‐3 Map of Opportunity Projects and Sites………………………………………………………………...3‐17 Exhibit 3‐4 Aerial Map of LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property Sites……………………………..…..3‐19 Exhibit 3‐5 LA Auto Auction and Landwin Site Conceptual Design……………………………………..…..3‐21 Exhibit 3‐6 West Gateway Condition, 2014……………………………………………………………………..…….3‐23 Exhibit 3‐7 Suggested West Gateway Vision, Garden Mall Alternative………………………………..…..3‐25 Exhibit 3‐8 Suggested West Gateway Vision, Retail/Office Alternative………………………………..….3‐27 Exhibit 3‐9 Potential Prototypical Development Locations………………………………………………….…3‐29 Exhibit 3‐10 Prototypical Development, 2014 Conditions…………………………………………………..….3‐31 Exhibit 3‐11 Prototypical Development, Remodel Recommendation………………………………….…..3‐33 Exhibit 3‐12 Prototypical Development, Re‐Use Recommendation…………………………………….…..3‐35 Exhibit 3‐13 Prototypical Development, Redevelop Recommendation……………………………………3‐37 Exhibit 4‐1 Prototypical and Opportunity Sites……………………………………………………………….….…4‐14 Exhibit 11‐1 Noise Measurement Locations ........................................................................................................ 11‐9 Exhibit 11‐2 Existing Traffic Noise Contours…………………………………………………………………….…11‐13 Exhibit 11‐3 2035 Without Project Traffic Noise Contours………………………………………….……….11‐37 Exhibit 11‐4 2035 Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours……………………………………….…11‐39
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 1-1
01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan identifies the long-term vision and objectives for land use
development and public improvement along a 1.2 mile portion of Garvey Avenue in the western
portion of the City of Rosemead. The Specific Plan will establish site planning, building, parking,
architectural, and open space standards and guidelines for development within the planning area.
The planning area encompasses 88 acres and includes land use designations/zoning districts
supporting mixed-use, commercial, residential, public, and open space uses. Table 1 (Development
Potential) summarizes the currently estimated development potential of the proposed Specific
Plan. It is estimated the Specific Plan will support development of over 1.18 million square feet (SF)
of commercial development, 892 dwelling units (DU), and 0.77 acres of open space. These estimates
represent a realistic building of the planning area based on an analysis of existing development that
will persist through the life of the proposed Specific Plan plus anticipated redevelopment.
TABLE 1-1
SURROUNDING LAND USES
Zone Permitted
Land Uses
Area Non-Residential Area Dwelling Units
Existing* Proposed Existing* Proposed
GSP Commercial
Open Space 27.10 180,658 278,681 2 0
GSP-R/C
Residential
Commercial
Open Space
12.00 0 14,388 0 44
GSP-MU
Mixed-Use
Commercial
Open Space
39.50 90,502 611,246 0 846
GSP-OS/P Open Space
Parking 0.77 -- -- -- --
Subtotal 79.37 271,160 904,315 2 890
Total Development Potential 1,175,475 892
PROJECT LOCATION
The project “planning area” is located generally along Garvey Avenue between New Avenue to the
west, Whitmore Street to the north, Charlotte Avenue to the east, and Newmark Avenue to the
south in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California. The intersection of Del Mar Avenue
at Garvey Avenue is the approximate central point of the plan area located at Latitude 34° 3' 45"
North, Longitude 118° 5' 58" West.
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
1-2 City of Rosemead
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Rosemead is among the 88 cities that comprise Los Angeles County and is located in the
San Gabriel Valley approximately eight miles east of downtown Los Angeles and 12 miles due south
of the 6,164-ft San Gabriel Peak in the San Gabriel Mountains. Garvey Avenue is primarily an
east/west corridor with the Specific Plan portion located in southwest Rosemead adjacent to the
city boundary with Monterrey Park. Interstate 10 (I-10) is situated about half a mile north of
Garvey Avenue and has entrance/exit ramps at New Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, and San Gabriel
Boulevard, all providing access to Garvey Avenue. Route 60 (SR-60) is located approximately 2.5
miles south. State Route 19, better known as Rosemead Boulevard, runs north-south between the
two freeways, just east of the project area boundary.
The planning area encompasses 88 acres with 153 parcels of varying land uses. A majority of land
uses (37 acres) within the project area are commercial or retail uses. There are also a large number
of vacant parcels that make up approximately 27 acres of the total project land area. Other portions
of the planning area are used exclusively for surface automobile parking. Minimal open space is
located along the corridor.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The planning area is primarily surrounded by multiple-family and single-family residential
development. The City of Monterey Park is located adjacent to the western boundary of the
planning area.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Based on the preliminary environmental analysis of the project included in the project Initial Study
(see Appendix A), potentially significant environmental effects could occur with regard to the
following issues:
Topic Issue
Aesthetics Degradation of Existing Visual Character
New sources of light and glare
Air Quality Conflict with or obstruct applicable air quality plan
Criteria Pollutants
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Sensitive Receptors
Cultural Resources Historic Resources
Archaeological Resources
Paleontological Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Planning
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Sites
Hydrology and Water Quality Groundwater Supplies
Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 1-3
Land Use and Planning Land Use Consistency
Noise Noise Level Standards
Vibration
Ambient Noise
Temporary and Periodic Noise
Population and Housing Exceed Regional or Local Projections
Induce Population Growth
Transportation and Traffic Measure of Effectiveness
Congestion Management Program Performance
Public Transit
Utilities and Service Systems Water and Wastewater Facilities
Storm Drain Facilities
Water Supply
Wastewater Treatment
This EIR examines each of these issues in separate sections, in addition to other required topics
specified in the State CEQA Guidelines. Table 1-2 (Significant and Unavoidable Impacts), Table 2-3
(Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated), and Table 2-4 (Less than Significant
and No Impacts) at the end of this section summarize the environmental impacts associated with
the Project and lists the mitigation measures and standard conditions required to minimize, reduce,
or avoid potentially significant impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires a statement indicating the reason that various potential
impacts are determined not to be significant and therefore are not discussed in the EIR. The NOP
was sent to agencies on the County’s standard distribution list on April 21, 2015. The public
comment period on the NOP ran from April 22, 2015 to May 21, 2015. The Initial Study prepared
for the project determined that the impacts listed below would not occur or would be less than
significant; therefore, these topics have not been further analyzed in this EIR. Please refer to
Appendix A (Initial Study) for explanations of the basis for these conclusions.
AESTHETICS
Scenic Highways – No Impact
Scenic Resources – No Impact
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – No Impact
Agricultural Use/Williamson Act – No Impact
Non-Agricultural Development within 300 feet of Agricultural Zone – No Impact
Rezoning Forest Land/Timberland – No Impact
Conversion/Loss of Forest Land – No Impact
Farmland Conversion – No Impact
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
1-4 City of Rosemead
AIR QUALITY
Objectionable Odors – No Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Sensitive Species – No Impact
Riparian Habitat – No Impact
Wetlands – No Impact
Wildlife Movement – No Impact
Local Policies/Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources – No Impact
Habitat Conservation Plans – No Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Human Remains – No Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Fault Rupture – Less than Significant Impact
Seismic Ground Shaking – Less than Significant Impact
Liquefaction – Less than Significant Impact
Landslides – No Impact
Loss of Topsoil – Less than Significant Impact
Unstable Soil – Less than Significant Impact
Expansive Soil – Less then Significant Impact
Septic Tanks – No Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous Materials Transport/Use/Disposal – Less than Significant Impact
Release of Hazardous Materials – Less than Significant Impact
Emission or Handling of Hazardous Materials within ¼ Mile of School – Les than Significant
Impact
Airport Land Use Plans – No Impact
Private Airstrips – No Impact
Emergency Response Plan – No Impact
Wildland Fires – Less than Significant Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Violate Water Quality Standards – Less than Significant Impact
Alteration of Stream or River – No Impact
Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 1-5
Increased Runoff- No Impact
Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality – No Impact
100-Year Flooding and Housing – No Impact
Impedance/Redirection of 100-Year Flooding – No Impact
Dam or Levee Failure – Less than Significant Impact
Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow – No Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Physically Divide an Established Community – No Impact
Compatibility with Applicable Plans – No Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Mineral Resources – No Impact
Local Mineral Resources – No Impact
NOISE
Airport Land Use Plan – No Impact
Private Airstrip Vicinity – No Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Displacement of Housing – No Impact
Displacement of People – No Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Services – Less than Significant Impact
Police Services – Less than Significant Impact
Schools – Less than Significant Impact
Parks – Less than Significant Impact
Other Public Facilities – Less than Significant Impact
RECREATION
Deterioration of Existing Facilities – Less than Significant Impact
Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities – Less than Significant Impact
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Changes in Air Traffic Patterns – No Impact
Hazardous Design Features –No Impact
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
1-6 City of Rosemead
Emergency Access – Less than Significant Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Construction or Expansion of Storm Water Drainage Facilities – No Impact
Landfill Capacity – Less than Significant Impact
Solid Waste Regulations – Less than Significant Impact
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Pursuant to Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR summary must identify “Issues to
be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant
effects.” This EIR identifies and resolves issues related to project alternatives in Section 5.
Potentially significant impacts are identified in the analysis provided in Section 4 and mitigation is
considered for all impacts.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires that an EIR examine alternatives to the project that are capable of reducing or
eliminating environmental impacts. The alternatives examined in Section 5.0 are:
Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: Reduced Development Potential
Alternative 3: Specific Plan Variations
Alternative 4: Alternative Locations
The four alternatives were screened for consistency with the objectives of the project and the
ability to avoid one or more significant impacts associated with the project. Alternative 1 is
considered to be the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in the fewest
environmental impacts when compared to the project. However, pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2)
of the State CEQA Guidelines, when the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project
alternative, another environmentally superior alternative must be selected among the remaining
alternatives. Based on this provision, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative
because it would result in fewer environmental impacts when compared to the project.
Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 1-7
TABLE 1-2
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Impact Summary Mitigation
Measures
Air Quality
5.A
5.C
Construction of the proposed project will conflict with the
AQMP. The increase created by the proposed Project is not
within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG and,
thus, will be attributable to unanticipated growth in the area.
No Feasible
Mitigation
5.B
Operation of the proposed project will exceed daily
thresholds for volatile organic compounds and oxides of
nitrogen and carbon, and will remain significant and
unavoidable after consideration of reasonable mitigation.
Considering the difficulty in identifying feasible mitigation to
reduce mobile source emissions from non-commercial
development projects, operational impacts remain significant
and unavoidable after consideration of feasible mitigation
5.B-1
5.B-2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
TABLE 1-3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGAITON INCORPORATED
Impact Summary Mitigation
Measures
Cultural Resources
6.A Impacts to historic resources will be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated. 6.A-1
6.B Impacts to archaeological resources will be less than significant
with mitigation incorporated. 6.B-1
6.C Impacts to paleontological resources will be less than significant
with mitigation incorporated. 6.C-1
Greenhouse Gases
Noise
11.A
11.C
11.D
Impacts related to project-related short-term construction noise
levels will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 11.A-1
Transportation and Traffic
13.A Impacts related to significant traffic impacts will be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated. 13.A-1
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
1-8 City of Rosemead
TABLE 1-4
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AND NO IMPACTS
Impact Summary
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
7.A The proposed project will not result in cumulatively considerable contributions
to global climate change impacts.
7.B The proposed project will not conflict with any plans to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
8.A The proposed project will not result in airport safety hazards. Impacts will be
less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
9.A The proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater resources.
Impacts will be less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
10.A
The proposed project will not conflict with the land use designations and
policies of the General Plan or any applicable Specific Plan. Impacts will be less
than significant.
Noise
11.B The proposed project will not expose people to or result in excessive
groundborne vibration. Impacts will be less than significant.
Population and Housing
12-B The proposed Project will not result in the forced or obliged displacement of
persons. Impacts will be less than significant.
Transportation and Traffic
13.B The proposed project will not conflict with the Los Angeles County
Congestion Management Program. Impacts will be less than significant.
Utilities and Service Systems
14.A
14.B
The proposed Project will not require the construction of new water treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects. Impacts will be less than significant.
14.C
The proposed Project will not require new or expanded water supplies or
entitlement to be procured to serve the project. Impacts will be less than
significant.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 2-1
02 INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The City of Rosemead (Lead Agency) is preparing a Specific Plan (Project) to guide the long-term
growth and development of the Garvey Avenue corridor (Planning Area).
The proposed Specific Plan constitutes a project that is subject to review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Section 21000, et
seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 6, Chapter
3, Section 15000, et seq.). The Lead Agency prepared an Initial Study pursuant to the requirements
of the CEQA Statutes and determined that the proposed project requires an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).
An EIR is a public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of
the possible or anticipated environmental effects of a proposed project, to indicate possible ways to
reduce or avoid environmental damage, and to identify alternatives to the project.
This EIR has been prepared to assess the short-term, long-term, and cumulative environmental
impacts that could result from the proposed project as described herein. Furthermore, this EIR has
been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Statutes and was prepared by professional planning
consultants under contract to the City of Rosemead, as the Lead Agency for the preparation of this
EIR, as defined by CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21067, as amended). The content of this
document reflects the independent judgment of the City of Rosemead.
TYPE OF EIR
The proposed Specific Plan is a long term planning program to guide growth and development
within the Planning Area. It is intended to communicate the City’s vision of the future for the
Planning Area and to establish design guidelines and policy framework. It will govern decision-
making concerning the physical development of the Planning Area including assurances that the
community at large will be supported by an adequate range of public services and infrastructure
systems.
The Specific Plan will not authorize any specific development project or other form of land use
approval or any kind of public facilities or capital facilities expenditures or improvements. As such,
a Program EIR is the appropriate type of document to identify the geographic extent of sensitive
resources and hazards, along with existing and planned services and infrastructure support
systems that occur in the planning area. Further, the Program EIR is described in Section 15168 of
the CEQA Guidelines as the appropriate analytical framework to assess the cumulative
environmental effects of the full plan, in a first-tier level of analysis, to identify broad concerns and
sets of impacts, and to define/develop regulatory standards and programmatic procedures that
reduce impacts and help achieve environmental goals and objectives.
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
2-2 City of Rosemead
Later activities proposed pursuant to the Specific Plan will be reviewed in light of this EIR and may
focus on those site-specific and localized environmental issues that could not be examined in
sufficient detail as part of this EIR. Advantages of a Program EIR include consideration of effects
and alternatives that cannot practically be reviewed at the project-level, consideration of
cumulative impacts that may not be apparent on a project-by-project basis, the ability to enact
citywide mitigation measures, and subsequent reduction in paperwork.
TIERING
This EIR has been designed for future development projects within the Planning Area to “tier” from.
Tiering is an environmental streamlining tool defined in Section 15152 et al of the CEQA Guidelines,
as follows:
a. “Tiering” refers to using the analysis of general matters
contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general
plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative
declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference
the general discussions from the broader EIR; and
concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on
the issues specific to the later project.
b. Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses
which they prepare for separate but related projects including
general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This
approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same
issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the
actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental
review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is
from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy, or program to
an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or
program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative
declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from
adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant
environmental effects of the project and does not justify
deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative
declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier
EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy,
or ordinance being analyzed.
c. Where a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection
with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a
general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or
Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 2-3
community plan), the development of detailed, site-specific
information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many
instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future
environmental document in connection with a project of a more
limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent
adequate identification of significant effects of the planning
approval at hand.
d. Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program,
plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of
this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or
consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should
limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to
effects which:
1. Were not examined as significant effects on the
environment in the prior EIR; or
2. Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance
by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the
imposition of conditions, other means.
e. Tiering under this section shall be limited to situations where
the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the
city or county in which the project is located, except that a
project requiring a rezone to achieve or maintain conformity
with a general plan may be subject to tiering.
f. A later EIR shall be required when the Initial Study or other
analysis finds that the later project may cause significant
effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed
in the prior EIR. A negative declaration shall be required when
the provisions of Section 15070 are met.
1. Where a lead agency determines that a cumulative
effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR
that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of
the later EIR or negative declaration, and need not be
discussed in detail.
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
2-4 City of Rosemead
2. When assessing whether there is a new significant
cumulative effect, the lead agency shall consider
whether the incremental effects of the project would be
considerable when viewed in the context of past,
present, and probable future projects. At this point, the
question is not whether there is a significant
cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the
project are cumulatively considerable. For a discussion
on how to assess whether project impacts are
cumulatively considerable, see Section 15064(i).
3. Significant environmental effects have been
“adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines
that:
A. they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of
the prior environmental impact report and
findings adopted in connection with that prior
environmental report; or
B. they have been examined at a sufficient level of
detail in the prior environmental impact report to
enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by
site specific revisions, the imposition of
conditions, or by other means in connection with
the approval of the later project.
g. When tiering is used, the later EIRs or negative declarations
shall refer to the prior EIR and State where a copy of the prior
EIR may be examined. The later EIR or negative declaration
should state that the lead agency is using the tiering concept
and that it is being tiered with the earlier EIR.
h. There are various types of EIRs that may be used in a tiering
situation. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. General Plan EIR (Section 15166)
2. Staged EIR (Section 15167)
3. Program EIR (Section 15168)
Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 2-5
4. Master EIR (Section 15175)
5. Multiple-family residential development / residential
and commercial or retail mixed-use development
(Section 15179.5).
6. Redevelopment project (Section 15180)
7. Projects consistent with community plan, general plan,
or zoning (Section 15183).
Any future development proposals within the Planning Area will be reviewed for consistency with
the environmental analysis and determinations certified in this EIR upon submittal of specific
development applications to the approving jurisdiction. Those proposals found to be completely
consistent with this EIR would have the environmental review process substantially reduced. In
some instances, projects that would typically be exempt from CEQA review will have the
environmental process virtually eliminated. Consistency would be noted in the record via
memorandum to the project file or through preparation of an applicable streamlined document.
Those projects found to be generally consistent with this EIR would have a reduced environmental
review process that focuses on any issues that may not have been specifically addressed in this EIR.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PROGRAM EIR
The EIR is divided into three volumes. Volume 1 contains the primary analysis of potential
environmental impacts discussed in the following nineteen sections:
Section 1 Executive Summary
Section 2 Introduction
Section 3 Project Description
Section 4 Environmental Impact Analysis – Aesthetics
Section 5 Environmental Impact Analysis – Air Quality
Section 6 Environmental Impact Analysis – Cultural Resources
Section 7 Environmental Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Section 8 Environmental Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 9 Environmental Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 10 Environmental Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning
Section 11 Environmental Impact Analysis – Noise
Section 12 Environmental Impact Analysis – Population and Housing
Section 13 Environmental Impact Analysis – Transportation and Traffic
Section 14 Environmental Impact Analysis – Utilities and Service Systems
Section 15 Alternatives
Section 16 Analysis of Long-Term Effects
Section 17 Effects Found Not to be Significant
Section 18 Preparation Team
Section 19 Organizations and Persons Consulted
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
2-6 City of Rosemead
Volume 2 includes the EIR appendices, including documentation of the scoping process and Notice
of Preparation (NOP). The appendices include:
Appendix A: Scoping Documents
Appendix B: Initial Study
Appendix C: Background Technical Report
Appendix D: Air Quality and Climate Change Report
Appendix E: Noise Study
Appendix F: Market Survey
Appendix G: Transportation and Mobility Analysis
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring reporting
program (MMRP) will be prepared as a separately bound document that will be adopted in
conjunction with the certification of the Final EIR. The MMRP, responses to public comments, any
revisions to the Draft EIR, and findings will be identified as Volume 3.
APPROACH TO EIR ANALYSIS
The analysis conducted and recorded in this EIR is based on “classes” of projects that could be
proposed within the Planning Area guided by the requirements of the Specific Plan. The analysis
has been divided into those projects that would likely be exempt from future environmental review,
those projects that will likely be subject to streamlined or reduced environmental review, and those
projects that could result in potential impacts that cannot be analyzed at the program level. This
approach will allow for a streamlined environmental review process for the majority of projects
within the Planning Area that are consistent with the Specific Plan. A summary flow chart is
provided as Figure 1-1 highlighting the environmental review process for future projects within the
Planning Area.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
The Planning Area is generally developed, supporting primarily commercial and institutional uses.
It is anticipated that over the life of the Specific Plan approximately 24 acres of the Planning Area
will not be redeveloped. Continued operation of existing development is not subject to CEQA review
as it constitutes the baseline conditions and could not result in physical changes to the
environment.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS
It is estimated that approximately 55 acres of the Planning Area will be redeveloped over the life of
the Specific Plan. Minor changes to existing facilities, replacement or reconstruction of existing
structures and facilities, new construction or conversion of small structures, and infill development
will likely occur. These types of activities and others are categorically exempt from environmental
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300 et seq. The City will evaluate future development and
use proposals within the Specific Plan area to determine if they are exempt from CEQA review.
Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 2-7
Exempt projects will require no additional environmental review and a Notice of Exemption (NOE)
will be filed upon approval of the project. Common exemptions that will be applicable to future
projects in the Specific Plan are listed herein, however, note that this list is not exhaustive. Pursuant
to Guidelines Section 15300.2, there are exceptions to categorical exemptions based on location,
cumulative impacts, significant effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, and historical
resources issues. These issues have been analyzed in this EIR.
HOUSING EXEMPTIONS
CEQA provides exemptions for affordable housing projects and residential infill projects pursuant
to Guidelines Section 15194 and 15195, respectively. Any residential projects meeting the
requirements of these sections will be exempt from future environmental review and the City will
file an NOE upon approval of the project.
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PURSUANT TO A SPECIFIC PLAN
Residential projects that do not meet the affordable or infill housing exemptions identified above
will be eligible for a special exemption pursuant to Guidelines Section 15182. Any residential
development that is consistent with an adopted Specific Plan is exempt from further environmental
analysis and would have an NOE filed upon approval. Considering Guidelines Sections 15182,
15194, and 15495, all consistent residential development proposed in the Planning Area will not
require any additional environmental review.
STREAMLINING FOR INFILL PROJECTS
CEQA provides for the streamlined environmental review of infill projects pursuant to Guidelines
Section 15183.3. Infill projects must comply with the performance standards identified in Appendix
M of the Guidelines and be consistent with the land use designation and zoning requirements for
the project site. This option of streamlined environmental review will be applied primarily to non-
residential development considering residential development will be exempt from further
environmental review. Projects that meet the performance standards of Appendix M and do not
result in any new environmental impacts will require no further environmental review.
PROGRAM- AND PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSIS
For those projects that do not qualify for exemptions or streamlining, some amount of future
environmental review will be required. This EIR is a Program EIR as defined in the Guidelines
Section 15168. Section 15168 et seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines describes a Program EIR as “. . .
an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project
and are related . . . as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions . . . [where] subsequent
activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an
additional environmental document must be prepared.” Analysis of the Specific Plan at the
program-level was conducted herein as described in Section 15146(b) of the State CEQA
Guidelines:
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
2-8 City of Rosemead
An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a
local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the
adoption, or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction
projects that might follow.
Those environmental issues that can be examined in enough detail at the program level will allow
for tiering in the future environmental review of projects in the Planning Area. Those
environmental issues that cannot be evaluated at the program level will need to be evaluated on a
project-by-project basis.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The greenhouse gas emissions analysis and supporting technical data in this EIR meets the
requirements of Guidelines Section 15183.5 allowing for the tiering and streamlining of greenhouse
gas emissions analysis in future projects within the Planning Area.
Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 2-9
FIGURE 2-1 FUTURE PROJECTS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
2-10 City of Rosemead
APPROACH TO IMPACT ANALYSIS
The approach to the analysis presented in this EIR is programmatic in nature given the geographic
scope and timeframe of the proposed Specific Plan. Each environmental issue is analyzed in the
same manner, starting with a discussion of the existing environmental setting, including physical
conditions and pertinent planning and regulatory framework. Thresholds of significance are then
defined and are used to measure the proposed Specific Plans potential impact to the environment.
Thresholds of significance are based on a broad list of questions and impact topics set forth in
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The impact analysis and cumulative impact sections
examine potential environmental impacts for development of individual properties within the
Planning Area and the aggregate consideration of those impacts over the long term development of
the Planning Area, respectively and to the extent possible. Utilizing the exemption and streamlining
tools provided by CEQA, most future development proposals within the Planning Area will not
require additional environmental review assuming the proposed project is consistent with the
Specific Plan.
PUBLIC REVIEW
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
To define the scope of the investigation of this EIR, the City of Rosemead distributed a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) on April 21, 2015 to City, County, and State agencies; other public agencies; and
interested private organizations and individuals (attached as Appendix A). The purpose of the NOP
was to identify agency and public concerns regarding potential impacts of the proposed project and
to request suggestions concerning ways to avoid significant impacts (Section 15082, CEQA
Guidelines). The NOP was sent to agencies and residents/property owners within 660 feet of the
proposed planning area on April 24, 2014.
An Initial Study was prepared pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines that sets
forth the required contents of an Initial Study (see Appendix B). Those requirements include a
description of the proposed project, including the location of the proposed project, identification of
the environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or
other methods, provided that entries, a discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified,
if any, an examination of whether the proposed project is compatible with existing zoning, plans,
and other applicable land use controls, and the name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or
participated in the preparation of the Initial Study.
The Initial Study was used as a screening tool to identify potentially significant impacts to be
analyzed in the EIR. Any impacts found to be less than significant or non-existent need not be
analyzed in the EIR. The Initial Study was made available with the NOP to provide the rationale for
those topics to be analyzed in or excluded from the EIR. Fifteen electronic copies of the Initial Study
were submitted to the State Clearinghouse on April 20, 2015 for distribution to State agencies.
Copies of written comments received during the public review period for the NOP are included in
Appendix A of this EIR. Ten comment letters were submitted in response to the NOP and have been
summarized in Table 1-1 (NOP Comments).
Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 2-11
TABLE 2-1 NOP COMMENTS
Reviewer Summary
EIR
Sec.
Amarillo Mutual Water Company Project is not located in service area --
California Department of
Transportation
Recommendations for traffic impact analysis 13
City of San Gabriel No comments --
County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County
Recommendations and information related to wastewater
conveyance and treatment
14
Southern California Association
of Governments
Recommendations on consistency analysis with Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and
regional growth forecasts
10
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
Information related to transit service and Congestion
Management Program (CMP) requirements
13
County of Los Angeles Fire
Department
Information and requests for analysis related to fire protection,
access, water systems, hazardous materials, and general
environmental concerns
08
14
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Information regarding air quality analysis, mitigation measures,
and data sources
05
Southern California Edison Information regarding electrical facilities and encroachment --
State Clearinghouse State agency distribution list --
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR
Pursuant to Section 15085 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Completion (NOC) was filed
with the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on XXX and the Draft EIR (DEIR) circulated for
public and agency review for a period of 45 days. Hard copies of the DEIR were available at the City
of Rosemead Planning Division and the Rosemead Public Library. Electronic copies of the DEIR
were sent to responsible agencies, local agencies, and concerned agencies and individuals, as
requested.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DEIR
Comments from all agencies and individuals are invited regarding the information contained in the
DEIR. Such comments should explain any perceived deficiencies in the assessment of impacts,
identify the information that is purportedly lacking in the DEIR or indicate where the information
may be found. All comments on the DEIR are to be submitted to:
Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner
City of Rosemead, Planning Division
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
2-12 City of Rosemead
Following a 45-day period of circulation and review of the DEIR, all comments and the responses to
the comments shall be incorporated into a FEIR prior to certification of the document by the City of
Rosemead.
Availability of EIR Materials
All materials related to the preparation of this EIR are available for public review at the City of
Rosemead Planning Division (please contact Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner, for an appointment)
and at the Rosemead Public Library.
City of Rosemead, Planning Division
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
Rosemead Public Library
8800 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770.
CITATION
Preparation of this EIR relied on information from many sources including the appendix materials
previously listed and numerous other references. Pursuant to Section 15148 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, citations from the appendix materials and other sources are provided throughout the
EIR. The latest guidelines enumerated as the “American Psychological Association (APA) Style” of
citation and referencing has been employed in this document.
DOCUMENT WAYFINDING
Preparation of an EIR is an extensive effort culminating in the accumulation of data, analysis,
reporting, and review documentation that typically involves multiple thousands of pages. To
enhance the navigability of this EIR, visual cues have been included with each impact determination
to act as waypoints for those looking to expediently peruse the document and quickly identify
varying levels of impact. These 'determination waypoints' are composed of seven partially
interwoven circles representing a linear flowchart of nodes where the environmental analysts must
make decisions regarding the applicability, magnitude, mitigating factors, and ultimate
determination with respects to the interface between the project and the environmental issue at
hand. If the project fails to meet criterion that necessitate further analysis, the color gradient ends
at that node with identification of the resulting determination.
The waypoints can be divided into three categories based on the level of analysis and subsequent
determinations involved:
(1) environmental issues that are not relevant to the project,
(2) issues that involve the project but are less than the applicable threshold
without need for mitigation,
(3) those requiring mitigation
Environmental Impact Report Introduction
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 2-13
Figure 2-2 (Determination Waypoint Summary) provides a summary of the varying levels of
impacts and the associated nodes used throughout the EIR.
Baseline Effect
Threshold
Design Regulations
Mitigable
Unmitigable
Applicability: Project and environment
do not interface or interface but
without effect.
Threshold Evaluation: Project does not
exceed threshold explicitly or with
consideration of regulatory
requirements and/or design features.
No Impact
Less than Significant Impact
Less than with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Mitigation Evaluation: Project requires
mitigation due to exceedance of
threshold.
FIGURE 2-2 DETERMINATION WAYPOINT SUMMARY
Introduction Environmental Impact Report
2-14 City of Rosemead
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3-1
03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT TITLE
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Rosemead
Planning Division
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
PROJECT LOCATION
The Specific Plan area (Planning Area) is located generally along Garvey Avenue bound by New
Avenue to the west, Whitmore Street to the north, Charlotte Avenue to the east, and Newmark
Avenue to the south in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California (see Exhibit 2-1,
Regional Context and Vicinity Map). The intersection of Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue is the
approximate center of the Planning Area. Geographic coordinates at the Planning Area center are
Latitude 34° 03' 46" North, Longitude 118° 05' 58" West and Universal Transverse Mercator
coordinates (UTM) 398537 meters (m) East, 3769648 m North, Zone 11 North.
PROJECT SPONSOR NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Rosemead
Planning Division
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Planning Area encompasses 88 acres and 153 parcels of varying land uses located in southwest
Rosemead, adjacent to the city's boundary with the City of Monterey Park, California. The Planning
Area is completely urbanized and is characterized by commercial, residential, and institutional uses
with disparate vacant parcels. The Planning Area is located approximately 0.60 miles south of
Interstate 10 (I-10) and 1.82 miles north of State Route 60 (SR-60).
Project Description Environmental Impact Report
3-2 City of Rosemead
EXISTING LAND USES
The majority of existing land uses within the Planning Area are comprised of commercial and retail
business encompassing 84 parcels over 37 acres (42.3 percent of the Planning Area). Vacant parcels
comprise 27 acres of the Planning Area (30.4 percent).
TABLE 3-1 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Land Use Parcels Acres %
Commercial/Retail 84 37 42
Single-Unit Residential 9 2 2
Multi-Unit Residential 9 8 9
Institutional 4 13 15
Multi-use-Comm/Res 1 1 1
Vacant Land 43 27 30
Open Space 3 1 1
Total 173 88 100
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS
The majority of the project area is zoned exclusively for commercial uses with 75 percent of the
Planning Area under the C-3 (Medium Commercial) zone. The former LA Auto Auction Opportunity
Project location is zoned C-4 (Regional Commercial) and comprises eight percent of the Planning
Area. The remainder of the Planning Area is zoned R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) (nine percent),
"Automobile Parking" (five percent), and PD (Planned Development) (three percent).
TABLE 3-2 EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS
Zone Name Acres %
R2 Light Multiple Residential 19 9
C4 Regional Commercial 12 8
C3 Medium Commercial 107 73
C3 Medium Commercial (D Design Overlay) 14 10
P Automobile Parking 7 5
PD Planned Development 4 3
Total 160 100%
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The Planning Area is surrounded by single-family and multi-family residential development. Public
facilities and institutional development such as schools and churches are also located in the
surrounding area.
Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3-3
PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
PROJECT SUMMARY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ASSUMPTIONS
The Project is the adoption and long-term implementation of the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific
Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan is organized to address the requirements of California
Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457 with an introduction (Chapter 1), a description of
existing conditions (Chapter 2), a proposal for updated land use designations and development
standards (Chapter 3), specification of focused development opportunities (Chapter 4),
identification of infrastructure needs (Chapter 5), and an implementation program (Chapter 6). In
summary, the Specific Plan:
● establishes new land uses and development standards for the Planning Area to guide
redevelopment and new construction, replacing those currently adopted in the City's
Zoning Code and General Plan;
● identifies infrastructure needs for the Planning Area with respects to streets and parking,
water supply and conveyance, wastewater conveyance and treatment, urban runoff, solid
waste disposal, recreational facilities, schools, electricity, natural gas, and
telecommunications;
● identifies conceptual designs for locations identified as opportunities for near-term
development potential; and
● identifies vacant and underutilized land that is anticipated to be redeveloped over the life of
the Specific Plan.
PROJECT-LEVEL AND PROGRAM-LEVEL COMPONENTS
The Opportunity Projects identified in the Specific Plan include development of the "LA Auto
Auction Site", various scenarios for the "West Gateway Specialty Retail Destination" location, a
collection of locations within similar development potential identified as the "Prototypical
Development Opportunity Sites", and the "Streetscape Redesign Opportunity Project" involving the
design of public right-of-way enhancements. The Opportunity Projects were analyzed in this EIR at
the "project-level" due to the availability of design specifications and the desire to limit the need for
future environmental review upon application for future entitlement permits. Other locations
within the Planning Area that may be redeveloped under the Specific Plan guidelines and
regulations have been grouped by proposed land use and analyzed collectively based on reasonably
anticipated development scenarios generated with consideration of parcel sizes, proposed land use,
proposed development regulations, and surrounding land uses. These locations were also analyzed
as projects to the degree that the development assumptions could accommodate without being
speculative in regards to details that were not known during preparation of the EIR.
Program-level analysis was conducted for the Specific Plan as a whole to account for the broad,
cumulative impacts that may occur due to the anticipated, collective redevelopment of the Planning
Area. Programmatic analysis focused on the long-term sub regional and regional changes that the
Specific Plan implies and how those changes can be accommodated by areawide plans to minimize
the impacts of land use decisions on the environment. The program-level analysis in this EIR is
analogous with the cumulative impacts analysis required by CEQA.
Project Description Environmental Impact Report
3-4 City of Rosemead
FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Future development proposals within Opportunity Project locations and other locations that are
consistent with the assumptions identified in this EIR will not require further environmental
review upon application for entitlement or building permits. Alternatively, future development
projects on other sites or on the opportunity sites but with different development assumptions may
have the need for environmental review substantially reduced to the analysis of those issues that
were not addressed in the EIR, are not consistent with the EIR analysis, or result from changes in
the environment that were not known or considered during preparation of the EIR. Projects not
considered or anticipated in the EIR analysis will be subject to environmental review without
benefit of the tiering and streamlining provisions offered by this EIR. The extent of environmental
review will vary from project to project and will be determined through review by the City's
Community Development Department as afforded by and in consistency with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS
Future redevelopment will be subject to the development standards of the Specific Plan but no
specific design has been identified for those areas at this time. This type of redevelopment will be
analyzed at the program-level with the analysis based on anticipated, reasonable assumptions for
growth based on the development standards of the Specific Plan. Depending on the size and use
associated with future redevelopment, additional environmental review may be required when
such projects are proposed. Finally, the Specific Plan identifies the need for storm drain, water,
wastewater, and roadway improvements to accommodate the growth associated with the
implementation of the Specific Plan. Analysis of potential impacts related to the installation of
infrastructure in conjunction with implementation of the Specific Plan is included in the EIR
analysis. Further details related to the components of the project are provided herein.
THE GARVEY AVENUE CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN
The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan establishes a vision and objectives for development, land
use, and public improvements along the 1.2-mile section of Garvey Avenue that extends from
Charlotte Avenue to New Avenue in the city of Rosemead. The Specific Plan defines actions to be
taken to redevelop the corridor into a place characterized as a local and sub regional shopping and
entertainment destination. The Specific Plan establishes land use, transportation, infrastructure,
and urban design strategies designed to attract investment through development and
redevelopment potential and is designed to balance retail development, mixed-use development,
and active public spaces. The Specific Plan identifies public improvements designed to enhance the
appearance and character of the corridor. The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan changes the zoning
district for all properties within the Specific Plan Area by establishing four new zones that regulate
the type and breadth of permitted development. The new zones are summarized in Table 2-3
(Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning Districts and Land Uses) and mapped in Exhibit 3-2 (Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan Zoning).
Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3-5
TABLE 3-3 GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES
Zone Name Permitted Development
Types
GSP-OS/P GSP-Open Space/Parking Open Space
Parking
GSP-R/C GSP-Residential/Commercial Residential
Commercial
Public
Open Space
GSP Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Commercial
Public
Open Space
GSP-MU Incentivized Mixed-Use Mixed-Use
Commercial
Public
Open Space
GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (GSP) ZONING DISTRICTS
OS/P: OPEN SPACE/PARKING
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Open Space/Parking (GSP-OS/P) zoning district allows for open
space and parking development on key areas of Garvey Avenue, such as adjacent to Alhambra
Wash. The Alhambra Wash area is envisioned to become an open space amenity. Continuing to
allow open space, as well as parking, will help encourage the development of open space along the
Wash.
R/C: RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Residential/Commercial (GSP-R/C) zoning district causes some
modifications to the development standards of the existing R-2 zoning district to opportunity for
development approaches that includes either residential or commercial development. The GSP-R/C
zone is designed to result in development on a "pedestrian scale" along or nearby the Garvey
Avenue corridor. The GSP-R/C zoning district provides transition areas between single- and multi-
family residential land uses in the surrounding neighborhoods serving as a buffer to more intense
land uses adjacent to Garvey Avenue.
GSP: SPECIFIC PLAN
The purpose of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) zoning district is to facilitate and support a
neighborhood commercial district that accommodates a diverse range of retail, service, and office
businesses focusing on businesses that support the local community. The GSP zoning area is
designed to encourage the development of retail areas where users can walk for dining, groceries,
shopping, personal services, community and social services, and social activities and gatherings.
Development is required to implement open storefronts (e.g the interior is visible through the use
of windows) and setbacks for outdoor dining. Offices and public uses are permitted above ground-
level floors. The GSP zoning district also permits flexible spaces where start-up and locally-owned
businesses can establish and maintain a presence in the Planning Area. The GSP zoning district is
Project Description Environmental Impact Report
3-6 City of Rosemead
focused in the western portion of the Specific Plan area, west of Del Mar Avenue, with additional
locations east of Del Mar. The GSP zoning code generally follows the existing zoning code for the C-3
Medium Commercial zoning. Standalone residential and mixed use not permitted.
MU: INCENTIVIZED MIXED-USE
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed Use (GSP-MU) zoning district permits
pedestrian/retail areas and a variety of uses. This new zoning district permits flexibility in
development choices designed to convey a new model for development along the corridor
characterized by residential uses carefully integrated into buildings with active ground-floor
commercial frontages. Horizontal mixed-use is permissible in this district; thus, enabling
development sites such as the LA Auto Auction site to be developed with single-use buildings
provided that the overall site is developed to the mixed-use standards of the GSP-MU zoning
requirements. All development in the GSP-MU area is to feature designs and forms that create a
pedestrian-scale environment along the corridor, internal streets, and side streets. The GSP-MU
zoning district is focused in the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area, characterized by three
development nodes at the Del Mar intersection, the San Gabriel intersection, and near the former
LA Auto Auction site. The GSP-MU zoning district generally follows the existing zoning
requirements of the existing R-C MUDO Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Overlay
District.
LAND USE DATA AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area encompasses an area of approximately 88 developable acres.
The land use policies associated with the Specific Plan provide for development of approximately
1.3 million square feet of nonresidential development. Development potential may occur in the
form of new construction on vacant parcels, recycling of aging commercial properties with new
development, and reuse of existing structures through mixed-use or standalone commercial
projects. An estimated 1,048 dwelling units are supported by the land use policies of the Specific
Plan that would house an estimated population of approximately 2,710 residents. Most residential
development would be constructed exclusively within the GSP-MU zone. General development
standards are summarized in Table 2-4 (Development Potential).
TABLE 3-4 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Zoning District DU/AC
(w/o Incentives)
FAR
(w/o Incentives)
DU/AC
(w/ Incentives)
FAR
(w/ Incentives)
GSP-OS/P N/A N/A N/A N/A
GSP-R/C 7 0.75 30 1.0
GSP N/A 0.75 N/A 1.0
GSP-MU 25 1.6 80 3.0
GSP-MU^ 25 0.75 80 1.0
^Commercial Only
NONCONFORMING USES
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area has been developed with light-industrial uses that include
construction-related and auto repair/service businesses with outdoor operations that the City has
identified as incompatible with the surrounding residences due to impacts regarding aesthetic,
Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3-7
noise, and traffic. Implementation of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan will render certain light-
industrial and auto-oriented commercial uses to nonconforming because of the proposed zoning
changes. To contribute to the improvement of the aesthetic quality and economic vitality along the
Corridor and to ensure that land uses are consistent with the vision presented in the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan the conditions under which legal nonconforming uses may continue is limited. Legal
nonconforming uses may remain, but cannot expand, change use, rebuild, and must remain
continually operational. If these conditions are not met, the use will no longer be legal and will then
be subject to the City of Rosemead "Nonconforming Use Amortization Policy". A nonconforming use
in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area that has been abandoned or has been discontinued for a
period of 90 days shall not be reestablished and any subsequent reuse or any new use established
shall conform to the provisions of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
GARVEY AVENUE MASTER PLAN AND ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan design and development guidelines and standards provide specific
policies for how parcels and buildings shall be developed; they include setbacks, parking
requirements, and height/density limits. They are intended to supplement the land use policies of
the Rosemead General Plan and the design guidelines of the Garvey Avenue Master Plan and
Rosemead Mixed-Use Design Guidelines. These documents address design guidelines important to
the vision established in the Specific Plan such as those related to the public realm and pedestrian
environment, building and storefront design, parking requirements, and utilities. The goals of the
General Plan, as implemented through the design standards and guidelines of the Garvey Avenue
Master Plan and Rosemead Mixed-Use Guidelines, are further implemented through the proposed
Specific Plan.
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES
Exhibit 3-3 (Map of Opportunity Projects and Sites) shows the overall breadth and vision for
development projects on Garvey Avenue.
LA AUTO AUCTION AND LANDWIN PROPERTY SITES MIXED-USE DESTINATION
The LA Auto Auction site is both the largest parcel and the largest vacant parcel in the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan area at approximately 17 acres in size. It is located on the north side of Garvey
Avenue between Strathmore Avenue and Pine Street, centered on Kelburn Avenue. It directly
borders another key opportunity project site, the Landwin Property, that extends from the eastern
boundary of the LA Auto Auction site to Alhambra Wash. The two properties are assumed to be
developed as one project despite being under separate ownership.
Due to its size and development potential, the former LA Auto Auction site currently has a special
designation in Rosemead General Plan as High Intensity Commercial Area 1. It is currently zone C-4
Regional Commercial. The current zoning specifies the former LA Auto Auction site for
development with a typical regional shopping center (defined by one or two anchors and satellite
retail uses) and a hotel. The Landwin Property, site directly east of the former LA Auto Auction site,
has similar potential. Most of the Landwin Property is undeveloped. The property straddles
Alhambra Wash, which is envisioned as a green as part of a collective mixed-use destination that is
pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood- and small business-focused, with a network of parks, open
spaces, and greenways. The Specific Plan identifies two- to four-story townhomes along the
Project Description Environmental Impact Report
3-8 City of Rosemead
northern edge of the site, with private rear open space along a public greenway. The greenway
would be designed to connect to a trail along Alhambra Wash and to Zapopan Park to the east. A
network of narrow streets, alleys, and greenways would connect the neighborhood to Garvey
Avenue and surrounding neighborhoods. The westernmost parcels allow for lower density
residential uses to be integrated into the existing neighborhood. All parking would be consolidated
within or below buildings, and at the rear of the site, in a centralized garage structure with open
space designed to buffer the existing single-family housing bordering the site's northern edge.
The Landwin Property site, directly east, is assumed to be developed with an approximate 150-
room hotel and mixed-use office-retail building. Alhambra Wash, is characterized as being a
publically accessible open space amenity connecting to a new regional greenway that would further
connect Garvey Avenue to the southeast via a new neighborhood park at Whitmore Avenue. This
new park would expand the existing public land and pedestrian bridge at Whitmore Avenue.
Townhomes at the northern edge of the site would serve as a transitory buffer to surrounding
residential neighborhoods. Exhibit 3-4 (Auto Auction and Landwin Site Conceptual Design)
identifies the land use concept for the LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property sites.
WEST GATEWAY SPECIALTY RETAIL DESTINATION
A vacant lot at 7430-7450 Garvey Avenue presents another catalytic development opportunity
along Garvey Avenue in the western edge of the Specific Plan area. Currently, the parcel is vacant.
Exhibit 3-5 (West Gateway Existing Conditions) includes photographs of this site in 2014.
The primary development concept for this property is characterized by a pedestrian-oriented,
specialty retail mall with a central garden/atrium. Two- and three-story development scenarios are
identified in the Specific Plan. The two-story alternative envisions specialty retail space in the front
of the ground floor and the entirety of the second floor. Parking would occur in the rear of the
ground floor and in one to three levels in a subsurface parking structure. The maximum
developable retail space would be 29,966 square feet resulting in a Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.73.
The three-story scenario envisions a narrow building with retail space in the front of the ground
floor and the entirety of the second and third floors. Parking would be accommodated in the rear of
the ground floor and in a two- or three-level subsurface parking structure. This scenario would
include new public space and other environmentally sustainable practices in order for the
additional floor-area to be permitted through the Community Benefit Incentive at a maximum
41,265 square feet (FAR 1.0). Exhibit 3-6 (West Gateway & Garden Mall Development Scenarios)
includes a rendered example of a three-story scenario. Exhibit 3-7 (West Gateway Retail/Office
Scenario) includes a scenario where the site is developed with commercial and office development.
PROTOTYPICAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES
The Specific Plan includes potential development scenarios for parcels along the corridor
characterized by similar existing conditions and subject to similar development opportunities and
constraints. Moreso, this concept seeks to address underutilized single or double parcels typically
defined by one-story structures sited away from street frontages with parking at the front of the
property. The proposed development scenario would be permissible on lots between 50 feet and
350 feet in width. Exhibit 3-8 (Potential Prototypical Development Locations) identifies locations
suitable for this scenario. Exhibit 3-9 (Prototypical Development Existing Conditions) includes
representative photographs of existing conditions at the identified locations. The Specific Plan
identifies the range of potential development proposals for prototypical sites that includes
Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3-9
remodeling existing development, reuse of existing development, and redevelopment of the site
with new structures.
EIR DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS AND THRESHOLDS
This EIR ws prepared with a focus on the City's objective of reducing the need for future
environmental review for future development proposals. To achieve this objective, project-level
analysis was conducted to the extent that future development could be reasonably forecasted
without resulting in speculation. The Opportunity Projects and Prototypical Development scenarios
identified in the Specific Plan provide substantive information regarding future development
potential and form the foundation of the impact analysis performed on the EIR. Additionally, the
Specific Plan assumptions were further refined based on the development standards of the Specific
Plan and contextual assumptions derived from the existing development patterns in the Planning
Area and the goals of the Project. Development potential was considered for average parcel size in
each proposed land use designation to forecast an "average" development proposal for the land use
in question and for the largest parcel size to forecast a "maximum" development proposal. The
range of EIR development scenarios were prepared to satisfy the informational purpose of the EIR
in recognizing reasonably foreseeable land use proposals as well as the need to account for the
greatest potential impact that could occur. Figure 3-1 (Development Scenario Relationships)
identifies the types of development scenarios in relation to general baseline conditions and relative
potential for change in physical coditions.
FIGURE 3-1 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO RELATIONSHIPS
Development potential was systematically evaluated with respects to classes of potential impact
based on CEQA statutes and guidelines to generate ranges of scenarios that would be categorically
exempt from environmental review, result in no environmental impact, result in less than
significant environmental impact after consideration of Specific Plan design features and existing
regulatory requirements, necessitate mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, or
result in significant and unavoidable impact. Identifying these ranges of impact scenarios is
informative to both the public and staff in the likelihood that a project will or will not result in
environmental impacts and considerably reduces the need to evaluate project-specific impacts for a
variety of issues. Thus, the analysis conducted by the EIR technical specialists began by considering
existing parcels that are under five acres that serve as the de facto project size for consideration as
categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Guidelines Section 15332 for In-Fill Projects.
Development Scenario
Prototypical
Underutilized
Vacant
Opportunity
Existing Conditions
Aging
Underdeveloped
Undeveloped
Catalytic
Potential Net Change
Some More Much Most
Project Description Environmental Impact Report
3-10 City of Rosemead
Development potential was considered for commercial projects of 10,000 square feet or less to
evaluate consistency with the Class 3 Categorical Exemption for construction of small structures. A
10,000-square-foot development in the Specific Plan area would be consistent with lot sizes ranging
from 0.29 acres and 0.38 acres. This is consistent with the average parcel size existing throughout
the Planning Area and thus it is reasonable to assume this type of development will occur in any
cases involving single-property redevelopment. The normalizing project scenario for evaluation of
potential impacts is the average parcel size identified for each land use designation. Average parcel
sizes range from 0.38 acres to 0.53 acres. The average parcel size was used to determine the
generalized environmental project-level effects that would occur in the Specific Plan area for
environmental topics sensitive to site-specific impacts, namely, air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, and noise. The average parcel size was then adjusted based on forecasted impacts to
determine the parcel area that would not exceed applicable significance thresholds. These have
been termed development thresholds in this EIR and are identified to provide the City and the
public with a reference point for requiring site specific impact analysis. Any development on a
project site that does not exceed the development threshold will not require additional impact
analysis for the issue at hand as its already been evaluated in this EIR. A maximum development
scenario was also evaluated using the largest parcel in each planning area. Maximum parcel sizes
range from 3.04 acres to 7.34 acres (not including the LA Auto Auction/Landwin sites).
The maximum development scenario is included as a worst-case scenario for disclosure purposes
and to identify additional development scenarios that may be conducive to mitigation at the
program level. The development scenarios were generated using the development standards found
in the Specific Plan and the City's Zoning Code that include maximum building height, setbacks,
landscaping, and parking requirements. It was assumed that standard parking would be provided
in addition to typical landscaping and pedestrian amenities. It was further assumed that mixed-use
developments will include ground-level retail/service businesses and residences for any additional
stories up to the maximum permitted, although it’s recognized that other variations including
horizontal mixed-use projects may be proposed. Table 3-5 (Prototypical Development Scenarios)
summarizes the various project-level scenarios evaluated herein. Note that some development
scenarios were evaluated in regards to specific environmental issues and may not have been used
in other sections of the EIR.
TABLE 3-5 (EIR DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS)
Zone/Site Scenario Site
(AC) Developable
Area
(AC)
Stories Footprint
(SF) Surface
Parking
(SF)
Sub-
grade
Level
Landscaping
(SF)
GSP average 0.37 12,000 3 5,640 9,387 2 960
GSP max 3.04 436,580 3 58,416 66,061 3 7,945
GSP-MU average 0.53 132,422 4 10,673 10,824 3 1,372
GSP-MU max 7.34 959,191 6 166,141 134,405 5 19,183
West Gateway max 0.95 41,265 3 14,524 24,382 2 30,638
Auction/Landwin max 24.13 2,973,300 7 652,529 202,554 7 ^196,020
^Includes 3 acres of proposed City Park
UTILITIES
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3-11
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area watershed drains into several drainage systems. The main
drainage system is a reinforced concrete (RC) box culvert that runs along Garvey Avenue to the
Alhambra Wash and several reinforced concrete (RC) pipes drainage systems. Other storm drainage
facilities include reinforced concrete (RC) pipes and catch basins, depending on the section of
Garvey Avenue. The drainage areas to the north of Garvey Avenue from Brighton Street to the
Alhambra Wash, and north of the Alhambra Wash and San Gabriel Boulevard, are all collected and
discharged to Alhambra Wash.
SANITARY SEWER
The majority of the existing sewer lines in the Specific Plan area are 8-inch-diameter, with varied
slopes along the flow path that connect to downstream sewer trunk connections. From New to Del
Mar Avenues, two existing 8-inch sewer lines on both sides of Garvey Avenue flow downstream into
a 36-inch trunk sewer. From Del Mar Avenue to San Gabriel Boulevard, two existing 8-inch sewers
on both sides of Garvey Avenue flow downstream to a 27-inch trunk sewer. The area along Garvey
Avenue from San Gabriel Boulevard to Charlotte Avenue is tributary to 8-inch sewer lines along San
Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue; all flow is discharged downstream to a 21-inch trunk sewer.
DOMESTIC WATER
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area falls within the Golden State Water Company (GSWC) service
area. The existing Garvey Avenue water conveyance infrastructure contains three segments of 6-
inch, 8-inch, and 12-inch diameter water mains. From New Avenue to Jackson Avenue, there are
two existing water mains, including one 6-inch main and one 12-inch main. New Avenue contains a
10-inch water main north of Garvey Avenue and a 12-inch water main south of Garvey Avenue.
From Del Mar Avenue to Charlotte Avenue, there are two existing 12-inch water mains. San Gabriel
Boulevard has a 10-inch water main north of Garvey Avenue and an 8-inch main south of Garvey
Avenue.
SUMMARY OF IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental impact analysis involves deconstruction of the component parts of the project under
review and the existing on-site and surrounding environmental conditions in determining (1) if,
objectively, the project has any potential to physically effect the environment, (2) if , subjectively,
such effects could result in significant impacts to the environment, and (3) if, reasonably, there are
methods of project design, regulatory mandate, or mitigating processes that could avoid, reduce, or
compensate such that impacts would no longer be considered significant. Figure 3-2 identifies the
process as a path involving the analysis and synthesis of project-environment interactions leading
to a reasoned determination by the Lead Agency after consideration by the public and a review of
all evidence relevant to a particular environmental issue.
Baseline Conditions: Existing environmental conditions are researched and recorded to
determine if those conditions are relevant to the issue at hand. If not, then no further
analysis is necessary.
Project: Assuming the project baseline conditions are relevant to the issue under review,
the manner by which the project will change those conditions is defined, if necessary. If the
Project Description Environmental Impact Report
3-12 City of Rosemead
project would not result in modifications to baseline environmental conditions, no further
analysis is needed.
Effects: When a project will result in modifications to a relevant environmental setting, the
project will result in one or more objective, empirical effects that can generally be
quantified or discussed qualitatively with the support of documented scientific evidence
and/or expert testimony.
Impact Thresholds: The effects of the project are then measured in relation to a
quantitative or qualitative threshold adopted by the lead agency and any responsible
agencies having approval authority over entitlement of the project that defines the extent to
which the effects of a project are viewed as being significant to baseline environmental
conditions. Thresholds of significance involve a degree of subjectivity and thus necessitate
public review and decision making activities to ensure that any resulting determinations
are consistent with public opinions on the issue at hand.
Mitigating Factors: Development plans and proposals are not processed statically but
subject to design revisions that may succeed in reducing impacts such that the significance
threshold is no longer exceeded. Similarly, a myriad of federal, state, and local regulations
have been adopted to eliminate or minimize the effects of development projects. After
exhausting approaches to implementing design and regulatory options on a project, impact-
specific mitigation must be evaluated to a reasonable extent in an effort to reduce the
impacts to below the significance threshold.
Determination: The concluding process involves the decision makers of the approving
agency or agencies reviewing the record of evidence involving the environmental issue of
concern and making findings in support of an impact determination, declaring that the
project will result in:
o No impact,
o Less than significant impact,
o Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, or
o Significant unavoidable impact after consideration of all feasible mitigation.
FIGURE 3-2 IMPACT ANALYSIS DIAGRAM
Baseline
Project Effect
Threshold Impact
Design Regulations
Mitigation
Detemination
Environmental Impact Report Project Description
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3-13
REQUIRED APPROVALS
Specific Plan
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY WHOSE APPROVAL IS
REQUIRED
None
Project Description Environmental Impact Report
3-14 City of Rosemead
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 4-1
04 ENVIRONMENTAL REV IEW - AESTHETICS
The following section discusses the potential for adverse change to the visual character and quality
in the vicinity of the Planning Area. New sources of light and glare that will result from future
development within the Planning Area are also discussed herein. As analysis documented in the
project’s Initial Study indicate that the project would not result in potentially significant impact
related to scenic vistas or scenic resources; therefore, these issues are not addressed in this EIR.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
VISUAL CHARACTER
The Planning Area is completely urbanized and characterized in the Specific Plan/Technical
Memorandum Compendium (Background Report) as an automobile-oriented commercial corridor
that is reflected in development patterns that favor the automobile as the preferred transportation
mode by providing ease of access through multi-lane street widths, on-street driveways with direct
access to parking lots, and dedication of the majority of ground-level property to parking lots. In
contrast, residential development in the area is characterized by small-lot, single-family and multi-
family subdivisions with the majority of the property dedicated to the building and the remainder
to on-site open space. The development pattern is typical of the post-World War II sub-
urbanization of the Greater Los Angeles area where a systematic, dedicated, and thoroughly
improved grid network of arterial and collector streets is accompanied by small-lot, single-family
parcels designed to accommodate the growing population and automobile-centric lifestyles of the
era. Garvey Avenue, as is further typified by the era, is designed a service-oriented commercial
corridor designed to serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods; however, the subdivision
practices of the time did not support pedestrian or human-powered transit options as can be seen
through the distinct separation of residential development from commercial land uses. The
prevalence of automobile repair and service business on Garvey Avenue contribute light industrial
elements to the corridor. The visual character of the area is eclectic with a mix of developed
properties interspersed with vacant properties. Existing development include schools, parking lots,
single- and multi-family residences, single- and multi-story commercial buildings housing a variety
of service and retail commercial businesses, and industrial buildings with automotive and other
light industrial businesses. The Garvey Avenue corridor is surrounded by residential uses on all
sides. Garvey Avenue is a four-lane arterial street that includes landscaped medians and center turn
lanes, mature street trees, and sidewalks.
The visual character of an urban area can be described through analysis of its form as defined by its
block, parcel, and building patterns and by the quality, age, and integrity of its architecture. Block
lengths (defined as the distance between streets) range from 300 feet to 2,600 feet in length
between 19 streets that intersect Garvey Avenue within the corridor. Average block length is 487
feet. The Specific Plan indicates a maximum length of 300 feet for consideration as a pedestrian-
oriented area. The parcel pattern along Garvey Avenue varies in width from 25 feet to
Aesthetics Environmental Impact Report
4-2 City of Rosemead
approximately 1,100 feet. Surrounding parcels show greater uniformity as single-lot subdivisions
dominate the surrounding area. Parcels in the Planning Area are generally rectangular in shape
with exception of those transected by Alhambra Wash in the eastern portion of the Planning Area.
The parcel pattern in the Planning Area is not consistent with the surrounding area considering the
frequency of large commercial parcels. Building form is also indicative of the automobile-oriented
character of the corridor. Breaks in the overall massing of buildings along Garvey Avenue are
frequent due to the prevalence of parking lots and the size of existing commercial structures. This
variation in the building edge, as discussed in the Specific Plan, results in discontinuous
architectural design, reduced safety, and a reduced shopping experience.
Existing development along Garvey Avenue is primarily one story and of common building quality
that reflects the age of its materials and design motif. Some multi-story structures are present with
materials such as stone, shingle, and concrete. Multi-story structures tend to show strong
architectural elements through the use differentiation of ground floor and upper story treatments.
Eucalyptus trees are planted inconsistently along the corridor, adding to the visual character in
those areas where they exist coupled with a planted median that was also inconsistently
constructed.
In summary, the visual character of the Planning Area is that of a post-war, suburban commercial
“strip” corridor without any defined or cohesive building form or architectural design pattern that
is automobile-oriented with a moderately enhanced streetscape.
LIGHT AND GLARE
The existing structures and improvements in the Planning Area include a variety of light sources
such as pole-mounted fixtures, building-mounted pedestrian and security lamps, interior lamps and
fixtures, and headlights from vehicles. The Planning Area, as is common throughout the Greater Los
Angeles Basin, is devoid of night sky views due to the presence of existing urban lighting. There are
no discernible sources of daytime glare in the Planning Area such as reflective glass or polished
metal building materials. Nighttime glare likely occurs as a result of refracted light from the various
fixtures and lamps located throughout the Planning Area.
PROJECT EFFECTS
The proposed Specific Plan will not result in any direct or specific type of structural change to the
Planning Area as it does not authorize construction of any development. Rather, the Specific Plan
will result in physical changes to the baseline conditions that comprise the visual character and
light/glare sources of the corridor through policies, regulations, and guidelines that provide
direction to future development proponents regarding the scale, architectural features, materials,
site layout, and project design that will be necessary to fulfill the goals and vision established by the
community. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan will directly influence long-term changes to the
visual character and light/glare sources of the Planning Area. Those effects require analysis in
Environmental Imapact Report Aesthetics
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 4-3
respects to the City’s CEQA thresholds, after consideration of existing regulations and components
of the Specific Plan, to determine if any potentially significant impacts may occur.
REGULATORY SETTING
CITY OF ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN
The City of Rosemead General Plan includes the following goals, policies, and actions that address
aesthetics and are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan as enumerated in the General Plan EIR:
LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal 2: Expanded opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute
jobs and tax revenues to the community (see Policy 2.4).
Goal 3: Creation of vibrant, attractive mixed-use development (see Policies 3.1 and 3.5).
Goal 5: Targeted land use changes that improve housing and economic opportunities for
residents and businesses and achieve City fiscal and environmental objectives (see Policy
5.1).
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal 1: Provide high-quality parks, recreation, and open space facilities to meet the needs of
all Rosemead residents (see Policy 1.5).
Goal 2: Increase greenspace throughout Rosemead to improve community aesthetics,
encourage pedestrian activity, and provide passive cooling benefits (see Policies 2.1, 2.3,
2.5, and 2.7).
ROSEMEAD ZONING CODE
SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW
Site plan and design review in Rosemead is required for projects pursuant to the Municipal Code
Chapter 17.136 (Site Plan and Design Review) (Rosemead, 2013). No building permit or any other
type of construction permit shall be issued for any building, structure, or other development of
property until a Site Plan and Design Review of the proposal is approved. Building permits and
other construction permits may be issued only in accordance with such approval.
LIGHTING AND GLARE
The City of Rosemead regulates outdoor lighting for all multi-family residential, commercial,
industrial, residential/commercial mixed-use, and commercial/industrial mixed-use development
pursuant to Chapter 17.88 (Lighting) of the Municipal Code. Exterior lighting is required to be
adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and undesirable illumination to adjacent
properties or streets.
Aesthetics Environmental Impact Report
4-4 City of Rosemead
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIF ICANCE
The proposed project would result in significant aesthetic impacts if it would:
A. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
B. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
ANALYSIS
IMPACT 4.A: VISUAL CHARACTER
EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION
Construction of any development project requires temporary modification to on-site conditions to
install utility connections, grade building pads, construct structures, pavement and concrete
pouring, application of architectural coatings, equipment movement and staging, materials storage,
solid and waste and debris collection and removal. Although views of such activities may not be
considered visually appealing to some viewers, the General Plan EIR does not identify any potential
impacts or identify any General Plan policies that address such activities. It is generally recognized
that development requires these activities and that upon completion of the project, these changes
to the viewshed are removed; thus, no impact to the visual character of the area due to construction
activities will occur.
EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS
Future development within the Specific Plan Planning Area will result in permanent physical
changes to the Planning Area through modification of the components of the visual setting (e.g.,
landscaping and architectural elements) and the interaction between existing structures within and
surrounding the Planning Area and new structures developed over time. The significance of visual
impacts is inherently subjective because people respond differently to changes in visual character
and have varying opinions as to what constitutes “good” and “bad” visual aesthetic. The goals of the
City’s General Plan are used to establish objective criterion for determining if environmental
changes resulting from the Specific Plan will “degrade” the visual character of the Planning Area
Environmental Imapact Report Aesthetics
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 4-5
whereby if the Specific Plan conflicts with the community design, architectural, neighborhood
character, or development compatibility objectives of the General Plan, then a potentially
significant impact may occur.
Use of the General Plan as a threshold is a supportable and evidenced method to establish an
objective understanding of “good” visual character as adopted by the community and City residents.
Furthermore, as an implementation document, the Specific Plan is expected to forward the goals of
the General Plan through establishment of policies and standards. In general, the goals for the
visual character of the City are more focused on the interaction between land uses and mixed-
development as it is integrated with landscaping and open space needs than on a particular type of
architectural aesthetic. The Specific Plan must not conflict with the following provisions to avoid
degrading the visual character of the Planning Area or its surroundings:
1. Encourage mixed-use development as a means of upgrading established uses and
developing vacant parcels
2. Promote lively and attractive ground-floor retail uses
3. Discourage further strip commercial development along arterials
The Planning Area is currently developed with a mix of institutional (e.g. schools), mixed
commercial/office uses, mixed commercial/industrial uses, light manufacturing, and single- and
multi-family residential uses. Pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan, the Planning Area will be
districted with four new zones (GSP-OS/P; GSP-R/C; GSP; and GSP-MU) characterized by different
permitted land uses. For analytical purposes, construction scenarios have been identified to group
potential future development projects based on similarity of existing site conditions and anticipated
developed conditions, thus characterizing similar effects on the environment and the potential for
impact. Three scenarios were evaluated to identify effects on visual character: Vacant and
Underutilized Development/Redevelopment, Prototypical Site Development, and Opportunity Site
Development.
VACANT LOTS AND UNDERUTILIZED SITES
The proposed Specific Plan encourages development of vacant properties and the redevelopment of
underutilized properties to realize the greatest development potential for properties within the
Planning Area. Vacant properties represent sites with a greater net potential for impact due to the
physical changes from undeveloped to fully developed. Underutilized sites follow vacant properties
in potential for impact because although currently developed, these sites are viewed as being
developed with less than the potential for the site and/or with uses that don’t fully capture the
potential the site has to offer to the community.
Development of vacant properties within the Specific Plan Planning Area are anticipated to be
developed with projects that maximize building area after consideration of parking, landscaping,
and utility requirements. On an average parcel of 0.37 acres in the Garvey Specific Plan (GSP) zone,
this is estimated to involve approximately 12,000 square feet of building area distributed up to
three stories accompanied by 9,387 square feet of surface parking, two additional levels of
subsurface parking, and almost 1,000 square feet of landscaping. In the GSP Mixed-Use (GSP-MU)
Aesthetics Environmental Impact Report
4-6 City of Rosemead
zone, a half-acre property is assumed to accommodate 132,422 square feet in building area in a
four-story structure with 1,400 square feet of landscaping, surface parking, and a three-level
subgrade parking structure. This level of development would result in complete, physical
transformation of the property from a vacant or underdeveloped site to one with a multi-story
building, landscaping, and ancillary improvements.
Underutilized sites within the Specific Plan area could potentially include facade changes, setback
changes, height changes, and/or use changes. In terms of long-term visual impacts to the Planning
Area, adherence to the requirements of the Specific Plan's Design and Development Standards will
ensure that future development of such sites will coalesce with the existing eclectic visual character
of the Planning Area and create a greater sense of place along Garvey Avenue. Buildings and
building facades constructed during future development will be limited in height to 75 feet. As such,
impacts to the visual character of the Planning Area related to development and redevelopment of
vacant lots and underutilized sites, as well as surrounding uses, will be less than significant with
adherence to the Design and Development Standards of the Specific Plan. Moreover, development
or redevelopment of vacant lots and underutilized sites has the potential to enhance the visual
character and introduce more aesthetically pleasing development of the Planning Area under the
direction of the Specific Plan.
PROTOTYPICAL SITES
This development scenario was designed to address the many parcels and small groups of parcels
along the corridor that share similar existing conditions, would have similar development
opportunities, and be subject to similar constraints. The scenario seeks specifically to address small
(typically single or double) parcels with existing uses. Typically, buildings on these sites are one-
story, of low building quality, and are sited away from the street with parking in the front. This
development scenario would apply to some of the narrower parcels on Garvey Avenue at or under
50 feet in width. It would also apply to parcels that are two or more typical parcels in width ranging
from 100 to 300 feet. Consistent with similar recommendations in the Garvey Avenue Master Plan,
the proposed Specific Plan encourages lot consolidation to provide opportunity for a wider range of
development options. Exhibit 4-1 identifies potential locations within the Specific Plan that are
candidates for prototypical development (in context of vacant and underutilized properties).
Prototypical development assumptions can occur on most properties within the Planning Area,
including vacant and underutilized properties. Analytically, the purpose of isolating vacant and
underutilized properties is to define impact potential as a result of net changes to site conditions.
Prototypical development is anticipated to occur primarily on sites that are developed with
marginal structures and uses, representing the majority of the Planning Area. Prototypical
development sites are anticipated to involve remodeling or reuse of existing structures while
vacant and underutilized properties are assumed for complete redevelopment or new
development.
Environmental Imapact Report Aesthetics
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 4-7
REMODELING, REUSING, AND REDEVELOPING
The Specific Plan identifies remodeling as a “light-touch” approach to site improvement where
existing development and site access would remain as currently exists but building facades and site
frontages undergo physical improvements. This is envisioned to include landscaping improvements
and streetscape enhancements with the goal of improving pedestrian activity and enhancing the
interaction at the interface of the right-of-way and property line through improved materials,
articulation, and architectural style.
Reuse takes place when buildings remain but the use of those buildings is intensified and/or
changed (known as adaptive reuse) to improve utilization of the property and structures. This may
be accompanied by construction of new structures integrated with existing development.
Streetscape and landscape design would be enhanced pursuant to the requirements of the Specific
Plan and contemporary requirements of the Zoning Code. Vehicle access would be consolidated and
improved to increase pedestrian safety. Parking could also be shared between establishments to
improve land use efficiency.
Redevelopment involves removal of existing buildings and/or substantial remodeling of any
remaining structures to increase the intensity of existing or proposed uses in what is envisioned to
be two- to four-story buildings directly fronting the street with parking in rear attached garages or
underground structures. Ground floor retail would replace surface parking lots and the sidewalk
and streetscape along the parcel would be improved to enhance pedestrian safety and quality at the
property.
OPPORTUNITY PROJECT SITES
The Specific Plan includes land use and design specifications for the former LA Auto Auction Site
supporting a centralized, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented community destination comprised of
retail uses, dining establishments that offer outdoor seating, entertainment venues, parks,
greenways, and residences. Directly to the east of the former LA Auto Auction Site is the Landwin
Property Site. The Landwin Property Site is envisioned to complement the redeveloped former LA
Auto Auction Site with new residential uses, a hotel, ground floor retail, and open space along the
Alhambra Wash. The vacant lot at 7430-7450 Garvey Avenue is the final opportunity development
site, located towards the western boundary of the Planning Area, identified as the West Gateway
opportunity development site. This parcel is currently vacant.
The former LA Auto Auction Site is both the largest parcel and the largest vacant parcel in the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area, at approximately 17 acres of land. As discussed in the Project
Description (Section 2), the Specific Plan districts this area as a mixed-use destination that is
pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood- and small business-focused, with access to open space and
recreational amenities. The Landwin Property Site is envisioned for multi-family residential uses,
major commercial uses, a hotel, and mixed use residential/office-retail buildings. The design
concept for the former LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property Sites is shown in Figure 4.6 of the
Specific Plan. The primary design concept for the West Gateway opportunity project site involves
Aesthetics Environmental Impact Report
4-8 City of Rosemead
an all-retail, pedestrian-oriented mall with a central atrium and specialty retail establishments.
Two- and three-story concepts are provided in the Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan identifies seven design principles for the former LA Auto Auction and Landwin
Property Sites. The design principles include:
1. restoring the street grid for ingress and egress,
2. fostering walkable neighborhoods,
3. restoring the Alhambra Wash,
4. encouraging operational activity to occur adjacent to the Garvey Avenue street frontage,
5. sensitivity to the design of transitions between land uses,
6. providing services in support of surrounding neighborhoods, and
7. establishing the tallest buildings at the center of the development.
These principles will be applied to individual development proposals and the overall site design
when reviewing future development proposals in these areas. Furthermore, development proposals
for the former LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property Sites will be subject to the requirements of
the Specific Plan’s Design and Development Standards that indicate cohesion between the existing,
eclectic visual character of the Planning Area. Similarly, the West Gateway site is subject to the
Design and Development Standards of the Specific Plan. Development of these sites is intended to
act as a catalyst for further development along Garvey Avenue and guide overall development such
that the ability to live, work, recreate, and move throughout the Planning Area is improved and the
attractiveness of the corridor is enhanced.
According to the Specific Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Development Standards, all subdivisions, new
land uses and structures, and substantial rehabilitation, alterations, and/or remodeling of existing
land uses and structures are be designed, constructed, and established in compliance with the
requirements of Section 3.4.1 (Use of the Design and Development Standards), in addition to the
applicable standards in Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code unless explicitly defined,
stated, or delineated otherwise in the Specific Plan. These requirements do not conflict with the
applicable goals and policies of the General Plan adopted to improve and maintain the visual
character of urban development throughout the City, as follows:
The Specific Plan will result in the gradual disassembly of the “strip commercial” character
of the Garvey Avenue corridor by moving development towards the arterial right-of-way,
establishing parking behind or under structures, and improving pedestrian movement
through reduced block lengths.
The Specific Plan supports and encourages mixed-use development as a means to improve
the appeal of the corridor as a destination for living and recreation marked by pedestrian
activity, a variety of service and retail establishments, and integrated residential units.
The Specific Plan supports and encourages ground-floor retail as a means to promote
pedestrian activity with architectural and site design features that are attractive in the eyes
of the community, provide visible activity through the use of open or large-windowed
Environmental Imapact Report Aesthetics
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 4-9
storefronts, and eliminate visual deterrents to the streetscape caused by breaks in building
form.
CONCLUSION
Future development within the Planning Area will not conflict with the provisions of the General
Plan that focus on the style and quality of the visual character of the City through implementation of
new design features proposed in the Specific Plan coupled with the existing requirements of the
zoning code. Impacts will be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The effects of remodeling, reuse, and redevelopment of the Planning Area at the program level is
inherently a cumulative impact in context of the visual character of the Planning Area as a whole
and has been demonstrated to result in less than significant impacts to the visual character of the
Garvey Avenue corridor. In context of properties surrounding the Planning Area, long-term changes
to development patterns along the corridor will improve the architectural and site design elements
of the Planning Area such that they are more congruent with the single-family residential
development that surrounds the area. By improving pedestrian mobility and access, reducing block
lengths, improving parking and circulation efficiency, and scaling development to the pedestrian in
a transitory manner that sites the densest development towards Garvey Avenue, surrounding
communities will be afforded an improved aesthetic when compared to the existing features of the
corridor, which is characterized by aging development and infrastructure, poor or non-existent
access, and uncoordinated architectural motifs and site configurations. Cumulative impacts will be
less than significant with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan and existing zoning
requirements.
IMPACT 4.B: LIGHT AND GLARE
The effects of lighting and glare differ depending on the time of day or night and in their effects on
human sight. Lighting is generally inconsequential to daytime viewing considering most outdoor
and public lighting is turned off and those that are illuminated would be virtually undetectable due
Aesthetics Environmental Impact Report
4-10 City of Rosemead
to the presence of the sun. Lighting becomes a concern at night because excessive or improperly
mounted lighting can effect degrade visibility of the night sky or disturb persons or properties.
Conversely, impacts from glare are generally considered during the day when reflective building
and automobile materials (e.g. glass or polished metal) have sufficient sunlight to create glare. The
effects of glare can be categorized as “discomforting” glare and “disabling” glare, as defined by the
International Commission on Illumination (CEI) (CEI, 2014). Discomfort glare is associated with
nuisance such that the glare is discernible and annoying but does not necessarily result in loss of
vision. Conversely, Disabling glare results in the loss of vision without necessity of pain or
discomfort. Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources where the
intensity of luminance is greater than the task (defined by the focus of the viewer), particularly
where the luminance is generated at sharp angles. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also
cause glare by increasing and/or concentrating the luminance of a light source and focusing it
towards viewers. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially
dangerous situations (i.e., if disabling glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). Sources of
daytime glare are typically concentrated in commercial areas containing large surface areas of
reflective materials. Glare results from development and associated parking areas that contain
reflective materials such as glass and highly polished surfaces.
Operation of all scenarios of potential development (vacant lots and underutilized sites,
prototypical development sites, and opportunity development sites) pursuant to the proposed
Specific Plan will introduce new or updated sources of lighting and potential glare through land
conversion, new development and redevelopment, and increased density on currently developed
sites. There are no particular functional differences in the type of lighting sources that could be
introduced by development of each class of project yet the bulk of lighting will presumably vary
with the size of the project. Therefore, analysis and discussion of the various development
scenarios have been combined under this issue. The various development scenarios would
generally include use of typical fixtures and lamps commonly found in urban areas. This includes
such lighting as parking lot and street light poles, pedestrian and security lighting, and interior
luminaires. The Specific Plan does not directly support use of electronic billboards, video marquees,
or other forms of specialty advertising that is constructed with and/or animated features. The
Specific Plan does not include new standards for lighting or provisions related to glare; therefore,
the City’s existing zoning regulations regarding these issues will persist for remodeling, new
development, and redevelopment in the Planning Area.
Section 17.88.020 (Lighting Standards) of the Municipal Code regulates light emissions within the
City, requiring a photometric survey for new lighting in multi-family, commercial, industrial,
institutional, and mixed-use developments. Exterior lighting is shall be of low intensity and shielded
so that light will not spill out onto surrounding properties. Flashing, revolving, or intermittent
exterior lighting visible from any property line or street is prohibited. Development of vacant and
underutilized sites, prototypical development sites, and opportunity development sites within the
Specific Plan area will be subject to the light and glare standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code.
Mixed-use developments within the Specific Plan area, which have the potential to induce
Environmental Imapact Report Aesthetics
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 4-11
substantial new sources of light and glare, will also be required to adhere to Rosemead’s Mixed Use
Guidelines for lighting, building design, and compatibility with adjacent properties. With adherence
to existing guidelines, impacts related to light and glare from development of the proposed Specific
Plan under each development scenario will be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The context for assessing cumulative impacts from light and glare includes existing and future light
sources within and surrounding the Planning Area resulting in ambient lighting conditions. The
ambient light in the area consists of a variety of light sources including commercial signage,
security lighting, street lights, field lighting at parks and schools, and vehicle lights on local streets
and freeways. If compared to a rural setting, the ambient artificial lighting levels around the
Planning Area are greater as evidenced by the lack of a visible night sky. Build out of the Planning
Area would introduce new and expanded sources of artificial light. Consequently, ambient light
levels would be expected to increase incrementally with the rate of future development. However,
increases in the number of light sources will have a negligible effect on cumulative luminance
emitted from the Planning Area due to the shielding, directional, and intensity requirements of the
Municipal Code. The Municipal Code requirements to limit illumination to individual properties will
result in a general net-zero increase in light levels as measured horizontally across the Planning
Area and beyond. Vertically, some increase in overall illumination is expected; however, lighting is
required to be shielded and directed downwards, thus limiting potential upward illumination.
Furthermore, due to existing light pollution, there are no night sky views surrounding the Planning
Area to be effected by any increase in lighting. In addition, given the location of the project site
within the urbanized area of the City, the additional artificial light sources introduced by the
proposed project would not significantly alter the existing medium-high lighting environment. As a
result, cumulative artificial light impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of
existing regulations.
With regard to glare, development within the proposed Specific Plan Planning Area will be
constructed of a variety of materials in accordance with the goals and vision for site and
architectural design of the Planning Area. Although specific materials are unknown at this time, the
Municipal Code expressively limits the use of materials that cause glare. Therefore, collectively as
individual development projects are constructed, no increase in any cumulative, glare generating
features will occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required
IMPACT DETERMINATION
Aesthetics Environmental Impact Report
4-12 City of Rosemead
Impacts 4.A and 4.B will be less than significant with implementation of existing standards and
regulatory requirements and the design of the Specific Plan.
.
Aesthetics Environmental Impact Report
4-13 City of Rosemead
TABLE 4-1 IMPACT 4.A DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical
West
Gateway
Auto
Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant by Design X X X X X
Less than Significant with Regulations X X X X X
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project
Design
X X X X X
Less than Significant with Regulations X X X X X
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
TABLE 4-2 IMPACT 4.B DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical
West
Gateway
Auto
Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant by Design
Less than Significant with Regulations X X X X X
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project
Design
Less than Significant with Regulations X X X X X
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Aesthetics Environmental Impact Report
4-14 City of Rosemead
EXHIBIT 4-1 PROTOTYPICAL AND OPPORTUNITY SITES
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan
04 Environmental Review - Aesthetics 15
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 5-1
05 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - AIR QUALITY
This section analyzes the potential direct and cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed
project and determines whether project implementation would result in air emissions that exceed
applicable air quality standards, cause cumulatively considerable increases in criteria pollutants, or
significantly impact any sensitive receptors. As analyzed in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the
proposed project has the potential to include potentially significant impacts related to criteria
pollutant emissions, violation of air quality standards, cumulatively considerable net increases, and
pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors. Therefore,
odors will not be analyzed in the DEIR.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) within the jurisdiction of SCAQMD.
The SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity
with Federal and State air quality standards. The South Coast Air Basin is a 6,745-square mile
subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino
Counties, and all of Orange County. The South Coast district includes 10,743 square miles.
REGIONAL CLIMATE
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SCAB. The temperature, wind,
humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.
The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to middle 60s (degrees
Fahrenheit). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows greater
variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month
throughout the SCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 47° F in downtown Los Angeles and
36° F in San Bernardino. All portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above
100° F.
Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is
quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is
an important modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB. The sulfur dioxide
is converted to sulfates and is heightened in the air with high relative humidity. The annual average
relative humidity within the SCAB is 71 percent along the coast and 59 percent inland. Since the
ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent low stratus clouds being a
characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.
More than 90 percent of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual
average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown
Los Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Rainfall between the months
of April and November usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and
slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB with frequency being higher near
the coast.
Three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB, while the remaining one-quarter is
absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-2 City of Rosemead
photochemical reactions. The shortest day of the year has approximately ten hours of possible
sunshine, while the longest day of the year has approximately 14.5 hours of possible sunshine.
In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of
air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a
shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent
marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing that effectively acts as an
impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is
normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.
A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding
mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms
a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions. These
inversions occur primarily in the winter, when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They
are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap
pollutants, such as NOX and CO from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is
therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants within the basin.
WIND PATTERNS AND PROJECT LOCATION
The distinctive climate of the project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and
geographical location. The Basin is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low
hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the
remainder of the perimeter.
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on-
shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breeze at night. Winds are
characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than
during the rainy winter season.
EXISTING AIR QUALITY
Existing air quality is measured at established SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations. Monitored
air quality is evaluated and in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the
levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public
health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect, as well as effects of each pollutant regulated under
these standards are shown in Figure 5-1 (Ambient Air Quality Standards).
Whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing ambient air
sample contaminant levels with the State and Federal standards, which are presented in Table 5-1
below. A region’s air quality is considered to be in attainment by the State if the measured ambient
air pollutant levels for O3, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are below the State standard in any
consecutive three-year period; and the Federal standards (other than O3, PM10, PM2.5, and those
based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not exceeded more than once per year. The O3
standard is attained when the fourth highest eight-hour concentration in a year, averaged over
three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when
99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the
standard.
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-3
FIGURE 5-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-4 City of Rosemead
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
The SCAQMD monitors the levels of various criteria pollutants of 30 monitoring stations
throughout the air basin. In 2012, the Federal and State ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and
CAAQS) were exceeded on one or more days for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 at most monitoring
locations. None of the areas of the SCAB exceeded Federal or State standards for NO2, SO2, CO,
sulfates or lead. Table 5-1 summarizes the attainment status in the non-desert portion of the Basin
for the criteria pollutants.
TABLE 5-1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant Federal State
O3 (1-hr) -- Nonattainment
O3 (8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Nonattainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Pb Nonattainment Nonattainment
VRP -- Unclassified
SO4 -- Attainment
H2S -- Unclassified
Sources: ARB 2016
LOCAL AIR QUALITY
Relative to the project area, the nearest long-term air quality monitoring site for ozone (O3), carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), inhalable particulates (PM10) and ultra-fine particulates
(PM2.5) is the South Coast Air Quality Management District Pasadena monitoring station, located
approximately 4.85 miles northwest of the project site in West San Gabriel Valley (SRA 8).
The most recent three years of data available is shown on Table 5-2 (Project Area Air Quality
Monitoring Summary 2010-2012), which identifies the number of days ambient air quality
standards were exceeded for the area, which is considered to be representative of the local air
quality at the project area. Additionally, data for SO2 has been omitted as attainment is regularly
met in the South Coast Air Basin and few monitoring stations measure SO2 concentrations.
Criteria pollutants are pollutants that are regulated through the development of human health
based and/or environmentally based criteria for setting permissible levels. Criteria pollutants, their
typical sources, and effects are identified below:
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-5
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odor less gas produced by the incomplete combustion of
carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during
the winter morning, when little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at
ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone,
motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Basin. The highest
ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and
intersections.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a
pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical
processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it
forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX).
Nitrogen Oxides (Oxides of Nitrogen, or NOX) consist of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are formed when nitrogen (N2) combines with oxygen (O2). Their
lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from one to seven days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to
170 years for nitrous oxide. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and
are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria air pollutant, and
may result in numerous adverse health effects; it absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish-red
cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. Of the seven types of nitrogen oxide compounds, NO2
is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic
density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those
indicated by regional monitors.
Ozone (O3) is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo
slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally
highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature
conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant.
PM10 (Particulate Matter less than 10 microns) is a major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or
liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (10 microns or
smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be
deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. PM10 also causes visibility reduction and is a criteria
air pollutant.
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-6 City of Rosemead
TABLE 5-2 PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2010-2012
Pollutant Standard Year
2010 2011 2012
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hr Concentration (ppm) 0.129 0.135 0.124
Maximum 8-hr Concentration (ppm) 0.105 0.121 0.109
Number of Days Exceeding State 1-hr Standard >0.09 ppm 27 40 41
Number of Days Exceeding State 8-hr Standard >0.07 ppm 63 66 77
Days Exceeding Federal 1-hr Standard >0.12 ppm 1 2 0
Days Exceeding Federal 8-hr Standard >0.075 ppm 40 39 54
Days Exceeding Health Advisory >0.15ppm 0 0 0
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hr Concentration (ppm) 2 2.3 3.1
Maximum 8-hr Concentration (ppm) 1.7 1.7 1.7
Days Exceeding State 1-hr Standard >20 ppm 0 0 0
Days Exceeding Federal/State 8-hr Standard >9.0 ppm 0 0 0
Days Exceeding Federal 1-hr Standard >35 ppm 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hr Concentration (ppm) 0.0692 0.0619 0.067
Annual Arithmetic Mean Concentration (ppm) 0.0188 0.0169 --
Days Exceeding State 1-hr Standard >0.18 ppm 0 0 0
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Maximum 24-hr Concentration (µg/m3) 63 56 53
Number of Samples 59 58 55
Samples Exceeding State Standard >50 µg/m3 3 3 --
Samples Exceeding Federal Standard >150 µg/m3 0 0 0
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hr Concentration (µg/m3) 39.3 65.0 34.8
Annual Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) 11.1 12.2 11.8
Samples Exceeding Federal 24-hr Standard >35 µg/m3 2 2 0
Source: Urban Crossroads. Fontana Commerce Development Air Quality Impact Analysis. March 18, 2014
-- pollutant not monitored
ppm, parts per million
µg/m3, micrograms per cubic meter
PM2.5 (Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns) is a similar air pollutant consisting of tiny solid
or liquid particles which are 2.5 microns or smaller (which is often referred to as fine particles).
These particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include sulfates
formed from SO2 release from power plants and industrial facilities and nitrates that are formed
from NOX release from power plants, automobiles and other types of combustion sources. The
chemical composition of fine particles highly depends on location, time of year, and weather
conditions. PM2.5 is a criteria air pollutant.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing
various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute
to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic.
Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is,
they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent when exposed to
photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol,
and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are
a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses
the terms VOC and ROG interchangeably.
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-7
The health effects of VOC exposure include eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of
coordination, nausea; damage to liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some organics can cause
cancer in animals; some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans. Key signs or symptoms
associated with exposure to VOCs include conjunctival irritation, nose and throat discomfort,
headache, allergic skin reaction, dyspnea, declines in serum cholinesterase levels, nausea, emesis,
epistaxis, fatigue, dizziness.
The ability of organic chemicals to cause health effects varies greatly from those that are highly
toxic to those with no known health effect. As with other pollutants, the extent and nature of the
health effect will depend on many factors including level of exposure and length of time exposed.
Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness, visual disorders, and memory impairment
are among the immediate symptoms that some people have experienced soon after exposure to
some organics. At present, not much is known about what health effects occur from the levels of
organics usually found in homes. Many organic compounds are known to cause cancer in animals;
some are suspected of causing, or are known to cause, cancer in humans.
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) are also precursors
to forming ozone and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and
longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of
combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and nitrogen oxides react in the
presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a
criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms ROG and VOC interchangeably.
Lead (Pb) is a heavy metal that is highly persistent in the environment. In the past, the primary
source of lead in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline. As a result of the
removal of lead from gasoline, there have been no violations at any of the SCAQMD’s regular air
monitoring stations since 1982. It should be noted that the proposed project is not anticipated to
generate a quantifiable amount of lead emissions. Lead is a criteria air pollutant.
HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS
Ozone. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease, such as
asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the most susceptible subgroups
for ozone effects. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed
in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity,
increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological
changes. Elevated ozone levels are associated with increased school absences. In recent years, a
correlation between elevated ambient ozone levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates,
as well as mortality, has also been reported. An increased risk for asthma has been found in
children who participate in multiple sports and live in communities with high ozone levels.
Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the responses
described above. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that includes
ozone may be more toxic than exposure to ozone alone. Although lung volume and resistance
changes observed after a single exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and
cellular changes appear to persist, which can lead to subsequent lunch structural changes.
Carbon Monoxide. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible
to the adverse effects of CO exposure. The effects observed include earlier onsite of chest pain with
exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of decreased oxygen supply to the heart.
Inhaled CO has no direct toxic effect on the lungs, but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering with
oxygen transport and competing with oxygen to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-8 City of Rosemead
form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, conditions with an increased demand for oxygen supply
can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include fetuses, patients with
diseases involving heart and blood vessels, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen
deficiency) as seen at high altitudes.
Reduction in birth weight and impaired neurobehavioral development has been observed in
animals chronically exposed to CO, resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers.
Recent studies have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes with exposure to elevated CO
levels; these include pre-term births and heart abnormalities.
Particulate Matter. A consistent correlation between elevated ambient fine particulate matter
(PM10 and PM2.5) levels and an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, number and
severity of asthma attacks and the number of hospital admissions has been observed in different
parts of the United States and various area around the world. In recent years, some studies have
reported an association between long-term exposure to air pollution dominated by fine particles
and increased mortality, reduction in life-span, and an increased mortality from lunch cancer.
Daily fluctuations in PM2.5 concentration levels have also been related to hospital admissions for
acute respiratory conditions in children, to school and kindergarten absences, to a decrease in
respiratory lung volumes in normal children, and to increased medication use in children and
adults with asthma. Recent studies show long function growth in children is reduced with long-
term exposure to particulate matter.
The elderly, people with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease, and children appear to
be more susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM10 and PM2.5.
Nitrogen Dioxide. Population-based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness,
including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated with long-
term exposure to NO2 at levels found in homes with gas stoves, when compared to the higher than
ambient levels found on all homes of Southern California. An increase in resistance to air flow and
airway contraction is observed after short-term exposure to NO2 in healthy subjects. Larger
decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals with asthma or chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema) than in healthy individuals, indicating a
greater susceptibility of these sub-groups.
In animals, exposure to levels of NO2 considerably higher than ambient concentrations result in
increased susceptibility to infections, possibly due to the observed changes in cells involved in
maintaining immune functions. The severity of lung tissue damage associated with high levels of
ozone exposure increases when animals are exposed to a combination of ozone and NO2.
Sulfur Dioxide. A few minutes of exposure to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in
some asthmatics, all of whom are sensitive to its effects. In asthmatics, increase in resistance to air
flow, as well as reduction in breathing capacity leading to severe breathing difficulties, are observed
after acute exposure to SO2. In contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses
even after exposure to higher concentrations of SO2.
Animal studies suggest that despite SO2 being a respiratory irritant, it does not cause substantial
lung injury at ambient concentrations. However, very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema
(fluid accumulation), lung tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract.
Some population-based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with
fine particles show a similar association with ambient SO2 levels. In these studies, efforts to
separate the effects of SO2 from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear
whether the two pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor.
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-9
Lead. Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of Lead
(Pb) exposure. Exposure to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of
the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple
commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased Pb levels are associated with
increased blood pressure.
Pb poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures, and death; although it appears that there are not
direct effects of Pb on the respiratory system. Pb can be stored in the bone from early age
environmental exposure, and elevated blood Pb levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue
during pregnancy, hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid gland) and
osteoporosis (breakdown of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast-fed babies can be exposed to higher
levels of Pb because of previous environmental Pb exposure of their mothers.
Odors. The science of odor as a health concern is still new. Merely identifying the hundreds of VOCs
that cause odors poses a big challenge. Offensive odors can potentially affect human health in
several ways. First, odorant compounds can irritate the eye, nose, and throat, which can reduce
respiratory volume. Second, studies have shown that the VOCs that cause odors can stimulate
sensory nerves that result in neurochemical changes that might influence health by compromising
the immune system. Finally, unpleasant odors can trigger memories or attitudes, causing cognitive
and emotional effects such as stress.
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The geographic area of which
SCAQMD consists is known as the Basin. SCAQMD develops comprehensive plans and regulatory
programs for the region to attain Federal standards by dates specified in Federal law. The agency is
also responsible for meeting State standards by the earliest date achievable, using reasonably
available control measures.
The SCAQMD is the lead agency charged with regulating air quality emission reductions for the
entire Basin. SCAQMD created Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs), which represent a regional
blueprint for achieving healthful air on behalf of the 16 million residents of the South Coast Basin.
The remarkable historical improvement in air quality since the 1970s is the direct result of
Southern California’s comprehensive, multiyear strategy of reducing air pollution from all sources
as outlined in its AQMPs and by utilizing uniform CEQA review throughout the Basin.
SCAQMD rule development through the 1970s and 1980s resulted in dramatic improvement in
Basin air quality. Nearly all control programs developed through the early 1990s relied on (i) the
development and application of cleaner technology; (ii) add-on emission controls, and (iii) uniform
CEQA review throughout the Basin. Industrial emission sources have been significantly reduced by
this approach and vehicular emissions have been reduced by technologies implemented at the State
level by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
The 2012 AQMP states, “the remarkable historical improvement in air quality since the 1970s is the
direct result of Southern California’s comprehensive, multiyear strategy of reducing air pollution
from all sources as outlined in its AQMPs”. Ozone, NOX, VOC and CO have been generally decreasing
in the Basin since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease through 2020, despite periodic
spikes resulting from infrequent weather occurrences or natural phenomenon (e.g. wildland fires).
These decreases result primarily from motor vehicle controls and reductions in evaporative
emissions. Although vehicle miles traveled in the Basin continue to increase, NOX and VOC levels are
decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older
polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-10 City of Rosemead
decreased due to use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. Ozone contour maps, show that the
number of days exceeding the national 8-hour standard has decreased between 1997 and 2007. In
the 2007 period, there was an overall decrease in exceedance days compared with the 1997 period.
The overall trends of PM10 and PM2.5 in the air (not emissions) show an overall improvement since
1975. Direct emissions of PM10 have remained somewhat constant in the Basin and direct
emissions of PM2.5 have decreased slightly since 1975. Area wide sources (fugitive dust from roads,
dust from construction and demolition, and other sources) contribute the greatest amount of direct
particulate matter emissions.
Ozone air quality in the SCAB has improved substantially over the last 30 years as shown in Figure
5-2 (South Coast Air Basin Ozone Trend). During the 1960s, maximum 1-hour concentrations were
above 0.60 ppm. Today, the maximum measured concentrations are less than one-third of that. The
2007 ozone season in the SCAB was on a par with 2006. The 2007 peak eight-hour indicator value
was 42 percent lower than the 1988 value. The 2008 three-year average of the maximum eight-
hour concentration was over 41 percent lower than 1990. The number of days above the standards
has also declined dramatically, and the trend for 1-hour ozone is similar to that for eight-hour.
FIGURE 5-2 COAST AIR BASIN OZONE TREND
As with other pollutants, the PM10 statistics also show overall improvement as illustrated in Figure
5-3 (South Coast Air Basin PM10 Trend). During the period for which data are available, the three-
year average of the annual average (State) decreased by 35 percent. Although the values in the late
1990s show some variability, this is probably due to meteorology rather than a change in
emissions. Despite the overall decrease, ambient concentrations still exceed the State annual and
24-hour PM10 standards. Similar to the ambient concentrations, the calculated number of days
above the 24-hour PM10 standards has also shown an overall drop. During 1989, there were 305
calculated days above the State standard and 34 calculated days above the national standard. By
2007, there were 273 calculated State standard exceedance days and 13 national standard
exceedance days. The high 24-hour concentration in 2007 was due to a national windblown dust
event.
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-11
Figure 5-4 (South Coast Air Basin PM2.5 Trend) shows the annual average PM2.5 concentrations
(national) in the SCAB from 1999 through 2007. Overall, the annual average concentrations also
show a declining trend, although the trend looks less pronounced, due to differences in State and
national monitoring methods. The 98th percentile of 24 hour PM2.5 concentrations has also declined
within the last nine years. The SCAB is currently designated as nonattainment for the State and
national PM2.5 standards Measures adopted as part of the upcoming PM2.5 SIP, as well as programs
to reduce ozone and diesel PM will help in reducing public exposure to PM2.5 in this region.
Carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB have decreased markedly – a total decrease of more
than 72 percent in the peak eight-hour indicator since 1988 as shown in Figure 5-5 (South Coast Air
Basin Carbon Monoxide Trend). The number of exceedance days has also declined. During 1988
there were 73 days above the State standard and 65 days above the national standard. However,
since 2003, there were no exceedance days for either standard. The entire SCAB is now designated
as attainment for both the State and Federal CO standards. Ongoing reductions from motor vehicle
control programs should continue the downward trend in ambient CO concentrations.
FIGURE 5-3 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN PM10 TREND
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-12 City of Rosemead
FIGURE 5-4 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN PM2.5 TREND
FIGURE 5-5 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN CARBON MONOXIDE TREND
Part of the control process of the SCAQMD’s duty to greatly improve the air quality in the Basin is
the uniform CEQA review procedures required by SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook. The single threshold
of significance used to assess project direct and cumulative impacts has in fact “worked” as
evidenced by the track record of the air quality in the Basin dramatically improving over the course
of the past decades. As stated by the SCAQMD the District’s thresholds of significance are based on
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-13
factual and scientific data and are, therefore, appropriate thresholds of significance to use for the
proposed project.
Over the last 20 years, NO2 values have decreased significantly in the SCAB as shown in Figure 5-
56(South Coast Air Basin Nitrogen Dioxide Trend). The peak one-hour indicator for 2007 was over
67 percent lower than what it was during 1988. The SCAB attained the State one-hour NO2 standard
in 1994, bringing the entire State into attainment. The national annual average standard has not
been exceeded since 1991. A new State annual average standard was adopted by the CARB in
February 2007. The new standard is just barely exceeded in the South Coast. NO2 is formed from
NOX emissions, which also contribute to ozone. As a result, the majority of the future emission
control measures will be implemented as part of the overall ozone control strategy. Many of these
control measures will target mobile sources, which account for more than three-quarters of
California’s NOX emissions. These measures are expected to bring the South Coast into attainment
of the State annual average standard.
FIGURE 5-6 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN NITROGEN DIOXIDE TREND
The American Lung Association website includes data collected from State air quality monitors that
are used to compile an annual State of the Air Report. These reports have been published over the
last 13 years. The latest State of the Air Report compiled for the Basin was in 2010. As noted in this
report, air quality in the Basin has significantly improved in terms of both pollution levels and high
pollution days over the past three decades. The area’s average number of high ozone days dropped
from 189.5 per year in the initial 2000 State of the Air Report (1996-1998) to 141.8 in the 2006-
2008 report. The region has seen dramatic reduction in particle pollution since the initial State of
the Air Report.
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
The Planning Area is located east of New Avenue and west of San Gabriel Boulevard. The project
traffic study analyzed existing performance at twelve intersections. All intersections operate at an
acceptable level of service (LOS) of D or better.
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-14 City of Rosemead
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The U.S. EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for O3, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and lead.
The U.S. EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the Federal
government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside State water (outer
Continental Shelf). The U.S. EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other
than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emissions requirements of the
CARB.
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955, and has been amended numerous times
in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the Federal air
quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. The CAA also
mandates that States submit and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for local areas not
meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate
how the standards will be met.
The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not
meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and
incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of
the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the project site include Title I (Non-
Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions). Title I provisions were established
with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants: O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, CO,
PM2.5, and lead. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and
to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5.
Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions
require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and
natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOX). NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of nitrogen
oxides (NO, NO2, NO3) which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.
CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
The CARB is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595),
responding to the Federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor
vehicles. The California CAA mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions
reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the State ambient air
quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB establishes the CAAQS for all pollutants
for which the Federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for sulfates,
visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. However at this time, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl
chloride are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered
to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS.
Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from
commercial and light industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally
designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-15
Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare air quality management plans that include
specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required
to include:
Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources;
Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and
indirect sources (e.g., motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial
development);
A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new
or modified permitted sources of emissions;
Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a
substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled;
Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators;
Sufficient control strategies to achieve a five percent or more annual reduction in emissions
or 15 percent or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NOX, CO and PM10. However, air
basins may use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less
than five percent per year under certain circumstances.
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD
has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the State and Federal
ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce
emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution
control on the economy. A detailed discussion on the AQMP and project consistency with the AQMP
is provided herein.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN
The City of Rosemead General Plan includes the following goals, policies and actions that address
air quality and are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan as enumerated in the General Plan EIR:
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal 4: Effective contributions to regional efforts to improve air quality and conserve energy (see
Policies 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6).
THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could result in
potentially significant impacts related to air quality if it:
A. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
B. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation.
C. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors).
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-16 City of Rosemead
Within the context of the above threshold considerations, and based on the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (1993), a project’s localized CO emissions impacts would be significant if they
exceed the following California standards for localized CO concentrations:
1-hour CO standard of 20.0 parts per million (ppm)
8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
The SCAQMD has also developed regional and localized significance thresholds for other regulated
pollutants, as summarized in Table 5-3 (SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds (lbs/day))
below. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds indicate that any projects in the
SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as
having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.
TABLE 5-3 SCAQMD MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (LBS/DAYS)
Pollutant Construction Operation
NOX 100 55
VOC/ROG 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOX 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD 2012
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT 4.A AND 4.C
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-17
A significant impact could occur if the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs the
implementation of the South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Conflicts and
obstructions that hinder implementation of the AQMP can delay efforts to meet attainment
deadlines for criteria pollutants and existing compliance with applicable air quality standards.
Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, consistency with the South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
is affirmed when a project (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality
standards violation or cause a new violation and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in
the AQMP. Consistency review is presented below:
1.Construction activities will occur concurrently with growth within the Specific Plan
Planning Area. Typical development projects within the Specific Plan area will be exempt or
subject to special situation conditions that will eliminate or substantially reduce
environmental review in the future. These projects are presumed to have no significant
impact on the environment pursuant to State law; however, emission calculations for a
range of projects were conducted should the occasion arise where an exemption or other
streamlining mechanism needs screening information. Construction-related air quality
impacts were found to be less than significant for all projects ranging from less than an acre
projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and
gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and
off-shore drilling facilities; therefore, the proposed project is not defined as significant. The
proposed project includes a General Plan amendment to modify the land use designation of
numerous parcels in the Planning Area; therefore, the project requires consistency analysis
with the AQMP.
Development of the former LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property Sites under guidance of the
proposed Specific Plan will include construction of housing and other development that could
directly accommodate long-term growth in the City. The proposed Specific Plan includes land use
designations that support development of up to 1,048 dwelling units accommodating a population
of 2,710 residents. Most residential development would be built almost exclusively within the GSP-
MU zone. According to DOF estimates, the City of Rosemead is anticipated to have a population of
58,100 residents in the year 2035. This accounts for an increase of 4,595 residents over the 2016
population of 53,505. The Specific Plan does not include excessive housing units that could lead to
additional growth beyond 4,595 residents forecasted between 2012 and 2035. Impacts related to
substantial population growth will be less than significant. The full build-out scenario of 1,048 units
characterizes the worst-case scenario for providing opportunities for population growth in the
area. As such, future residential development proposals in the Planning Area will be sufficient to
provide for a portion of the City’s housing demand while not inducing substantial growth and will
not require future environmental review regarding this issue.
The Specific Plan does include construction of new infrastructure at the former LA Auto Auction
and Landwin Property Sites. Construction of new infrastructure within the former LA Auto Auction
and Landwin Property Site will consist of roadways, sidewalks, curb gutters, stormwater drainage,
electrical, water and sewer utilities; however, these improvements would be limited to meet local
demand and would not make available infrastructure in an area that was not previously served by
the utility provider.
HOUSING
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-18 City of Rosemead
Evaluating consistency with the AQMP requires comparison of the growth projections for the
proposed Specific Plan and the population, housing, and employment projections of the Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) that are used in the AQMP. The
proposed Project will allow for up to 1,048 additional households. SCAG growth projections
indicate that up to 1,600 new dwelling units will be necessary to meet population demand between
2008 and 2035. Therefore, the 1,048 possible dwelling units generated by the proposed Specific
Plan will not exceed the projected amount by 2035 and will contribute over half of the necessary
housing units needed to accommodate long-term growth. As a result, project-generated households
will have a less than significant impact.
EMPLOYMENT
The proposed Specific Plan has the capacity to support the development of 713,935 gross square
feet of new non-residential commercial space- primarily retail, entertainment, and service
operations. Using the Employment Density Study prepared for the SCAG region (SCAG 2001), the
proposed commercial uses could generate up to 2,197 new employees at one employee per 325
square feet for retail and service uses. The SCAG RTP indicated that the City had 16,400 jobs in
2008 and is projected to increase to 17,600 jobs by 2035 for a net increase of 1,200 jobs. The
increase created by the proposed Project is not within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG
and, thus, will be attributable to unanticipated growth in the area.
Based on the consistency analysis above, the project will conflict with the AQMP by resulting in a
significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality standards and a cumulatively considerable
impact could occur.
IMPACT 4.B
REGIONAL AND LOCALIZED EMISSIONS
An Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment was prepared by MIG to identify sources of criteria
pollutant emissions that will result from construction and operation of the project. The assessment
includes forecasting emissions generated by the proposed Specific Plan and evaluates the effects of
those emissions, if any, and if any potentially significant impacts may occur.
MIG evaluated a spectrum of prototypical development projects to disclosure emissions levels from
common and worst-case activities in light of the City’s goal of minimizing future environmental
review for future projects within the Planning Area. The prototypical development activities
included those on (1) an average-sized parcel, (2) the largest parcel existing in the land use
designation, and (3) the development threshold-sized parcel established by calculating the level of
activity where the lowest dominating daily emission threshold would be exceeded and the
corresponding parcel size identified in CalEEMod. MIG did not evaluate projects from the GSP-OS/P
or GSP-R/C zoning districts. Based on the uses allowed in these designations, as well as the size and
number of parcels, development within these land uses designations will be substantially similar to
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-19
that within the GSP-MU and GSP zones; thus, separate model runs are not necessary. GSP-OS/P
zoning district is designed for surface parking or parkland and all parcels combined in this district
equal less than an acre. The GSP-R/C district includes one large parcel – over 8 acres in size – but
this is the site of the existing Richard Garvey Intermediate School and is assumed to have no
potential for redevelopment. The second largest parcel in the Residential/Commercial district is
included in plans for the amalgamated former LA Auto Auction Site. All other parcels in the GSP-R/C
zone are less than ¼ acre in size. The analytical discussion documented herein focuses on impacts
from potential development within the GSP and GSP-MU zoning districts; however, it should be
noted that the analysis also accounts for similar development potential in the GSP-R/C and GSP-O/S
zones. “Typical” developments were modeled by identifying the average lot size within each
district. "Maximum” development scenarios were modeled using the largest lot within each
district.1 Construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions are discussed in detail below.
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Short-term criteria pollutant emissions will occur during on-site site clearing, grading, building
construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Emissions will occur from use of
construction equipment, worker, vendor, and hauling trips, and disturbance of on-site soils in the
form of fugitive dust. To determine if construction of the proposed project could result in a
significant air quality impact, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) has been
utilized.
Default CalEEMod construction phase lengths based on SCAQMD construction survey data are used
to represent the most generic form of development possible during the life of the Specific Plan.
SCAQMD collected the survey data elicited equipment needs for construction projects based on the
horizontal area of the project site. The air quality specialists assumed a continuance horizontal
project site for multi-story prototypical development scenarios to determine equipment needs for
project greater than one story in height. The environmental team used Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) data to determine the average parcel size in both the GSP and GSP-MU land use
designations. Different thresholds of development standards are stated in Specific Plan based on
zoning and whether the “Provision of Community Benefits” is met or not. Of most consequence to
our modeling is the max FAR allowed for each zoning district. When modeling the average-sized
parcels from the GSP and GSP-MU zoning districts, we went with the lower limit (0.75 FAR for GSP,
1.6 FAR for GSP-MU). This characterizes the kind of typical developments we expect to occur within
each land use. When modeling the largest parcels from both districts, it was assumed that
Community Benefits would be provided, and the higher limits were used (1.0 FAR for GSP, 3.0 for
GSP-MU). This represents the most impactful projects feasible within the Specific Plan and allowed
us to capture the greatest range of impacts between a typical and a major project. Technical
specialists modified the potential for development to account for height, intensity, parking
requirements, and design requirements found in the proposed Specific Plan and the existing Zoning
Code. Development assumptions can be seen in Table 3-5 of the Project Description chapter. MIG
first modeled the average-sized parcel and largest existing parcel (with potential for
redevelopment) from the GSP and GSP-MU districts and performed a regression analysis to
1 The LA Auto Auction/Landwin Site was not included in the average or maximum scenarios for the GSP-MU
zone because it is identified as an Opportunity Site
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-20 City of Rosemead
determine the project-sized threshold where SCAQMD daily thresholds are likely to be exceeded
during construction.
ARCHITECTURAL COATING (VOC)
The results of the model indicate that all average prototype development scenarios will result in
excessive daily VOC (ROG) emissions. Emissions are the result of use of default VOC volumes in
architectural coatings that include paints, adhesives, and other chemicals. Default volumes for
nonresidential coatings are 250 grams per liter (g/l), more than is generally permitted in common
paint, solvent, or adhesive usage SCAQMD Rule 1113. To compensate for excessive ROG emissions
from coating activities, model parameters were adjusted to eliminate VOC emissions from coating
applications by specifying use of zero-VOC content for interior and exterior coatings. Another
option for mitigating excessive VOC emission from painting activities is to reduce the amount of
coating application that can occur on a daily basis. The requirement to reduce VOC emissions from
coating applications has been included as Mitigation Measure 1. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure 1, emissions of VOCs from architectural coating activities during construction of future
development within the Planning Area will not exceed the SCAQMD daily construction threshold.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Assuming that VOC emissions can be successfully mitigated, the regression picture becomes
murkier after that. Confidence levels (R2) are used as a statistical measure to depict how well a
regression model fits the data it represents. Higher R2 values generally show a model that is a “good
fit” or can be rationally used to unknown values based on a known dependent variable (in our case,
the expected daily emissions of a given project acreage). In short, MIG was not satisfied with the
appropriateness of the model based on the resulting R2 values and determined that further analysis
was required. With an intimate knowledge of CalEEMod’s operation, MIG proceeded with an
alternate route. CalEEMod rounds up to the nearest acre or “bin size” when selecting equipment for
each construction phase. For example, a 1.2 acre and a 1.7 acre project would both be interpreted
by CalEEMod as “2 acre” sites and would accordingly have the same equipment assignments.
Awareness of this condition is necessary to obtain the most meaningful information possible from
the program. MIG then chose to model project development scenarios corresponding to the
CalEEMod bin sizes. Generic projects with an FAR of 1.0 were modeled with project sizes of 1, 2, 3,
5, and 10 acres. This regression produced more representative model results. To further isolate a
representative project size, regression variance was analyzed to generate 95 percent confidence
intervals for each criteria pollutant. This ensures that, based on the data input into the models, 95
percent of future projects proposed in the Planning Area with site areas at or below those listed in
Table 5-5 below, given criteria pollutants will not exceed their maximum daily thresholds during
construction. Figure 4-7 includes the graphs and equations used in the statistical analysis described
above.
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-21
FIGURE 5-7 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
TABLE 5-4 CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Extrapolation Method Site Area (AC) 95% Confidence Interval (AC)
ROG Linear 0.75 -1.30
NOX Linear 16.53 9.54
CO Linear 221.95 159.18
PM10 Linear 81.07 36.14
PM2.5 Linear 47.50 20.28
HEAVY-DUTY EQUIPMENT
The results of the regression analysis indicate that future development projects proposed within
the Specific Plan area that are approximately 9.5 acres in size or greater will exceed the SCAQMD
daily threshold for construction-related nitrogen oxides. There are a handful of parcels this size or
greater in the Planning Area, thus, future development proposals of this size will be rare and will
require considerable lot consolidation. Mitigation will be required for future projects proposed on
sites of 9.5 acres or greater in order to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The next
threshold to be exceeded by construction activities is for PM2.5, with a development threshold of
approximately 20 acres. There are no parcels of this size in the Planning Area and is assumed that
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-22 City of Rosemead
the developed, urban character of the areas precludes the future lot consolidation that would be
necessary to create a site of this size.
There are a variety of methods to reduce NOX emissions from construction activities as specified in
Mitigation Measure 2. The primary means of reducing NOX emissions is limiting daily use and
duration of construction equipment, use of newer or higher efficiency equipment, and limiting the
amount of daily construction activity. Projects requiring mitigation due to a project site that
exceeds the development thresholds for NOX may implement Tier IV (Final) emission standards for
off-road construction equipment. Tier IV emissions standards are established by the EPA for
emissions of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter in off-road
diesel engines. The final rule (40 CFR 89, Federal Register Document 96-32970) for off-road engine
emissions began in 1996 as part of a “tiered” system by which new engines must meet that year’s
emissions standards. Standards vary between years, based on the horsepower of the engine. Tier I
standards were in place generally between 1996 and 2005. Tier II standards were phased in
between 2001 through 2010. Tier III standards were phased in starting 2006 and are currently
applicable to engines with a horsepower between 75 and 17 Interim Tier IV and Tier IV standards
have been established for future engines through 2020. Proof of full compliance with Tier IV
standards as required by Mitigation Measure 2 shall be submitted to the City Planning Department
for review and approval prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits. Proof of compliance
shall identify the means of scheduling and/or equipment specifications, and shall be enforceable
through regular or unscheduled inspection by the City’s Building Division throughout construction
of the project.
Project proponents who submit applications for a project at or exceeding the above screening
thresholds will be required to incorporate mitigation to reduce impacts to less-than-significant
levels. Should site specific circumstances or unique circumstances of a future development proposal
preclude incorporation of feasible mitigation identified in this report, a project-specific air quality
and climate change assessment with recommendations for reasonable, alternative mitigation
options will be required pursuant to the City’s standard environmental review standards. The
development thresholds identified herein are applicable to the entirety of the Planning Area and
illustrate that with incorporation of standard mitigation air quality impacts will be less than
significant.
FUGITIVE DUST IMPACTS
Future development within the Planning Area will be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 that prohibits
emissions of fugitive dust from any grading activity, storage pile, or other disturbed surface area if
it crosses the project property line or if emissions caused by vehicle movement cause substantial
impairment of visibility (defined as exceeding 20 percent opacity in the air). The majority of future
development proposals will be subject to the minimum SCAQMD fugitive dust requirements and
considering that the majority of properties are under an acre in size, fugitive dust is of minimal
concern as earthmoving activities will be constrained and topsoil or surficial infill materials will be
minimally exposed. Should a development proposal occur on a 20-acre or larger project site, it
would be subject to the next tier of fugitive dust regulations applicable to projects on sites of five or
more acres. Rule 403 requires the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and
includes additional provisions for projects disturbing more than five acres and those disturbing
more than fifty acres. Potential impacts resulting from fugitive dust emissions will be less than
significant with incorporation of existing regulatory requirements.
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-23
OPPORTUNITY PROJECTS
The opportunity development sites identified in the Specific Plan include the "former LA Auto
Auction Site” and the “Landwin Property Site” and three potential scenarios for the "West Gateway
Specialty Retail Destination.” MIG evaluated the most impactful scenario for each of these sites and
identified the maximum daily construction emissions that are summarized in Table 5-5.
TABLE 5-5 OPPORTUNITY SITES MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Project Lot Size (AC) ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
West Gateway 0.95 80 315 71 16 6
LA Auto 24.13 1,143 449 209 40 13
Threshold - 75 100 550 150 55
ROG emissions will be excessive due to architectural coating activities. NOX emissions for both
projects are excessive primarily due to hauling trips associated with assumed underground parking
structures anticipated to be constructed with each project. Both projects are also subject to
Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 requiring measures be incorporated to reduce emissions to less than
the SCAQMD daily threshold, as described above. Construction-related impacts due to future
development of the former LA Auto Auction/Landwin Property and West Gateway opportunity
development sites will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The Specific Plan will accommodate new residential and commercial uses that will operate up to
and likely through the Specific Plan horizon year of 2030. SCAQMD has established daily thresholds
for the operation of land uses within the Basin. Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions will result
from the operation of potential hotel, retail, restaurant, and residential uses supported by the
Specific Plan. The air quality team evaluated long-term emissions in the three categorizes of area
source emissions, energy demand emissions, and operational emissions. Operational emissions will
result from automobile and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to and from the Project
vicinity. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was utilized to estimate mobile
source emissions from a range of development scenarios. Trip generation is based on the 9th
edition Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE, 2015). Default
assumptions for diverted or pass-by trips were used. Pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops
between a trip origin and destination. Diverted trips occur when a destination is off a trip route and
the route is changed to include the new destination. The model includes default trip lengths, fleet
mix, and emissions factors. Area source emissions are the combination of many small emission
sources including use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products
such as cleaners and solvents, and periodic repainting of structures. Energy demand is based on
default CalEEMod electricity and natural gas assumptions. Table 5-6 (Development Scenario
Operational Emissions) includes a summary of the emissions forecasts for the selected
development scenarios. The team selected the maximum sized lot for each proposed land use
designation to convey a “worst-case” scenario and because operational emissions for average-sized
parcels are minimal compared to those of the largest size sites.
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-24 City of Rosemead
TABLE 5-6 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Building Area ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
GSP average 12,000 1 3 7 2 <1
GSP max 132,422 9 28 72 15 4
GSP-MU average 36,580 2 5 13 3 1
GSP-MU max 959,191 52 152 410 73 21
West Gateway 41,265 5 15 37 8 2
LA Auto 2,973,300 141 310 774 129 39
Threshold -- 55 55 550 150 55
Based on the results of the model, full development of even the largest parcel in the GSP zoning
district would be below the threshold for daily operational emissions and only a consolidation of
parcels in this designation could result in potentially significant impacts. Stricter development
standards and a lack of large properties in that zoning district minimize the potential for a project
larger than 132,433 square feet to be proposed. Full development of the largest parcel with almost
one million square feet of residential and commercial uses in the mixed-use designation will result
in NOX emissions that exceed the daily threshold. Similarly, development of the former LA Auto
Auction Site will exceed the ROG, NOX, and CO operational thresholds. The maximum development
scenarios represent extreme cases whereby the most intense permitted use is operational at these
sites. The other opportunity development site, West Gateway, will not exceed any daily operational
threshold. The majority of future development proposals will be similar to the average
development scenarios.
Interpolating from this data, operational development thresholds were determined for both the
GSP and GSP-MU zoning districts. The maximum building area has been identified based on the
pollutant threshold that is first to be exceeded by a particular scenario. For both zoning districts,
NOX is the first pollutant to exceed the daily threshold. Mitigation was considered for NOX
emissions but no feasible mitigation is available at the plan level for the impacts at hand. NOX
emissions are due to mobile source emission and the City has no authority or ability to enforce the
use of higher efficiency vehicles or to force future residents and workers to change commuting and
other driver habits. Proposed developments with building areas larger than the thresholds below
will be required to submit a project-specific air quality study during the City’s standard
environmental review process identifying project emissions and identifying feasible mitigation to
reduce those emissions to below the applicable threshold. Future proposed projects with building
areas that do not exceed the development thresholds in Table 5-4 will not require a project-specific
air quality study assuming consistency with the Specific Plan and the analysis in this EIR.
Considering the difficulty in identifying feasible mitigation to reduce mobile source emissions from
non-commercial development projects, operational impacts remain significant and unavoidable
after consideration of feasible mitigation.
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-25
TABLE 5-7 OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
GSP (square feet) GSP-MU (square feet)
264,556 346,301
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As a whole, the Specific Plan supports up to 1,048 new dwelling units under a realistic buildout and
an estimated 985,095 non-residential (commercial) square feet. MIG used CalEEMod to estimate
the existing operational emissions within the Planning Area then compared them to the “realistic”
build-out scenario identified in the Specific Plan. The net increase in criteria pollutant emissions is
provided in Table 5-8 (Specific Plan Build-Out Net Operational Emissions) for purpose of
disclosure. Currently, SCAQMD does not promulgate a program-level, numeric thresholds for which
to compare daily or annual emissions as would be appropriate for the list method of cumulative
impact analysis. Rather, one means of evaluating cumulative impacts that is supported by SCAQMD
involves using the projection method through consistency with the AQMP. As discussed in above,
the proposed Specific Plan will be consistent with the growth assumptions used in the
RTP/SCS/AQMP and thus would not result in any cumulative air quality impacts as those will be
sufficiently reduced over time through implementation of the AQMP. Cumulative impacts will be
less than significant with incorporation of existing policies and standards.
TABLE 5-8 SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD-OUT NET OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Existing
Full Buildout
137
409
339
510
807
1,660
3
5
209
397
66
159
Net Increase 272 171 853 2 188 93
HEALTH IMPACTS
The analysis of construction and operational activities found that the project will contribute
substantially to regional air quality concerns related to NOX, CO, and particulate emissions. The
health effects related to these primary and secondary pollutant emissions are described in the
Environmental Setting section of this report and further elaborated on in the 2012 AQMP.
OZONE
According to the 2012 AQMP, exposure to ambient air containing concentrations of ozone between
0.10 PPM and 0.15 PPM for one-hour over multiple days caused decreased breathing capacity in
children, adolescents, and adults. Exercising adults exposed to ozone at concentration equal to or
greater than 0.12 PPM for one to three hours of greater than 0.06 PPM for 6.6 hours experience
decrements in lung function, increased respiratory symptoms, increases airway responsiveness,
and increased airway inflammation. Prolonged, repeated exposure to ozone concentrations equal to
or greater than 0.12 PPM results in changes to lung structure, function, elasticity, and biochemistry
and increases susceptibility to bacterial respiratory infections in laboratory animals. Based on
SCAQMD historical air quality data for the project area, maximum 1-hour concentrations ranged
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-26 City of Rosemead
between 0.096 PPM and 0.112 PPM between 2010 and 2012, respectively, with up to five days
exceeding the State 1-hour standard. Regionally, the Basin maximum 1-hour concentration ranged
between 0.143 PPM and 0.160 PPM and exceeded the 1-hour State air quality standard up to 98
days during the year 2012. Based on these data, decreased breathing in persons in the region would
be expected up to approximately one third of the year. Because the project will contribute
substantially to regional ozone emissions and has been found to conflict with the AQMP, the project
will contribute to continued regional health impacts related to excessive ozone exposure.
PARTICULATE MATTER
The 2012 AQMP identifies a variety of health impacts associated with short- and long-term
particulate matter exposure. The AQMP references a study reported in the American Journal of
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine that found an increase in mortality of one percent is
associated with every ten µg/m3 increase in PM10 emissions. Additionally, hospital admissions due
to respiratory problems were found to increase by 1.4 percent and asthmatic attacks increase by
three percent. For PM2.5 exposure, the USEPA has identified a causal link to cardiovascular effects
and mortality. In the South San Gabriel Valley monitoring area, maximum 24-hour concentration of
fine particulate matter ranged between 34.9 µg/m3 and 45.3 µg/m3, respectively. The Federal
PM2.5 air quality standard was exceeded on one day in both 2011 and 2012 in the area. Regionally,
the Basin experienced a maximum 24-hour concentration of PM10 at 89 µg/m3 in the year 2010 and
exceeded the State air quality standard on 35 days in 2011. The Basin experienced a maximum 24-
hour concentration of PM2.5 at 65 µg/m3 in 2011 and exceeded the Federal air quality standard on
17 days in the same year. Because the project will contribute substantially to local and regional
particulate matter emissions and has been found to conflict with the AQMP, the project will
contribute to continued local and regional health impacts related to excessive particulate matter
exposure.
MITIGATION MEASURES
5-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, proponents of future development or improvement
projects within the Planning Area shall provide evidence that the project contractor will use
low-VOC architectural coatings, scheduling or other methods where the content of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) does not exceed zero g/l for internal and exterior non-residential
applications. This measure shall be verified through standard building inspections.
5-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, proponents of future development or improvement
projects within the Planning Area shall provide evidence that the project contractor will use
construction equipment that utilizes a Tier IV engine emissions output equivalent for all
construction activity or alternative means such as reducing daily activity. Evidence of use of
Tier IV equipment shall be verified by the planning department.
DETERMINATION
Regional impacts resulting from construction and operation of future development within the
Specific Plan Planning Area will be significant and unavoidable after consideration of feasible
mitigation.
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-27
TABLE 5-9 IMPACT 5.A DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with
Project Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
X X
Significant and
Unavoidable
X X X
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with
Project Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Significant and
Unavoidable
X X X X X
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-28 City of Rosemead
TABLE 5-10 IMPACT 5.B DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with
Project Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
X X
Significant and
Unavoidable
X X X
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with
Project Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Significant and
Unavoidable
X X X X
Environmental Impact Report Air Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5-29
TABLE 5-11 IMPACT 5.C DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with
Project Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
X X
Significant and
Unavoidable
X X X
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with
Project Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Significant and
Unavoidable
X X X X X
Air Quality Environmental Impact Report
5-30 City of Rosemead
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-1
06 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section discusses the effects of the Project on cultural resources and the potential for impacts
pursuant to the City’s implementation of CEQA and its local policies, standards, and regulations
protecting those resources. This section addresses historical, archaeological, and paleontological
resources. This section does not address buried human remains, the impacts of which were
determined to be less than significant with implementation of existing State and Federal
regulations concerning the discovery of human remains. MIG conducted a phase I cultural resources
assessment of the Planning Area to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources (including
archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources) for the purpose of complying with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the local cultural resource regulations. The scope
of work for the assessment included a cultural resources records search through the California
Historical Resources Information System-South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC),
a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) and follow-up Native American consultation, land use history research, a paleontological
resources records search through the Vertebrate Paleontological Department of the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC), eligibility evaluations for resources identified within
the Planning Area, impact analyses, and the recommendation of additional work and mitigation
measures.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Planning Area is located within a mixed-use area along Garvey Avenue in the City of Rosemead,
Los Angeles County, California. The Planning Area is bounded along Garvey Avenue between New
Avenue to the west, Whitmore Street to the north, Charlotte Avenue to the east, and Newmark
Avenue to the south. The elevation within the Planning Area ranges from approximately 300 feet
above mean sea level (MSL) in the south to 310 feet above MSL in the north. The City of Rosemead
General Plan has designated the Project Area for commercial use. The topography of the Planning
Area is characterized as urban, comprising of residential-commercial mixed-use
buildings/structures and the Richard Garvey Intermediate School.
Geologically, the Planning Area is within the Los Angeles Basin, an actively subsiding basin bound
by the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the east,
and the Palos Verdes Hills to the south. Locally, the project area is in the southern portion of the San
Gabriel Valley, a subdivision of the Los Angeles Basin north of the Puente Hills. The San Gabriel
Basin is directly connected with the rise of the San Gabriel Mountains between 4 - 6 Ma, with the
sedimentary erosion from the mountains accumulating in the associated basin. The rapid
deposition and resulting deep sediment fill has resulted in the accumulation of notable petroleum
resources and fossil resources (Miller, 1971). The sediments in the Planning Area record the
gradual swallowing of ocean water that previously covered the Los Angeles Basin, along with the
respective southwestern retreat of the shoreline. The deepest sediments in the Planning Area
document marine deposits from the Pliocene Epoch (5.3 – 2.6 Ma), when water was at its maximum
depth (approximately 6,000 ft.) in the basin (Yerkes et al., 1965). These marine sediments are
covered by terrestrial sediments deposited by the San Gabriel River, eroded from the San Gabriel
Mountains starting in the Pleistocene Epoch (2.6 Ma) and continuing into present time.
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-2 City of Rosemead
The Planning Area is mapped as having surficial deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived
broadly as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain to the west and north with fluvial deposits
from the active Alhambra Wash that currently flows through the very eastern portion of the
proposed Planning Area near the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard.
(McLeod 2015).
CULTURAL SETTING
PREHISTORIC CONTEXT
Prehistory is most easily discussed chronologically, in terms of environmental change and
recognized cultural developments. Several chronologies have been proposed for inland Southern
California, the most widely accepted of which is Wallace’s four-part Horizon format (1955), which
was later updated and revised by Claude Warren (1968). The advantages and weaknesses of
Southern California chronological sequences are reviewed by Warren (in Moratto 1984), Chartkoff
and Chartkoff (1984), and Heizer (1978). The following discussion is based on Warren’s (1968)
sequence, but the time frames have been adjusted to reflect more recent archaeological findings,
interpretations, and advances in radiocarbon dating.
PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD (CA. 13,000-11,000 YEARS BEFORE PRESENT [YBP])
Little is known of Paleo-Indian peoples in inland Southern California, and the cultural history of this
period follows that of North America in general. Recent discoveries in the Americas have challenged
the theory that the first Americans migrated from Siberia, following a route from the Bering Strait
into Canada and the Northwest Coast sometime after the Wisconsin Ice Sheet receded (ca. 14,000
YBP), and before the Bering Land Bridge was submerged (ca. 12,000 YBP). Based on new research
from the Pacific Rim, it has been proposed that modern humans settled islands of the eastern
Pacific between 40,000 and 15,000 years ago. Evidence of coastal migration has also come from
sites on islands off Alta and Baja California. As a result, these sites are contemporary with Clovis
and Folsom points found in North America’s interior regions.
The earliest Archaic Period life in inland Southern California has been given the name San Dieguito
tradition, after the San Diego area where it was first identified and studied (Warren 1968).
Characteristic artifacts include stemmed projectile points, crescents and leaf-shaped knives, which
suggest a continued subsistence, focus on large game, although not megafauna of the earlier Paleo-
Indian period. Milling equipment appears in the archaeological record at approximately 7,500 years
ago (Moratto 1984:158). Artifact assemblages with this equipment include basin milling stones and
unshaped manos, projectile points, flexed burials under cairns, and cogged stones, and have been
given the name La Jolla Complex (7,500–3,000 YBP). The transition from San Dieguito life to La Jolla
life appears to have been an adaptation to drying of the climate after 8,000 YBP, which may have
stimulated movements of desert peoples to the coastal regions, bringing milling stone technology
with them. Groups in the coastal regions focused on mollusks, while inland groups relied on wild-
seed gathering and acorn collecting.
Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-3
LATE PREHISTORIC PERIOD (CA. 3,500 YBP-A.D. 1769)
Cultural responses to environmental changes around 4,000–3,000 YBP included a shift to more
land-based gathering practices. This period was characterized by the increasing importance of
acorn processing, which supplemented the resources from hunting and gathering. Meighan (1954)
identified the period after A.D. 1400 as the San Luis Rey complex. San Luis Rey I (A.D. 1400–1750)
is associated with bedrock mortars and milling stones, cremations, small triangular projectile
points with concave bases and Olivella beads. The San Luis Rey II (A.D. 1750–1850) period is
marked by the addition of pottery, red and black pictographs, cremation urns, steatite arrow
straighteners, and non-aboriginal materials (Meighan 1954:223, Keller and McCarthy 1989:6).
Work at Cole Canyon and other sites in Southern California suggest that this complex, and the
ethnographically described life of the native people of the region, were well established by at least
1,000 YBP (Keller and McCarthy 1989:80).
ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
Information presented in the California volume of the Handbook of North American Indians (Heizer
1978:575) shows the Planning Area is located near the traditional territory of the Gabrielino Bands
of Serrano, Luiseño and Cahuilla Indian Tribes. These ethnographic groups are described below.
GABRIELINOS
The Gabrielino are Takic-speakers and are descended from Late Prehistoric populations of the
region. The name Gabrielino was given to the local inhabitants by Spanish Missionaries who
established a mission in Gabrieleno territory in 1771. Important food resources would have been
acorns, agave, wild seeds and nuts, hunting game and fishing. Due to the Spanish subjugation and
absorption into the mission system very little is known concerning the Gabrielinos’ political
structure, social behavior, and cultural practices. Gabrielino villages were self-contained and had an
autonomous political structure comprised of non-localized lineages where the largest and
dominant lineage’s leader was usually the village chief. Village houses were domed, circular shaped
structures, constructed from tree branches and thatched with tule, fern, or carrizo. The villages
were located near fresh water and raw material resources. Villagers would have utilized temporary
camps throughout their localized territories for hunting, gathering, and raw material trips away
from the main village (Bean and Shipek 1978).
EUROPEAN CONTACT
European contact with the Native American groups that likely inhabited the Planning Area and
surrounding region began in 1542 when Spanish explorer, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, arrived by sea
during his navigation of the California coast. Sebastian Vizcaino arrived in 1602 during his
expedition to explore and map the western coast that Cabrillo visited 60 years earlier. In 1769,
another Spanish explorer, Gaspar de Portola, passed through Luiseño/Kumeyaay territory and
interacted with the local indigenous groups. In 1798, Mission San Luis Rey was established by the
Spanish and it likely integrated the Native Americans from the surrounding region. Multiple
epidemics took a great toll on Native American populations between approximately 1800 and the
early 1860s (Porretta 1983), along with the cultural and political upheavals that came with
European, Mexican, and American settlement (Goldberg 2001:50-52). In the beginning of the
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-4 City of Rosemead
nineteenth century, some Spaniards who had worked at the missions began to set up what would
later be known as the “Ranchos.” The Rancho era in California history was a period when the entire
State was divided into large parcels of land equaling thousands of acres a piece. These large estates
were ruled over in a semi-feudal manner by men who had been deeded the land by first the Spanish
crown, and later the Mexican government. In 1821 Mexico won independence from Spain and
began to dismantle the mission system in California. As the missions began to secularize, they were
transformed into small towns and most Native Americans would later be marginalized into
reservations or into American society. It was during this time that “Americans” began to enter
California. Many of the American Californians married into the Rancho families, a development that
would transform land ownership in Mexican California. By the time the United States annexed
California after the Mexican-American War in 1850, much of the Rancho lands were already in the
hands of Americans.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
The modern history of Rosemead [begins] during the American Period (1848 to present), when
John and Harriet Guess arrived in Rosemead in 1852, with the establishment of their ranch known
as the “Savannah Ranch,” which is now the current location of the Savannah Elementary School on
Rio Hondo Avenue. Other early settlers to the area were Leonard J. and Amanda Rose, who
established the Rosemead Ranch as a winery, as well as a breeding and training ground for horses.
The region surrounding Rosemead included several small ranches, chicken farms, as well as the
Potrero Ranch, which was owned by Richard Garvey. The City of Rosemead was electrified in 1930
and was incorporated in 1959 (Myers 1986:259). Agriculture was the prominent economic
enterprise until the Great Depression in the 1930’s, which forced many farmers and large
landowners to subdivide and sell their land holdings to survive this massive financial collapse.
Rosemead and the surrounding area underwent a dramatic change as a result of the Great
Depression, with expanding demographics to the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles
after World War II. Rosemead has gone from an agricultural centric economy to a residential
bedroom community that relies on retail, light manufacturing and service industries as its economic
engine.
Garvey Avenue resides within the Garvey Avenue Tract that was formally recognized by the City of
Rosemead’s Chamber of Commerce in 1952. The boundaries of the Garvey Avenue Tract are
comprised by New Avenue on the west and Rio Hondo Avenue on the east. The tract established its
own school district in 1892, with electric service arriving in 1923. A demographic sampling of the
Garvey Avenue Tract between the periods 1920’s through the early 1950’s showed the majority of
the residences were employed in the manufacturing sector as skilled and unskilled labors and
tradesmen that were drawn to the area due to its close proximity to the industrial/manufacturing
centers located in east and central Los Angeles and Los Angeles County. This residential pattern
continued well into the 1990’s, when Rosemead’s demographics changed, with the influx of large
numbers of Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants. These new residents in the tract started business
and opened up ethnic style restaurants, which transformed the neighborhood (Garvey Avenue)
from a small-town atmosphere to a fast pace East Asian urban environment. (City of Rosemead
General Plan 2010: 1-3).
Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-5
HISTORIC RECORDS SEARCH
The cultural resources records search results from the CHRIS-SCCIC indicated that there are no
historical resources located within the Planning Area. However, property records provided by the
Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor indicate that there are approximately 130 buildings and
or structures within the planning area that were built before 1970. This suggests that these existing
structures may be 45 years old or older, thus requiring a historic site evaluation to determine if any
of these existing buildings or structures are eligible collectively (District) or individually (historic
resource) for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register
Historic Resources (CRHR) prior to their redevelopment, adaptive-reuse, rehabilitation, or
demolition.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Cultural resources are indirectly protected under the provisions of the Federal Antiquities Act of
1906 (16 U.S.C §§ 431 et seq.) and subsequent related legislation, regulations, policies, and
guidance documents. The following is a summary of the applicable (Federal, State, and local)
regulatory framework related to the protection of cultural resources in California. Numerous laws
and regulations require Federal, State, and local agencies to consider the effects of a proposed
project on cultural resources. These laws and regulations establish a process for compliance.
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal,
State, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources
and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or
impairment.” The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, State, and local
levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history,
architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects
of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, or association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under
one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are
significant in our past.
Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction; represents the work
of a master; possesses high artistic values; or
represents a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction.
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-6 City of Rosemead
Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history.
Cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures; properties owned by religious institutions or
used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations;
reconstructed historic buildings; and properties that are primarily commemorative in nature are
not considered eligible for the NRHP unless they satisfy certain conditions. In general, a resource
must be at least 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of
exceptional importance.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In addition, resources included in a local register of
historic resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with State
guidelines are also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts
demonstrates otherwise. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined
eligible for listing in the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude a
Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the resource may be a historic resource as
defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1.
CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the
definition of a historical resource or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a
“unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact,
object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria:
1. The archaeological resource contains information needed to
answer important scientific research questions and there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality
such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of
its type.
3. The archaeological resource is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides a set of sample questions that guide the
evaluation of potential impacts with regard to cultural resources:
Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-7
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource as defined in §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?
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is
“an authoritative guide in California to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and
citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate properties that are to be
protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” Certain properties,
including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California
Historical Landmarks (CHLs) numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR.
Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as
significant in historic resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be
nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a
historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines
that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:
Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of California’s
history and cultural heritage.
Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in
our past.
Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction; represents
the work of an important creative individual; or
possesses high artistic values.
Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in history or prehistory.
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-8 City of Rosemead
Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to
be recognizable as historic resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible
that a resource whose integrity does not satisfy NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the
CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity
for the CRHR if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or
historical information or specific data. Resources that have achieved significance within the past 50
years also may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, provided that enough time has lapsed to obtain
a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL LANDMARKS
California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have
anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious,
experimental, or other value and that have been determined to have Statewide historical
significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below. The resource must also be approved
for designation by the County Board of Supervisors or the City or Town Council in whose
jurisdiction it is located, be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, or be
officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The specific standards in use now
were first applied in the designation of CHL No. 770. CHLs No. 770 and above are automatically
listed in the CRHR.
To be eligible for designation as a Landmark, a resource must meet at least one of the following
criteria:
The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the State or
within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or
Southern California)
Associated with an individual or group having a profound
influence on the history of California
A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style,
architectural movement or construction or one of the more
notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a
pioneer architect, designer, or master builder
CALIFORNIA POINTS OF HISTORICAL INTEREST
California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city
or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural,
economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Points of Historical Interest
(Points) designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources
Commission are also listed in the CRHR. No historic resource may be designated as both a
Landmark and a Point. If a Point is later granted status as a Landmark, the Point designation will be
retired. In practice, the Point designation program is most often used in localities that do not have a
locally enacted cultural heritage or preservation ordinance.
Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-9
To be eligible for designation as a Point, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:
The first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the
local geographic region (city or county)
Associated with an individual or group having a profound
influence on the history of the local area
A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style,
architectural movement or construction or one of the more
notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of
a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION, PRC SECTIONS 5097.9–5097.991
Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) established the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance
to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on
private lands. Under Section 5097.9 of the PRC, a State policy of noninterference with the free
expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of
severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious
or ceremonial sites or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 of the PRC
specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native
American human remains from a county coroner. Section 5097.5 defines as a misdemeanor the
unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources
located on public lands.
SENATE BILL 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code, Section 65352.3) incorporates the protection of
California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for cities, counties, and agencies
by establishing responsibilities for local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with
California Native American tribes as part of the adoption or amendment of any general or specific
plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. SB18 requires public notice to be sent to tribes listed on
the Native American Heritage Commission’s SB18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical
areas affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within
90 days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not
they want to consult with the local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or
mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the
Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment to a general
or specific plan.
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-10 City of Rosemead
ASSEMBLY BILL 52
Assemble Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on
the environment. AB 52 requires a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native
American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
proposed project, if the tribe requests in writing to the lead agency, to be informed by the lead
agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to
determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental
impact report is required for a project. AB 52 specifies examples of mitigation measures that may
be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources. The bill makes the above
provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of negative
declaration filed or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends Sections
5097.94 and adds Sections 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and
21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code (PRC), relating to Native Americans.
PENAL CODE, SECTION 622.5
Penal Code Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of
historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the
landowner.
INTEGRITY
To qualify for listing on the National Register or the California Register, a property must possess
significance under one of the criteria and have historic integrity. The process of determining
integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National Register. The same seven
aspects of integrity - location, design, setting, material, workmanship, feeling and association - are
used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing on the California Register and the National
Register. Per the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation, these seven characteristics are defined as follows:
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans,
space, structure and style of the property.
Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property
inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationship of the building.
Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern
of configuration to form the historic property.
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given period in history.
Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-11
Feeling is the property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of
a particular period of time.
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or
person and a historic property.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant impact related to
cultural resources if the project would:
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
geological feature.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT 6.A
Results of the records research conducted at the CHRIS-SCCIC indicate that there are no
archaeological resources (prehistoric and historic) located within the Planning Area. However, the
Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File search indicated that there is a single
Native American prehistoric site located outside of the planning area, but within a one-half mile
radius of the Planning Area. This prehistoric resource will not be impacted by the proposed project.
The results of the record search indicate that there has been one (1) cultural resource
studies/reports (LA-07311) previously conducted within the proposed project site and fourteen
(14) cultural studies/reports that have been previously conducted within a one-half mile radius of
the Planning Area (see Table 6-2 Previously Conducted Cultural Reports within the Planning Area).
These studies were performed for nine (9) transmission lines and support facilities, two (2) new
building construction projects, two (2) road widening projects, one (1) historic building
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-12 City of Rosemead
assessment, and (1) water reclamation pipeline project. These studies were conducted between
1981 and 2009.
As shown above, no known historical resources from the SCCIC records were recorded within the
Planning Area. However, property records provided by the Los Angeles County Office of the
Assessor indicate that there are approximately 130 buildings and or structures within the planning
area that were built before 1970. This suggests that these existing structures may be 45 years old or
older, thus requiring a historic site evaluation to determine if any of these existing buildings or
structures are eligible collectively (District) or individually (historic resource) for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register Historic Resources (CRHR)
prior to their redevelopment, adaptive-reuse, rehabilitation, or demolition. As result, Mitigation
Measure 6.A-1 has been incorporated to reduce impact severity to historic resources to a less than
significant level.
TABLE 6-1 PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED CULTURAL REPORTS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA
Report
Number
Year Report Title Study Authors
LA-0318 1994 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey: 3149 N.
San Gabriel Boulevard, City of Rosemead, Los
Angeles County, California
New building
construction
McKenna,
Jeanette, A.
LA-04522 1981 Historical Property Survey for The Del Mar
Avenue Widening Project
Road widening
project
Anonymous
LA-04524 1990 Historic Property Survey Report Graves Avenue
Improvement Project Rosemead-Monterey
Park-South San Gabriel, Los Angeles California
Road widening
project
LSA Associates,
Inc.
LA-05465 2001 Cultural Resources Assessment Cingular
Wireless Facility No. VY 042-01, Los Angeles
County, California
Cell tower
construction and
support facilities
Duke, Curt
LA-06302 2002 Cultural Resources Assessment Cingular
Wireless Facility No. VY 122-01
Cell tower
construction and
support facilities
Duke, Curt
LA-06313 2001 Cultural Resources Assessment AT&T Facility
No. R236, Los Angeles California
Cell tower
construction and
support facilities
Duke, Curt, and
Marvin, Judith
LA-07302 2002 Cultural Resources Assessment Cingular
Wireless Facility No. VY 174-02 Located at
Graves Avenue and Kelburn Avenue in the City
of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California
Cell tower
construction and
support facilities
Kyle, Carolyn, E.
LA-07306 2004 Cultural Resources Assessment AT&T Facility
No. SC-362-01, City of Monterey Park, Los
Angeles California
Cell tower
construction and
support facilities
Bartoy, Kevin, M.
LA-07311
Within the
Project Area
2005 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
for Cingular Telecommunications Facility
Candidate LA-016-01 (SV-007-01) 7840 Garvey
Avenue, Rosemead, Los Angeles County,
California
Cell tower
construction and
support facilities
Bonner, Wayne,
H.
LA-07979 2002 Results of Historic Architectural Assessment for
Bechtel/AT&T Telecommunications Facility
Candidate 95101141A (Worship Center) 201
South New Avenue, Monterey Park, Los Angeles
Cell tower
construction and
support facilities
Dice, Michael H.
Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-13
Report
Number
Year Report Title Study Authors
County, California
LA-08901 2007 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead (Historic
address 404-401 West Garvey Avenue, Wilmar-
Garvey) Los Angeles County California
Historic building
assessment
Daly, Pamela
LA-09339 2008 Cultural Resources Search and Site Visit Results
for T-Mobile Candidate IE25805C (Buddhist
Union), 7839 Emerson Place, Rosemead, Los
Angeles County, California
Cell tower
construction and
support facilities
Bonner, Wayne,
H.
LA-11036 2009 Rosemead Extension Project Cultural
Constraints Assessment
Water reclamation
pipeline
Maxon, Patrick
LA-12410 2013 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
Results for T-Mobile West LLC Candidate
IE04386A (VY174 SCE Mesa Eagle Rock), Graves
Avenue and Kelburn Avenue Rosemead, Los
Angeles County, CA
Cell tower
construction and
support facilities
Bonner, Wayne,
H. and Crawford,
Kathleen
IMPACT 6.B
As of September 22, 2015, MIG has received one (1) response from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians-Kizh Nation. The Tribe is concerned that the proposed Planning Area is situated within or is
near to the scared village of Shevaanga, which is an important Tribal Cultural Resource and thus,
requests government to government consultation as outline in Assembly Bill 18. As of October 27,
2015, MIG received no other responses from the Native American community concerning the
proposed project. The NAHC SLF records search results, the Native American contact list and
response letter are provided in Appendix B of the project Cultural Resources Assessment Report.
As shown in the project Cultural Resources Assessment Report, no known archaeological resources
from the SCCIC records were recorded within the Planning Area. However, the Native American
Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File search indicate that there is a single Native American
prehistoric site located outside of the planning area, but within a one-half mile radius of the
Planning Area. This prehistoric resource will not be impacted by the proposed project; therefore, no
evaluation of archaeological resources is necessary. However, in the event of the unanticipated
discovery of archaeological resources during earthmoving operations, Mitigation Measure 6.B-1 has
been incorporated to reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources during
implementation of the proposed project to a less than significant level.
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-14 City of Rosemead
IMPACT 6.C
Results of the paleontological resources records search through the Vertebrate Paleontological
Department of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County indicate that no vertebrate fossil
localities from the NHMLAC records have been previously recorded within the Planning Area or
within a one-mile radius. However, there are three (3) previously recorded fossil localities (LACM
7701-7702, LACM (CTI) 342 and LACM6350) located within a three-mile radius of the Planning
Area that were discovered within the same older sedimentary deposits that extends into the
Planning Area (McLeod 2015) (see Table 6-2 Vertebrate Fossil Localities near the Planning Area).
TABLE 6-2 VERTEBRATE FOSSIL LOCALITIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLANNING AREA
Locality Number and
Approximate Location
Taxa Common Name
LACM 7701-7702, southwest of the
proposed project area in the City of
Commerce near the intersection of
Atlantic Avenue and the Long Beach
Freeway (I-710).
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Batrachoseps
Lacertilia
Colubridae
Sylvilagus
Microtus
Reithrodontomys
Thomomys
Threespine stickleback
Salamander
Lizard
Snake
Rabbit
Pocket mouse
Harvest mouse
Pocket gopher
LACM (CIT) 342, west-northwest of
the planning area, east of the
Pasadena Freeway (I-110), and
Eagle Rock Boulevard just south of
York Boulevard.
Parapavo californicus sp.
Mammuthus sp
Turkey
Mammoth
LACM 6350-6361, are all from
around the Puente Hills Landfill
east southeast of the proposed
project area.
Carcharodon carcharias
Ganolytes
Merluccius
Diaphus and Lampanyctus
Scombridae
Coelorhynchus scaphopsis
Pleuronectidae
Cetacea
White shark
Herring
Hake
Lanternfish
Mackerels
Swordfish
Flounder
Whale
Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-15
Further, the results of the literature review and the search at the NHMLAC indicates that the
Planning Area is underlain by surficial deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived broadly as
alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain to the west and north with fluvial deposits from the
active Alhambra Wash that currently flows through the very eastern portion of the Planning Area
near the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. These surface deposits are
unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are underlain by older
sedimentary deposits at relatively shallow depths greater than 11-feet that may well uncover
significant vertebrate fossil remains (McLeod 2015). Deeper excavations that extend down into
older sedimentary deposits may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains and therefore,
should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains
without impeding development (McLeod 2015). The paleontological resources records search
results letter from the NHMLAC is provided in Appendix C of the project Cultural Resources
Assessment Report.
Excavations that extend into older sedimentary deposits, may well uncover significant vertebrate
fossil remains and therefore, should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any
vertebrate fossil remains without impeding development. As a result of these findings, Mitigation
Measure 6.C-1 has been incorporated to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously
undiscovered paleontological resources and/or unique geological features that may be encountered
during project implementation to a less than significant level.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The spatial context for assessing cumulative impacts to historic resources or buried archaeological
resources is the presence of any native, subsurface soil in the State based on the definition of
significant resources defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A) of the State CEQA Guidelines where such
resources could have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history
and cultural heritage. The context for assessing local cumulative impacts includes the traditional
homeland of the local tribes and the settlement patterns of early Europeans. A significant
cumulative impact would occur if construction projects collectively destroyed archaeological
resources that provide pre-historic and historic cultural information to the extent that such
information would be permanently lost pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The proposed Specific Plan is located in an area that has been previously disturbed and heavily
affected by past uses, and mitigation has specifically been identified to ensure that proper steps are
taken in the event that potential archaeological materials are uncovered or if a historic structure is
proposed to be demolished or substantially altered. All future projects within the Planning Area
would be subject to mitigation. Outside of the City, projects Statewide are subject to CEQA requiring
evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation for the potential loss of cultural resources. This will ensure
that archaeological resources and the knowledge they hold, throughout the State, are not lost to
long-term development. Cumulative impacts related to the loss of cultural resources would be less
than significant with implementation of existing regulations and mitigation.
Archaeological Resources. The context for assessing cumulative impacts to buried archaeological
resources is the presence of any native, subsurface soil in the State based on the definition of
significant resources defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A) of the State CEQA Guidelines as those
resources that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and
cultural heritage. The context for assessing local cumulative impacts includes the traditional
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-16 City of Rosemead
homeland of the Gabrielino Indian tribe in which the proposed project is located. A significant
cumulative impact would occur if construction projects collectively destroyed archaeological
resources that provide pre-historic and historic cultural information to the extent that such
information would be permanently lost pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The proposed project is located on a site that has been previously disturbed and heavily affected by
past uses, specifically construction of existing on-site structures. Mitigation Measure 6.A-1, 6.B.1,
and 6.C-1 have been incorporated to ensure the proper steps are taken in the event that potential
archaeological materials are uncovered. All future projects within the City would be subject to
General Plan policies related to archaeological resources. Outside of the City, projects Statewide are
subject to CEQA requiring evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation for the potential loss of
archeological resources. This will ensure that archaeological resources throughout the State are not
lost to long-term development. Cumulative impacts related to the loss of cultural resources would
be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and mitigation.
Paleontological Resources. The context for assessing cumulative impacts to buried
paleontological resources is the presence of any native, subsurface soil in which paleontological
resources have the potential to occur. A significant impact would occur if construction projects
collectively destroyed paleontological resources that provide prehistoric information to the extent
that such information would be permanently lost. The project site is located on a site that has been
previously disturbed and heavily affected by past uses, specifically construction of existing on-site
structures. All future projects within the City would be subject to General Plan policies related to
paleontological resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure 6.C-1 has been incorporated to ensure
that the proper steps are taken in the event that potential paleontological materials are uncovered.
Outside of the City, projects Statewide are subject to CEQA requiring evaluation and, if necessary,
mitigation for the potential loss of paleontological resources. This will ensure that paleontological
resources throughout the State are not lost to long-term development. Cumulative impacts related
to the loss of paleontological resources would be less than significant with implementation of
existing regulations and mitigation.
MITIGATION MEASURES
6.A-1 The City shall have prepared a historic resources survey for the
Planning Area by which structures, landmarks, improvement, or other
features that are listed or are eligible for listing on the California
Register of Historic Properties and/or the National Register of Historic
Places to afford those properties of historic value, if any, the benefits
involved with these registers. The City will consider the feasibility and
eligibility for a historic district to be mapped in the Planning Area
and/or in adjacent portions of the city. Until such time that an area
wide historic resources survey has been approved, applicants for
entitlements of future development projects on properties developed
with structures 45 years or older in age shall submit a project-specific
historic resources survey prepared by a professional architectural
historian or other qualified professional to determine if any structures
on the project site are listed or eligible for listing as historic resources.
Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-17
A treatment programs shall be prepared by a qualified professional
should any listed or eligible structures be identified with the primary
goal of leaving the resource in place. Other treatment options include
incorporating the structure into the design of the project, moving the
structure such that it does not need to be modified due to construction
activities, and preparing a photo survey of the property.
6.B-1 In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources
while conducting earthmoving activities during construction of future
development within the Specific Plan Planning Area, the project
proponent shall engage in a comprehensive recovery program, such as
that outlined in the project cultural resources technical report or
another designed by a professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary
of Interior’s Professional Qualification and Standards, to include, as
necessary and dependent on the specific attributes of the discovery,
cultural resources sensitivity training for construction personnel,
treatment plan, periodic monitoring, and closure reporting. The
program shall persist throughout the remainder of earthmoving
activities or over a shorter interval if deemed appropriate by the lead
professional archaeologist. Building construction shall not commence
until receipt of the closure report by the Community Development
Director indicating completion of all applicable recovery tasks as
verified by the lead professional archaeologist
6.C-1 In the event of the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources
while conducting earthmoving activities during construction of future
development within the Specific Plan Planning Area, the project
proponent shall engage in a comprehensive recovery program, such as
that outlined in the project cultural resources technical report or
another designed by a professional paleontologist meeting the
qualifications of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to include, as
necessary and dependent on the specific attributes of the discovery,
resource sensitivity training for construction personnel, treatment
plan, periodic monitoring, and closure reporting. The program shall
persist throughout the remainder of earthmoving activities or over a
shorter interval if deemed appropriate by the project paleontologist.
Building construction shall not commence until receipt of the closure
report by the Community Development Director indicating completion
of all applicable recovery tasks as verified by the lead professional
paleontologist.
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-18 City of Rosemead
IMPACT DETERMINATION
Impacts to cultural resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Table 6-3 Impact 6.A Determination Summary
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact X X
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project
Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation X X X
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact X X
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project
Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation X X X
Significant and Unavoidable
TABLE 6-4 IMPACT 6.B DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project
Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation X X X X X
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project
Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation X X X X X
Significant and Unavoidable
Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 6-19
Table 6-5 IMPACT 6.C Determination Summary
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project
Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation X X X X X
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project
Design
Less than Significant with
Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation X X X X X
Significant and Unavoidable
Cultural Resources Environmental Impact Report
6-20 City of Rosemead
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 7-1
07 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section includes analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the proposed Specific Plan’s
contribution to global climate change. MIG prepared the Air Quality and Climate Change
Assessment summarized herein (see Appendix D).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The environmental topic at hand involves “climate change”, defined as the distinct change in
measures of climate over a long period of time. Climate change can result from natural processes
and from human activities. Natural changes in the climate can be caused by indirect processes such
as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or direct changes within the climate system itself (i.e.
changes in ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the atmosphere through emissions of
gases and changes to the planet’s surface. Emissions affect the atmosphere directly by changing its
chemical composition, while changes to the land surface indirectly affects the atmosphere by
changing the way the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. The term “climate change” is
preferred over the term “global warming” because “climate change” conveys the fact that other
changes can occur beyond just average increase in temperatures near the Earth’s surface.
“Greenhouse gases” result in the atmospheric phenomenon aptly known as the “greenhouse effect”.
Human activities and natural events emit Greenhouse gases (GHGs) that include carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the
atmosphere have increased over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent, respectively, since the
year 1750. The primary cause of the rise in concentrations is argued to be human activity is cited as.
GHGs behave differently in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change in different ways.
Some gases have more potential to reflect infrared heat back towards the earth while some persist
in the atmosphere longer than others. To equalize the contribution of GHGs to climate change, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) devised a weighted metric to compare all
greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide. The weighting depends on the lifetime of the gas in the
atmosphere and its radiative efficiency. As an example, over a time horizon of 100-years, emissions
of nitrous oxide will contribute to climate change 298 times more than the same amount of
emissions of carbon dioxide while emissions of HFC-23 would contribute 14,800 times more than
the same amount of carbon dioxide. The lifetime of the GHG represents how many years the GHG
will persist in the atmosphere. The GWP of the GHG represents the GHG’s relative potential to
induce climate change as compared to carbon dioxide.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact Report
7-2 City of Rosemead
CLIMATE CHANGE AND CALIFORNIA
The 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy prepared by the California Natural Resources
Agency (CNRA) identifies anticipated impacts to California through extensive modeling efforts.
General climate changes in California indicate that:
• CALIFORNIA IS LIKELY TO GET HOTTER AND DRIER AS CLIMATE
CHANGE OCCURS WITH A REDUCTION IN WINTER SNOW,
PARTICULARLY IN THE SIERRA NEVADAS
• SOME REDUCTION IN PRECIPITATION IS LIKELY BY THE MIDDLE
OF THE CENTURY
• SEA-LEVELS WILL RISE UP TO AN ESTIMATED 55 INCHES
• EXTREME EVENTS SUCH AS HEAT WAVES, WILDFIRES, DROUGHTS,
AND FLOODS WILL INCREASE
• ECOLOGICAL SHIFTS OF HABITAT AND ANIMALS ARE ALREADY
OCCURRING AND WILL CONTINUE TO OCCUR
It should be noted that changes are based on the results of several models prepared under different
climatic scenarios; therefore, discrepancies occur f between the projections and the interpretation.
BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Planning Area is currently developed and supports a variety of commercial, institutional, and
residential uses. Annual greenhouse gas emission are estimated at 36,851 metric tons carbon
dioxide equivalent.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
INTERNATIONAL REGULATION AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate
the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail
global climate change. In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in signing
the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the goal
of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed
Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7-3
to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The Plan currently consists of more than 50
voluntary programs for member nations to adopt.
FEDERAL REGULATION AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Coinciding 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, on December 7, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued an Endangerment Finding under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, opening
the door to federal regulation of GHGs. The Endangerment Findings notes that GHGs threaten public
health and welfare and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. To date, the EPA has not
promulgated regulations on GHG emissions, but it has already begun to develop them.
TITLE 24 ENERGY STANDARDS
The CEC first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings in
1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not
originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced
consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from
residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated
periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and
methods. The latest revisions were adopted in 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2010.
Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health,
safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of
building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable
construction practices in the following categories: (1) Planning and design; (2) Energy efficiency;
(3) Water efficiency and conservation; (4) Material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5)
Environmental air quality.” The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute or be identified as
meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and
adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). The CBSC has released the 2010
California Green Building Standards Code on its website. Unless otherwise noted in the regulation,
all newly constructed buildings in California are subject of the requirements of the CALGreen Code.
CALGreen contains both mandatory and voluntary measures, for non-residential land uses there
are 39 mandatory measures including, but not limited to: exterior light pollution reduction,
wastewater reduction by 20 percent, and commissioning of projects over 10,000 square feet. There
are two tiers of voluntary measures for non-residential land uses for a total of 36 additional elective
measures.
California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle.
The 2013 standards will continue to improve upon the current 2008 standards for new
construction of, and additions and alternations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The
2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent more efficient than previous standards
for residential construction and 30 percent better for non-residential construction. The standards,
which took effect on January 1, 2014, offer builders better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation
systems and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact Report
7-4 City of Rosemead
CALIFORNIA CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTIONS ACT AND THE FUTURE
In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate
Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by
the year 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG
emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs
CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary
sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address
GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493
regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle
GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
Executive Order B-30-15 was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on April 29, 2015 that included a
declaration for the state Scoping Plan to be updated to include a year 2030 threshold established at
40 percent below 1990 levels as an interim goal between the current 2020 and 2050 requirements
(Brown, 2015). In 2016, the Legislature codified the 2030 reduction target and ARB updated the
Scoping Plan to recognize and identify strategies to meet the new target (ARB, 2017). The draft
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update is currently available for public review and is scheduled
for final approval in June 2017.
Table 7-7 (Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Towards 2020 and 2030 Target) shows the
proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the adopted Scoping Plan and the
latest updates identified in the draft 2017 update. In the original Scoping Plan, local government
actions were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction and local land use
changes were estimated to result in a reduction of five MMTCO2E (approximately three percent of
the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal). The 2017 Scoping Plan update identifies an increased
need for coordination among state, regional, and local governments to realize the potential for GHG
emissions reductions that can be gained from local land use decisions. The update notes that
emissions reductions targets set by more than one hundred local jurisdictions in the state could
realize emissions reductions up to 45 MMTCO2E by 2020 and 83 MMTCO2E by 2050. The 2017
Scoping Plan update includes a recommended plan-level efficiency threshold of six metric tons or
less per capita by 2030 and no more than two metric tons by 2050. Project-level efficiency
thresholds are identified at 4.7 MMTCO2E by 2020, 2.6 MMTCO2E by 2030, and 0.8 MMTCO2E by
2050. These thresholds are consistent with the emissions limits established in AB 32 and broader
international agreements. Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 charges the state with reducing
vehicle miles traveled, supporting compact and efficient communities through the integration of
regional transportation, land use, and air quality planning frameworks. Each Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) is required to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in tandem
with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that demonstrates compliance with regional
emissions reductionm targets as issued by ARB. Greenhouse gas emissions in the SCAG region are
required to be reduce by eight percent per capita by
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7-5
CEQA Guideline § 15064.4(a) “a lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a
particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas
emissions from a project, and which model or methodology to use…; or (2) Rely on a qualitative
analysis or performance based standards.” Also amended were CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4
and 15130, which address mitigation measures and cumulative impacts respectively. Greenhouse
gas mitigation measures are referenced in general terms, but no specific measures are championed.
The revision to the cumulative impact discussion requirement (Section 15130) simply directs
agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions in an EIR when a project’s incremental contribution
of emissions may be cumulatively considerable, however it does not answer the question of when
emissions are cumulative considerable.
Section 15183.5 permits programmatic greenhouse gas analysis and later project-specific tiering, as
well as the preparation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Compliance with such plans can
support determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable, according
to proposed Section 15183.5(b).
CEQA emphasizes that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, and should be
analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (See CEQA
Guidelines Section 15130(f)).
Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction for lead agencies for assessing the
significance of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions:
1. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce
greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing
environmental setting.
2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of
significance that the lead agency determines applies to the
project; or
3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or
requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or
local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions. Such regulations or requirements much be adopted
by the relevant public agency through a public review process
and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate
the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas
emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible
effects of a particular project are still cumulatively
considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted
regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the
project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact Report
7-6 City of Rosemead
CEQA provides for the streamlined environmental review of infill projects pursuant to Guidelines
Section 15183.3. Infill projects must comply with the performance standards identified in Appendix
M of the Guidelines and be consistent with the land use designation and zoning requirements for
the project site. This option of streamlined environmental review will be applied primarily to non-
residential development considering residential development will generally be exempt from
further environmental review. Projects that meet the performance standards of Appendix M and do
not result in any new environmental impacts will require no further environmental review.
Eligibility for streamlined review is established through the following:
(1) Minimum 75 percent of site perimeter is adjacent to qualified
urban uses or was previously developed
(2) Meets the performance standards of Appendix M of the CEQA
Guidelines, namely:
a. Incorporates renewable energy
b. Remediation of any site and/or water contamination
c. Complies with local standards regarding residential
units and proximity to major roadway
In addition, residential units must meet one of the following conditions (should they not be exempt
otherwise):
a. Travel less than per capita regional VMT
b. Be located within ¼ mile of major transit stop
c. Include low-income housing
Service and retail commercial uses may be eligible if it is located within a “low vehicle travel area”
or within proximity to 1,800 households. Similarly, office buildings are eligible if located in a low
vehicle travel area or are within ¼ mile of a major transit stop.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In April 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), in order to provide
guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of GHG emissions identified in CEQA
documents, convened a “GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group.” The goal of the
working group is to develop and reach consensus on an acceptable CEQA significance threshold for
GHG emissions that would be utilized on an interim basis until CARB (or some other state agency)
develops statewide guidance on assessing the significance of GHG emissions under CEQA.
Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7-7
Initially, SCAQMD staff presented the working group with a significance threshold that could be
applied to various types of projects (e.g. residential, non-residential, industrial, etc); however, the
threshold remains an interim-recommendation at this time. In September 2010, the Working Group
released additional revisions that consist of the following recommended tiered approach:
Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for applicable CEQA
exemptions.
Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not a project is consistent with a greenhouse gas
reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan, it would not
have a significant impact.
Tier 3 consists of screening values at the discretion of the lead agency; however they should
be consistent for all projects within its jurisdiction. Project-related construction emissions
should be amortized over 30 years and should be added back to the project’s operational
emissions. The following thresholds are proposed for consideration:
o 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types; or
o 3,500 MTCO2e per year for residential; 1,400 MTCO2e per year for commercial
3,000 MTCO2e per year for mixed-use projects.
Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage
(currently undefined)
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
o Option 3: A plan-level efficiency value of 6.6 MTCO2E per service population in 2020
and 4.1 by 2035
The draft 2017 Scoping Plan update identified a plan-level efficiency target of 6.0 MTCO2E for year
2030 and 2.0 MTCO2E for year 2050. The SCAQMD recommendation is less conservative with a 6.6-
MTCO2E target for 2020 but aligns with the Scoping Plan target of an estimated 4.7 MTCO2E per
service population in year 2030 consistent with showing ‘substantial progress’ towards the 2050
target.
For project-level and focused programmatic proposals, a narrower emissions inventory is used that
does not include emissions sources by which the project has no means or nexus to reduce
emissions or whereby the emissions source is not relevant to the project (e.g. emissions from cargo
ships in a community with no port). Regarding typical land use projects, the greatest source of
emissions that cannot effectively be reduced directly are from mobile source. Vehicle emissions and
feasible, affectable reduction strategies must be formulated at the state and federal levels and
implemented by vehicle and parts manufacturers to improve technological efficiencies. Local land
use decisions have some part in reducing mobile source emissions through reductions in vehicle
miles traveled and through the strategic approval of industrial projects that generate high volumes
of truck traffic. These gains, however, are less than the achievements realized by technological
improvements and are generally inconsequential in terms of project efficiency to meet per capita
standards or business-as-usual reduction requirements. Using this approach, the state’s 1990
emissions inventory for the land use sector is 267 MMTCO2E. The 1990 emissions inventory
without inclusion of passenger or light-duty vehicle emissions is 158 MMTCO2E. The 1990
emissions inventory without on-road vehicle sources is 129 MMTCO2E. These translate to
respective year 2020 efficiency standards of 4.7, 2.8, and 2.3. The breadth of efficiency standards
under varying scenarios are summarized in Table 7-1.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact Report
7-8 City of Rosemead
Table 7-1 Project-Level Efficiency Standards
Target Year
Emissions Per Service Population
Service Population
(millions) Land Use Only
Land Use
without
Light-Duty
Vehicles
Land Use
without
All Vehicles
2020 56.45 4.7 2.8 2.3
2030 61.53 2.6 1.5 1.3
2035* 63.37 2.2 1.3 1.1
2050 70.71 0.8 0.4 0.4
* Calculated linearly to identify path of ‘substnatial progress’
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan and certification of this EIR, future development projects within
the Planning Area may forego greenhouse gas emissions analysis using these documents as a
qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan (Tier 2). It should be noted that project proponents may
elect to pursue streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 through compliance
with performance standards that would eliminate environmental review for in-fill projects within
the Planning Area. The climate change assessment analyzed herein and detailed in the project Air
Quality and Climate Change Assessment are designed to meet the requirements of Guidelines
Section 15813.5 as a qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP) through inclusion of the following
requirements:
Quantification of baseline and projected greenhouse gas
emissions
Establishment of threshold for cumulatively considerable
impacts
Inclusion of emissions by source (e.g. actions or categories of
actions resulting in emissions)
Inclusion of measures to meet the cumulative impacts
threshold
Inclusion of monitoring mechanism
Adoption through a public process following environmental
review
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7-9
IMPACT 7.A
SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS
The proposed project will result in short-term greenhouse gas emissions from construction and
installation activities as new development or redevelopment projects are proposed over the life of
the Specific Plan. Greenhouse gas emissions will be released by equipment used for grading, paving,
building construction, and architectural coating activities. Construction activities are short-term
and cease to emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational emissions that are
continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. Because of this difference, SCAQMD
recommends in its draft threshold to amortize construction emissions over a 20-year operational
lifetime for project-level analysis. At the program-level, construction emission are disparate in
comparison to operational emissions such that they do not influence global climate change.
LONG-TERM EMISSIONS
Future development activities will result in continuous greenhouse gas emissions from mobile,
area, and operational sources. Mobile sources including vehicle trips to and from the Planning Area
will result primarily in emissions of CO2 with minor emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.
Regarding energy demand, the most significant GHG emission from natural gas usage will be
methane. Electricity usage by the proposed project and indirect usage of electricity for water and
wastewater conveyance will result primarily in emissions of carbon dioxide. Disposal of solid waste
will result in emissions of methane from the decomposition of waste at landfills coupled with CO2
emission from the handling and transport of solid waste. These sources combine to define the long-
term greenhouse gas emissions inventory for build-out of the Specific Plan.
PROJECT-LEVEL EVALUATION
The methodology utilized for each emissions source in CalEEMod is based on the CAPCOA
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures handbook (CAPCOA, 2010). A summary of the
proposed Specific Plan operational greenhouse gas emissions is included in Table 7-2
(Development Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions). The average and maximum sized parcels were
evaluated to determine if future development proposals would exceed the interim-threshold of
3,000 annual MTCO2E emissions. The emissions inventories are presented as metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) meaning that all emissions have been weighted based on their Global
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact Report
7-10 City of Rosemead
Warming Potential (GWP) (a metric ton is equal to 1.102 US short tons). Excepting the LA Auto
Auction/Landwin site, no individual project scenario is anticipated to exceed the 3,000 MTCO2E
threshold, indicating that the majority of future development proposals will not contribute
substantially to global climate change impacts. The LA Auto Auction/Landwin site will exceed the
threshold because of its sheer size and not because it will emit GHG emissions in an amount or of a
type that is extraordinary when compared to a similar style of regional shopping destination.
Reduction measures, design features, and regulatory requirements have been identified herein that
will reduce GHG emissions from development of the LA Auto Auction/Landwin site; however,
emissions from this opportunity site likely cannot feasibly be reduced to less than the 3,000
MTCO2E threshold for project-level impacts.
TABLE 7-2 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Scenario Lot
(AC)
Building
Area (SF)
Construction
(MTCO2E/yr)
Operational
(MTCO2E/yr)
Total
(MTCO2E/Lot)
Total
(MTCO2E/YR)
GSP average 0.37 12,000 48 374 1,140 422
GSP max 3.04 132,422 567 3,765 1,425 4,332
GSP-MU average 0.53 36,580 52 623 1,274 675
GSP-MU max 7.34 959,191 1,815 19,191 2,862 21,006
West Gateway 0.95 41,265 97 1,886 -- 1,983
LA Auto 24.13 2,973,300 7,350 37,858 -- 45,208
PROGRAM-LEVEL EVALUATION
Evaluation of GHG emissions from the Planning Area is accomplished through evaluating the ratio
of areawide, cumulative emissions to the population served by the program to the ratio of
statewide emissions to the state population for land use sources identified in the state emissions
inventory. This ratio is known as an “efficiency standard” as it normalizes disparate values to
comparable indices of relative emissions levels. Bulk emissions are divided by the “Service
Population” (SP) so called because only those directly accommodated by the program are
accounted for (e.g. residents and employees). The proposed Specific Plan is estimated to provide
housing for 2,711 residents and commercial space for 3,031 employees, a net increase of 4,908 SP
over existing conditions. Emissions from the realistic build-out of the Specific Plan Planning Area
were modeled to determine annual GHG emissions from the Planning Area at the Specific Plan 20-
year horizon (2035). Emissions were modified to account for the mixed-use character of the
Specific Plan and availability of future projects to engage in greenhouse gas emissions
streamlining, pursuant to CEQA, as well as the lack of industrial land uses that eliminates the
potential for generation of substantial truck trips. Project net greenhouse gas emissions will result
in an efficiency of 2.2 for the net increase in population and employment (without consideration of
emissions reductions). Efficiency standards calculations are included in Table 7-3.
Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7-11
To show ‘substantial progress’ towards achieving the AB32 target in year 2050 the project must
achieve an efficiency of 1.1; thus, the GHG emissions are potentially significant and mitigating
factors need to be evaluated to further reduce project net emissions increases.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact Report
7-12 City of Rosemead
TABLE 7-3 SPECIFIC PLAN NET GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Scenario Total
(MTCO2E)
Vehicle
Emissions
(MTCO2E)
Adjusted
(MTCO2E)
SP
(Persons) Efficiency
Proposed 60,087 -42,690 17,397 -- --
Existing 36,851 -30,182 6,669 -- --
Net Increase 23,236 -12,508 10,728 4,908 2.2
REDUCTION MEASURES
The net increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from realistic build-out of the Planning Area
will be partially offset by design features of the Specific Plan and regulatory requirements meant to
reduce greenhouse emission from development projects, either directly or as a secondary benefit of
another mitigating factor. The Specific Plan largely supports mixed-use development in an
urbanized area, thus, the project includes land use design elements that will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Furthermore, regulatory requirements associated with the state CALGREEN
requirements will further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions reductions
are summarized below as modeled using CalEEMod per the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures handbook.
Design features and regulatory requirements will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2,125
MTCO2E per year, a 32 percent reduction resulting in an annual net output of 4,543 MTCO2E
greenhouse gas emissions and a mitigated efficiency of 0.9. Table 7-4 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduced Inventory) summarizes the project greenhouse gas inventory with design features and
regulatory requirements incorporated. The GHG emissions to Service Population ratio of 0.9 that
will result upon build-out of the proposed Specific Plan Planning Area is less than the state
efficiency standard of 1.1 identified in year 2035 showing substantial progress towards the AB32
year 2050 GHG emissions target. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of
design features and regulatory requirements.
TABLE 7-4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCED INVENTORY
MTCO2E
Proposed Reductions Total
Area 48 -1 47
Energy 5,230 -651 4,579
Solid Waste 949 -869 80
Water/Wastewater 441 -604 -163
Total 6,668 -2,125 4,543
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7-13
Future development will be subject to increased Title 24 energy efficiency requirements. A
minimum 15 percent increases in efficiency over 2008 Title 24 requirements has been incorporated
to account for present and future requirements for improved
WATER DEMAND EFFICIENCY
Pursuant to California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN) requirements, indoor water
demand must be reduced by a minimum of 20 percent. This requirement was applied to the project
using default reduction factors provided in CalEEMod (WUW-1). Proposed landscaping will be
designed to be water efficient in accordance with State and county water efficient landscape
requirements. Maximum allowable water use (MAWU) was calculated at 3,236,112 gallons
representing the permitted amount of water that can be applied to landscaping per state law. The
estimated total water use (ETWU) was calculated at 3,119,085 gallons, an approximate four percent
reduction in outdoor water demand (WUW-3). Proposed landscaping will include a number of
water efficient irrigation features. These may include automatic irrigation controllers, separate turf
and shrub irrigation, and separate hydrozones. The CalEEMod default reduction of 6.1 percent was
applied to account for improved irrigation efficiency (WUW-4). These reductions will contribute to
the mandated 20 percent reduction required by state law 1
SOLID WASTE DIVERSION
Pursuant to the State Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) and the upcoming mandatory
commercial recycling requirement of AB 32 (effective January 2012), the proposed project is
assumed to recycle a minimum of 50 percent of its solid waste (SW-1). Recycling helps reduce GHG
emissions by reducing solid waste transportation demand and decomposition of solid waste in
landfills.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impacts caused by greenhouse gas emissions are inherently cumulative because climate change is
not initiated through any single project or action but by the sum of many, asynchronous actions
spanning decades through the contributing acts of industrial societies throughout the planet in
conjunction with the cycle of climatic change that naturally occurs on Earth. The evaluation of
greenhouse gas emissions from typical, individual projects and development of the Specific Plan
Planning Area as whole concludes that the proposal will not contribute considerably to climate
change impacts.
1 The model includes a conservative estimate based on default reduction values; nevertheless, a 20 percent
reduction will be met using these and other standard methods
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact Report
7-14 City of Rosemead
IMPACT 7.B
ARB’s Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions in support
of AB32. Many of the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan are not applicable to local
development projects or plans, such as long-term technological improvements to reduce emissions
from vehicles. Some measures are applicable and supported by the proposed Specific Plan, such as
energy efficiency. Finally, while some measures are not directly applicable, the proposed project
would not conflict with their implementation. Reduction measures are grouped into 18 action
categories, as follows:
1.California Cap-and-Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Initiative Partner
Jurisdictions. Implement a broad-based California cap-and-trade program to provide a
firm limit on emissions. Link the California cap–and-trade program with other Western
Climate Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market system to achieve greater
environmental and economic benefits for California (ARB, 2010). Ensure California’s
program meets all applicable AB 32 requirements for market-based mechanisms.
2.California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards. Implement adopted Pavley
standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle,
alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate
change goals.
3.Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and
pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and
implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all
retail providers of electricity in California (including both investor-owned and publicly
owned utilities).
4.Renewables Portfolio Standards. Achieve 33 percent renewable energy mix statewide.
5.Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
6.Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets. Develop regional
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles.
7.Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures.
8.Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the use of shore power for ships at
berth. Improve efficiency in goods movement activities.
9.Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 megawatts of solar-electric capacity under
California’s existing solar programs.
10.Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Adopt medium- (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) vehicle
efficiencies. Aerodynamic efficiency measures for HD trucks pulling trailers 53-feet or
longer that include improvements in trailer aerodynamics and use of rolling resistance tires
Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7-15
were adopted in 2008 and went into effect in 2010 (ARB, 2010). Future, yet to be
determined improvements, includes hybridization of MD and HD trucks.
11.Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine
whether individual sources within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and provide other pollution reduction co-benefits. Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission. Adopt
and implement regulations to control fugitive methane emissions and reduce flaring at
refineries.
12.High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high speed rail system.
13.Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon
footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.
14.High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt measures to reduce high warming global
potential gases.
15.Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion,
composting and other beneficial uses of organic materials, and mandate commercial
recycling. Move toward zero-waste.
16.Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest
biomass for sustainable energy generation. The 2020 target for carbon sequestration is 5
million MTCO2E/YR.
17.Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat
water.
18.Agriculture. In the near-term, encourage investment in manure digesters and at the five-
year Scoping Plan update determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020.
Table 7-5 summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with the State Scoping Plan. As
summarized, the proposed project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan
and in fact supports four of the action categories through energy efficiency, water conservation, and
recycling. Impacts will be less than significant accounting for project design features and
implementation of regulatory requirements.
TABLE7- 5 SCOPING PLAN CONSISTENCY SUMMARY
Action Supporting
Measures
Consistency
Cap-and-Trade Program -- Not Applicable. These programs involve
capping emissions from electricity
generation, industrial facilities, and broad
scoped fuels. Caps do not directly affect
residential or commercial uses.
Light-Duty Vehicle
Standards
T-1 Not Applicable. This is a statewide measure
establishing vehicle emissions standards.
Energy Efficiency E-1 Consistent. Development within the Specific
Plan Planning Area will be subject to a
variety of building, water, and solid waste
efficiencies consistent with CALGREEN
E-2
CR-1
CR-2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact Report
7-16 City of Rosemead
Action Supporting
Measures
Consistency
requirements.
Renewables Portfolio
Standard
E-3 Not Applicable. Establishes the minimum
statewide renewable energy mix.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Not Applicable. Establishes reduced carbon
intensity of transportation fuels.
Regional Transportation-
Related Greenhouse Gas
Targets
T-3 Not Applicable. Establishes fleet-wide
emissions reduction targets and measures
applicable to vehicle manufacturing and
maintenance throughout the state.
Vehicle Efficiency Measures T-4 Not Applicable. Identifies measures such as
minimum tire-fuel efficiency, lower friction
oil, and reduction in air conditioning use.
Goods Movement T-5 Not applicable. Identifies measures to
improve goods movement efficiencies such
as advanced combustion strategies, friction
reduction, waste heat recovery, and
electrification of accessories.
T-6
Million Solar Roofs Program E-4 Consistent. Sets goal for use of solar
systems throughout the state. The Specific
Plan supports installation of solar systems as
part of the streamlining procedures outlined
in the CEQA Guidelines.
Medium- & Heavy-Duty
Vehicles
T-7 Not applicable. Medium-duty and heavy-
duty trucks and trailers will not operate
directly from land uses supported by the
Specific Plan.
T-8
Industrial Emissions I-1 Not Applicable. These measures are
applicable to large industrial facilities (>
500,000 MTCOE2/YR) and other intensive
uses such as refineries.
I-2
I-3
I-4
I-5
High Speed Rail T-9 Not Applicable. Supports increased
mobility choice.
Green Building Strategy GB-1 Consistent. Development within the Specific
Plan Planning Area will be subject to a
variety of building, water, and solid waste
efficiencies consistent with CALGREEN
requirements.
High Global Warming
Potential Gases
H-1 Not Applicable. The future development
within the proposed Planning Area will not
be a substantial source of high GWP
H-2
H-3
Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7-17
Action Supporting
Measures
Consistency
H-4 emissions and will comply with any future
changes in air conditioning, fire protection
suppressant, and other requirements.
H-5
H-6
H-7
Recycling and Waste RW-1 Consistent. Future land uses will be
required to recycle a minimum of 50 percent
from construction activities and operations
per State requirements.
RW-2
RW-3
Sustainable Forests F-1 Not Applicable. The project site is not
forested and the project will not result in the
loss of any forest land.
Water W-1 Consistent. Future development proposals
will include use of low-flow fixtures and
efficient landscaping per State requirements.
W-2
W-3
W-4
W-5
W-6
Agriculture A-1 Not Applicable. The project is not an
agricultural use.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The evaluation of the proposed Specific Plan with the state Scoping Plan is conducted to identify if
cumulative impacts may occur due to conflicts with statewide, long-term planning goals to reduce
GHG emission. The project will not conflict with the state Scoping Plan, thus, will not contribute
significantly to global climate change impacts.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required
IMPACT DETERMINATION
Impacts 7.A and 7,B will be less than significant with implementation of proposed Specific Plan
design features and regulatory requirements.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact Report
7-18 City of Rosemead
TABLE 7-6 IMPACT 7.A DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical
West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant X X X X
Less than Significant with Project Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable X
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project Design X X X X X
Less than Significant with Regulations X X X X X
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
TABLE 7-7 IMPACT 7.B DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical
West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project Design X X X X X
Less than Significant with Regulations X X X X X
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project Design X X X X X
Less than Significant with Regulations X X X X X
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7-19
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 8-1
08 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The presence of site contamination was evaluated for properties comprising the Planning Area
through evaluation of Government Code Section 65962.5 and the results are discussed herein. No
impacts related to transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions, hazardous emissions near schools, proximity to private or public airport
operations, or wildland fires were identified in the project Initial Study (Appendix A); therefore,
these issues are not discussed herein.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES SITES
Based on a review of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database,
there are no sites within the proposed Specific Plan area listed as a hazardous waste and substance
site.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Based on a review of the GeoTracker database, there are two sites within the proposed Specific Plan
area that are listed as leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB). Both sites are located at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel
Boulevard and both sites have a cleanup status of “Completed-Case Closed”. There are also four
LUST sites located within a quarter mile of the boundary of the Planning Area. These sites are also
listed as Completed-Case Closed. Table 4.8-1 (Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites) below lists
LUST sites located within and near the Planning Area.
HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Based on a review of a list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB, there are no sites
within or next to the proposed Specific Plan area listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site.
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER (CDO)/ CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER (CAO)
Based on a review of a list of “active” CDOs and CAOs, there are no sites located within or next to the
Planning Area that are currently subject to a CDO or a CAO as issued by the SWRCB.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Impact Report
8-2 City of Rosemead
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
Based on a review of a list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to
Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as identified by DTSC, there are no sites developed
with a hazardous waste facility.
TABLE 8-1 LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES
Site Name Global ID Status Address City Within Plan
Area?
Arco #1285 T0603702815 Completed-
Case Closed
8204 Garvey
Avenue
Rosemead Yes
Corsair, LLC. T0603705417 Completed-
Case Closed
8350 Garvey
Avenue
Rosemead No
Hui Property T0603704504 Completed-
Case Closed
2602 San
Gabriel
Boulevard
Rosemead No
Laidlaw
Harley
Davidson
T0603793276 Completed-
Case Closed
8399 Garvey
Avenue
Rosemead No
Thrifty #018 T0603703299 Completed-
Case Closed
1049 Garvey
Avenue
Monterey
Park
No
Wee Auto
Sales
T0603702910 Completed-
Case Closed
3003 San
Gabriel
Boulevard
Rosemead Yes
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
UNDERGROUND TANK REGULATIONS
Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16 (Underground Tank Regulations) of the California Code of
Regulations identifies the regulations applicable to new and existing underground storage tanks.
These regulations establish monitoring, maintenance, reporting, abatement, and closure
procedures for all underground storage tanks in the state. These regulations are administered by
the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65962.5 “CORTESE LIST” STATUTE
The provisions in Government Code § 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List”. The
list, or a site’s presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on
Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 8-3
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Government Code § 65962.5 was
originally enacted in 1985, and per subsection (g), the effective date of the changes called for under
the amendments to this section was January 1, 1992. While Government Code § 65962.5 makes
reference to the preparation of a “list,” many changes have occurred related to web-based
information access since 1992 and this information is now largely available on the Internet sites of
the responsible organizations.
SUBSECTION 65962.5. (A)
The Department of Toxic Substances Control shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least
annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least
annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:
1. All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the
Health and Safety Code.
2. All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11
(commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
3. All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section
25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land.
4. All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.
5. All sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program
SUBSECTION 65962.5. (B)
The State Department of Health Services shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually,
and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all public drinking water wells
that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant
to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code.
SUBSECTION 65962.5. (C)
The State Water Resources Control Board shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually,
and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:
1. All underground storage tanks for which an unauthorized release report is filed pursuant to
Section 25295 of the Health and Safety Code.
2. All solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a migration of hazardous waste and for
which a California regional water quality control board has notified the Department of Toxic
Substances Control pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 13273 of the Water Code.
3. All cease and desist orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water
Code, and all cleanup or abatement orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section
13304 of the Water Code, that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Impact Report
8-4 City of Rosemead
SUBSECTION 65962.5. (D)
The local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations, shall compile as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the
California Integrated Waste Management Board, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which
there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The California Integrated Waste Management Board
shall compile the local lists into a statewide list, which shall be submitted to the Secretary for
Environmental Protection and shall be available to any person who requests the information.
SUBSECTION 65962.5. (E)
The Secretary for Environmental Protection shall consolidate the information submitted pursuant to this
section and distribute it in a timely fashion to each city and county in which sites on the lists are located.
The secretary shall distribute the information to any other person upon request. The secretary may
charge a reasonable fee to persons requesting the information, other than cities, counties, or both, to
cover the cost of developing, maintaining, and reproducing and distributing the information.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Applicable impact thresholds of significance concerning hazards and hazardous materials are based on
the questions specified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, pursuant to the City of Rosemead’s
local implementation standards. Accordingly, the proposed Project’s impacts are assessed in terms of
whether a property within the Planning Area:
A. Be located on a site which is included in a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment.
IMPACT 8.A
The evaluation of the existing conditions involving the Planning Area indicate that there are currently
two closed cases and no open cases of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) within the Planning
Area. There are also, four closed LUST cases located within one-quarter mile of the Planning Area. The
closed LUST cases that are located within the Planning Area are located at the intersection of Garvey
Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard at the eastern end of the corridor. A used-automobile sales business
and an Arco gas station are located on these sites. Neither of these sites is identified as an opportunity
site or a prototypical development site in the proposed Specific Plan; therefore, development or
Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 8-5
redevelopment of these sites is not anticipated during the life of the Plan. Should redevelopment or
development of these sites be proposed, the instances of LUSTs have been remediated such that
SRWQCB has deemed the cases closed that includes submittal of all applicable studies verifying that the
tanks are no longer leaking and that any contamination does not exceed actionable levels. Impacts
related to public or environmental exposure to hazardous materials sites will be less than significant.
CEQA EXCEPTION: HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
No hazardous wastes sites are located within the Planning Area as evidenced herein; therefore, no
future development proposal found consistent with the scope of this EIR and the findings relevant to the
categorical exemptions specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300 et al will be disqualified from such
exemption due to the presence of a hazardous waste site.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The context for evaluating site contamination is generally limited to individual sites. There is potential
for contamination to spread through soil and groundwater pathways to surrounding properties;
however, such conditions would be a result of past activities, not as a result of adoption of the Specific
Plan. Considering there are no contaminated sites located within the Planning Area, adoption of the
Specific Plan could not contribute considerably to on- or off-site, cumulative public or environmental
exposure to hazardous materials. No cumulatively considerable impacts will occur.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 9-1
09 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section documents the results of the analysis of the effects of the proposed project associated
with depletion of groundwater supplies, interference with groundwater recharge, and any resulting
impacts should groundwater levels decrease such that wells or other conveyance equipment will no
longer function. The results of the Initial Study (Appendix A) analysis indicate that no impacts
related to the alteration of on-site drainage patterns resulting in increased runoff, the creation or
contribution of runoff water which would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage
system, degradation of water quality, flooding, or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would
result. In addition, impacts related to water quality standards, groundwater supplies, erosion or
siltation, and drainage patterns would be less than significant. Therefore, these topics are not
analyzed in this EIR because potentially significant impacts involving these issues could not occur.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
GROUNDWATER SUPPLY
The domestic water supply within the City of Rosemead is served by six water suppliers: Adams
Ranch Mutual Water Company, Amarillo Mutual Water, California American Water, Golden State
Water Company, San Gabriel County Water District, and San Gabriel Valley Water. The Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan area is within the Golden State Water Company’s (GSWC) service area, also
known as the South San Gabriel System. The make-up of the service area is primarily characterized
by residential, mixed commercial, and office uses. The area’s land use consists of institutional (i.e.,
schools), mixed commercial/office uses, mixed commercial/industrial uses, light manufacturing
and multi-family residential uses.
GSWC obtains its water supply from two major sources: imported water from Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, and five GSWC-operated groundwater wells located within the
adjudicated Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (Watermaster) service area (GSWC, 2016).
Imported water is purchased from the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
(USGVMWD), also called the Upper District. The Upper District obtains its imported water supply
from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan).
The groundwater rights for the South San Gabriel System are shared with the South Arcadia System
with no preferential rights to either system. GSWC manages the allocation between the two
systems. The total prescriptive pumping right for the Main San Gabriel Basin is 197,634 AF. The
operating safe yield (OSY) is the amount of water that can be pumped from the basin before the
Watermaster requires replenishment of the basin with imported water. The OSY for the basin is
determined on an annual basis by the Watermaster and GSWC has pumping rights up to 2.92105
percent of the Main Basin OSY. If demands increase beyond the allocated OSY shared water right for
the South Arcadia or South San Gabriel systems, GSWC can either find additional water rights or
purchase replenishment water. The USGVMWD is the responsible agency for importing
replacement water into the basin for the South Arcadia and South San Gabriel Systems.
Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Impact Report
9-2 City of Rosemead
Table 9-1 (Current and Planned Water Supply for the South San Gabriel System) below, summarizes
the approximate amount of water supplied by each source in acre-feet per year (AFY). The
availability of water from each source is estimated through the year 2040, in accordance with
GSWC’s long-term water supply planning projections and those of its wholesale suppliers. GSWC’s
reasonably available water supply is projected to increase by 219 AFY from 2020 to 2040.
TABLE 9-1 CURRENT AND PLANNED WATER SUPPLY FOR THE SOUTH SAN GABRIEL SYSTEM (AFY)
Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Purchases 2,888 1,374 1,498 1,626 1,756
Groundwater 64 1,630 1,559 1,487 1,415
Recycled Water 14 14 14 14 14
Total 2,966 3,018 3,071 3,128 3,185
Source: Golden State Water Company 2015 Urban Water Management Plan- South San Gabriel
System
Note: Projected water supply is based on reasonably available volume.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following section provides information regarding regulatory programs currently in effect and
applicable to the Project. This section does not purport to list all regulations relevant to hydrology
and water quality issues; however, it does outline major programs that are applicable to the
proposed project.
FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS
EPA GROUNDWATER RULE (GWR)
The EPA’s Ground Water Rule (GWR) applies to public water systems that serve groundwater. The
rule also applies to any system that mixes surface and ground water if the ground water is added
directly to the distribution system and provided to consumers without treatment. The rule requires
actions to protect ground water sources of public drinking water supplies from disease-causing
viruses and bacteria, such as E. coli. The rule establishes a risk-targeted approach to target ground
water systems that are susceptible to fecal contamination, instead of requiring disinfection for all
ground water systems. The occurrence of fecal indicators in a drinking water supply is an indication
of the potential presence of microbial pathogens that may pose a threat to public health. This rule
requires ground water systems that are at risk of fecal contamination to take corrective action to
reduce cases of illnesses and deaths due to exposure to microbial pathogens.
STATE RESOLUTION NO. W.4976
In recent years, the State of California has been experiencing dry weather conditions due to less
rainfall in the area, thus, causing a Statewide drought emergency. To promote water conservation,
Resolution No. W- 4976 was adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission on February 27,
Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 9-3
2014 to establish procedures for water conservation measures in order to ensure a reduction in
consumption. Since many water utility agencies or companies secure their water supply from
multiple sources, including water wholesaler, surface water and/or ground water; the adoption of
this mandate has affected how water utility districts plan their service distribution while
encountering various levels of water supply adjustments within each service area.
REGIONAL AND LOCAL REGULATIONS
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
The State of California adopted sustainability as a core value for all California Water Boards’
activities and programs on January 20, 2005. Low Impact Development (LID) practices benefit
water supply and contribute to water quality protection by taking a different approach to
development and using site design and stormwater management to maintain the site’s pre-
development runoff rates and volumes (SWRCB, 2016). The amount of impervious surface,
infiltration, water quality, and infrastructure costs can all be addressed by LID techniques, tools,
and materials. LID practices include: infiltration, capture and reuse, bioretention facilities or rain
gardens, grass swales and channels, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, cisterns, vegetated filter strips,
and permeable pavements.
ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN
The Rosemead General Plan Resource Management Element includes the following goals and
policies pertaining to the proposed project:
GOAL 3: MANAGE THE USE OF AND PROTECT WATER
RESOURCES THAT PROVIDE SUPPLIES TO ROSEMEAD RESIDENTS AND
BUSINESSES.
POLICY 3.1: WORK WITH WATER SUPPLIERS TO ENSURE THAT
ADEQUATE WATER RESOURCES CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE TO
AMEET THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES.
POLICY 3.2: PROMOTE WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES,
REDUCE URBAN RUNOFF, AND PREVENT GROUNDWATER POLLUTION
ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE, CITY OPERATIONS, AND ALL ACTIVITIES REQUIRING
CITY APPROVAL.
POLICY 3.3: WORK WITH LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE AGENCIES
TO MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LOCAL GROUNDWATER
AND TO PROVIDE A COST-EFFECTIVE AND EQUITABLE MEANS OF
REDUCING URBAN RUNOFF.
Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Impact Report
9-4 City of Rosemead
POLICY 3.4: ADOPT AND ENFORCE REGULATIONS AND ENGAGE IN
EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE GROUNDWATER AND URBAN
RUNOFF POLLUTION.
POLICY 3.5: TAKE STEPS TO USE RECLAIMED WATER WHENEVER
AND WHEREVER POSSIBLE IN BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
FACILITIES.
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
The City’s Municipal Code addresses water supply in Section 13.04 (Water Conservation). The
purpose of the article is to prohibit water waste by users and implement voluntary and mandatory
water conservation measures. Phase I Voluntary Water Conservation measures are implemented in
the City when 10 percent reductions are required by the State. Phase II Mandatory Water
Conservation measures are implemented in the City when up to 20 percent reductions are required
by the State. Phase III Mandatory Water Conservation measures are implemented in the City when
20 reductions or more are required by the State. Section 13.08 (Water-Efficient Landscapes) also
establishes water efficient landscape regulations that are at least as effective in conserving water as
the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. This is done in order to ensure that
landscapes are planned, designed, installed, maintained and managed in a manner that uses water
efficiently, encourages water conservation, and prevents waste water.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Proposed development of the Specific Plan may result in potential impacts to hydrology and water
quality if it results in any action which:
A. 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).
Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 9-5
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT 9.A
GROUNDWATER DEPTH
Future development facilitated by the Specific Plan would not 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. Impacts will be less than
significant.
GROUNDWATER SUPPLY AND RECHARGE
Significant impacts may occur if future development within the Planning Area would result in
depleted groundwater supplies or hinder recharge of groundwater by increasing impervious
surfaces, hinder percolation of drainage into subsurface aquifers, or alter existing spreading
grounds. Future development facilitated by the Specific Plan will require additional water resources
that will come from local groundwater sources and imported water. Future development may also
impact groundwater recharge by increasing impervious surfaces that could hinder percolation of
drainage into subsurface aquifers. The Planning Area is currently primarily built out and consists of
impervious surfaces in the form of existing structures and paving. New development will be subject
to low impact development techniques that would limit impermeable surfaces, including
bioretention facilities or rain gardens, grass swales and channels, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels,
cisterns, vegetated filter strips, and permeable pavements. Therefore, future development
facilitated by the Specific Plan will not result in significant increases in impervious surfaces that
would hinder percolation of drainage into subsurface aquifers.
Future development could also impact groundwater recharge if existing spreading grounds are
altered (e.g. developed upon) without construction of replacement facilities. Additionally, drainage
may be directed away from its natural source where it may be deposited in other water bodies. The
Planning Area does not contain land that serves as groundwater recharge areas and will, therefore,
not interfere with the recharge of groundwater supplies. Therefore, future development facilitated
by the Specific Plan will not result in alterations to groundwater recharge areas.
Impacts associated with depleted groundwater supplies include increased demand on out-of-region
water resources and the energy and cost associated with the importing of other resources. The
lowering of aquifer and groundwater levels in an area can cause existing wells and pumps to
become non-functional because they are not designed to extract water below certain depths.
Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Impact Report
9-6 City of Rosemead
The South San Gabriel System pumped 2,404 AF of groundwater in 2015. The South San Gabriel
System is projected to rely more heavily on imported water supply with 1,415 AF of reasonably
available groundwater volume and 1,756 AF of reasonable volume of imported water in 2040. All
future water production is anticipated to come from local groundwater resources and purchased
water from USGVMWD. The groundwater basin of concern is the Main San Gabriel Basin, as
discussed in Existing Conditions above. The Main San Gabriel Basin has been adjudicated a safe yield
limit established to prevent over-drafting of groundwater resources. Water districts are not
permitted to extract beyond the judgment included in the adjudication and will not be able to over
the long-term. According to the 2015 UWMP, the South San Gabriel System will shift to rely more
heavily on imported water and less on local groundwater to meet increased projected demand
within the service area. As discussed in the 2015 UWMP, replacement water is to be spread in the
Key Well as necessary to maintain the water level elevation above 200 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL). Therefore, the extraction of groundwater to meet the Planning Area’s demand will not
result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table that would
impact the production rate of pre-existing wells.
The primary means of ensuring long-term groundwater level maintenance are water conservation
programs. Future groundwater recharge facilities may also be needed to ensure maintenance of
groundwater levels. The existing Rosemead General Plan supports water conservation through
several goals and policies. Implementation of the policies and programs of City’s Water Department
are designed to ensure groundwater resources are recharged both through natural and assisted
means. Water conservation helps to maintain groundwater levels by reducing the need to extract
from them. According to the City Public Works Department, existing water lines along Garvey
Avenue have the most capacity for potential increase in demand due to the 12-inch mainline
fronting the Garvey Avenue parcels. Fire prevention tends to require most of the flow demand and
pressure. Typically, each new hydrant requires a fire flow of 1500 gallons per minute (gpm) at a
residential pressure of 20 PSI. The 12-inch mainline along Garvey Avenue has pressure between 40
and 85 PSI, which is adequate to provide fire protection as well as domestic water demand for
drinking, irrigation, etc. In order to service any proposed new fire hydrants located away from
Garvey Avenue, new 8-inch water lines would have to be constructed and connected to the existing
12-inch mainline on Garvey Avenue. All new water lines will be constructed and financed by future
project proponents. The Specific Plan and all future development will be assess for their demand
and potential impacts and need for fire-pumps and fire-flow requirements. The Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan does not include policies that would interfere with the determination and enforcement
of safe yield limits; therefore, under the policies of the General Plan, existing water rights
adjudication, and the maintenance of water level elevation at above 200 AMSL, impacts to
groundwater supplies will be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The context for assessing impacts to groundwater resources is the physical and service expanse of
the groundwater basin. Future growth within the Planning Area and the region would increase the
need for local water supplies, contributing to cumulative strains on groundwater resources and the
potential to substantially lower the water table. As discussed above, the Main San Gabriel Basin has
been adjudicated to determine safe yield pumping limits to prevent over-drafting and substantial
Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 9-7
decrease in groundwater levels. Should demand on the basin exceed the operating safe yield (OSY),
replacement water shall be imported to the basin to replenish the groundwater supply. In addition,
according to the 2015 UWMP, the Watermaster shall spread replacement water as necessary to
maintain the water level elevation above 200 feet AMSL. As development occurs in the region and
demand on groundwater supply increases, the groundwater level will be maintained under the
oversight of the Watermaster and will ensure that depletion of groundwater to the point at which
the production of pre-existing water wells would be impacted will not occur. Therefore, future
water demands can be met until 2035 based on the land use assumptions and the GSWC’s 2015
Urban Water Management Plan – South San Gabriel System. Impacts will not be cumulatively
considerable.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None Required.
IMPACT DETERMINATION
Impact 9.A will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations.
TABLE 9-2 IMPACT 9.A DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical
West
Gateway
Auto Auction
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant X X X X X
Less than Significant by Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant X X X X X
Less than Significant with Project Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Impact Report
9-8 City of Rosemead
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 10-1
10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section includes discussion of existing land use policy as adopted for the purposes of avoiding
or reducing environmental impacts and identification of any conflicts that may result from adoption
of the proposed Specific Plan. The Initial Study prepared for the Project indicated that the Specific
plan will not physically divide an established community and contains no portion of a habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; therefore,, these issues are not
discussed herein.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Planning Area is urbanized and is generally developed with commercial and multi-family
residential uses. The area’s land use consists of institutional (i.e., schools), mixed commercial/office
uses, mixed commercial/industrial uses, light manufacturing and multi-family residential uses. The
corridor is surrounded by residential uses in all directions.
The existing land use in Rosemead is a result of the city’s geography and historical pattern of
development. Rosemead is relatively flat land with few topographical impediments to development.
Interstate-10 (I-10) bisects Rosemead creating a major barrier and edge to local neighborhoods.
The City of Rosemead encompasses 5.5 square miles of land area, including roads and other rights-
of-way. Developed conditions are characterized by 64 percent residential, 14 percent institutional,
nine percent commercial, 7 percent mixed-use, and six percent office and light industrial. There are
74.4 miles of streets and alleys within the City of Rosemead. (MIG, 2014)
The Garvey Avenue project area is, likewise, flat and has no major barriers to development. The
project area along Garvey Avenue encompasses 88 acres and is composed of 153 parcels of varying
size and use. Eighty-four of the parcels are for commercial/retail uses encompassing 37 acres (42.3
percent of the total project area). This acreage includes off-street parking lots serving the
commercial buildings identified in the Specific Plan as underutilized land. There are also 43 vacant
parcels that are comprised of 27 acres of the Planning Area followed by 1.7 percent single-family
residential, 8.5 percent multi-family residential, 1.4 percent multi-use, 14.8 percent institutional,
and 0.9 percent open space. Specific attributes of the Planning Area developed conditions are
detailed in Table 10-1 (Garvey Avenue Baseline Land Use) below.
Land Use and Planning Environmental Impact Report
2 City of Rosemead
TABLE 10-1 GARVEY AVENUE BASELINE LAND USE
Baseline Land Use Number of Parcels Total Lot Acres Percent (percent)
Commercial/Retail 84 37.1 42
Single-Unit Residential 9 1.5 2
Multi-Unit Residential 9 7.5 9
Institutional 4 13 15
Multi-Use Commercial/Residential 1 1.3 1
Vacant Land 43 26.7 3
Open Space 3 0.8 1
Total 173 87.9 100
PROJECT EFFECTS
The proposed Specific Plan is an instrument designed to implement the General Plan by focusing
the broader goals and policies for development in the city into a finite area by which fine-grained
development standards are adopted to ensure consistency of urban form and function in the
designated area. The development standards, design principles, and recommended development
concepts are meant to be direct extensions of the vision and goals of the General Plan. As such, the
Specific Plan will not result in any actual physical changes to the environment but rather will be the
tool by which future developments proposals that will result in physical changes to the
environment are modeled. If a proposed Specific Plan standard conflicts with the General Plan such
that policies identified in the General Plan EIR are undermined or negated, then potentially
significant impacts to the environment could result consequently.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The Rosemead General Plan EIR identifies the policies and actions adopted in the General Plan
necessary or helpful in reducing or avoiding impacts to the environment that could result from
build-out of the city through year 2035 (City of Rosemead., 2010). The General Plan EIR included
mitigating policies relevant to aesthetics, air quality, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials,
hydrology/water quality, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation,
transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project could result in a significant land use impact if it:
A. Conflicts 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,
Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
ANALYSIS
IMPACT 10.A
The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the proposed Specific Plan eliminates any policies or
standards, or initiates changes to any policies or standards, that are identified in the General Plan
EIR as necessary to reduce impacts to the environment. This analysis does not extend beyond the
boundaries of the jurisdiction, as there are no other agencies with jurisdiction over the project. If
the project has the effect of eliminating or changing any policies or standards such that future
development within the Specific Plan area could affect resources previously protected by those
policies or standards, then a potentially significant impact would occur because of the Specific Plan
removing administrative boundaries designed to prevent impacts to the environment.
The proposed Specific Plan includes no modifications to the General Plan or the existing Zoning
Code beyond being adopted as a stand-alone, implementing, and complimentary regulatory
document. Section 1.5 (Relationship to City Plans and Programs) identifies how the Specific Plan
aligns with the goals of each element of the General Plan as part of its required statement of
relationship to the General Plan. The Specific Plan recognizes that any approach to land use
development within the city must be consistent with the General Plan. As an implementing feature
of the General Plan, the Specific Plan acts as a direct extension of the vision established in the
General Plan, honing the statements of the General Plan into standards that result in tangible
construction and land use patterns reflective of the long-term values and ideology of the
community. Considering the proposed Specific Plan includes no changes to the policies of the
General Plan, includes no standards that could conflict with the policies of the General Plan, and
includes no amendment to the policies of the General Plan, the proposed project would not conflict
with General Plan standards to avoid or mitigate impacts to the environment. Impacts will be less
than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Evaluating conflicts between the Specific Plan and the General Plan is inherently a cumulative
impact analysis where the context involves the areawide extent of the General Plan. No cumulative
impacts will occur because the Specific Plan does not conflict with the General Plan, thus, any policy
adopted to mitigate or avoid impacts to the environment will persist without disruption. The
Specific Plan will not contribute considerably to any cumulative land use and planning impact
Land Use and Planning Environmental Impact Report
4 City of Rosemead
MITIGATION MEASURES
None
IMPACT DETERMINATION
The Specific plan will result in less than significant impacts regarding Impact 10.A.
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 11-1
11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW – NOISE
This section discusses potential impacts related to excess noise levels, groundborne vibration, and
the permanent and temporary increase in ambient noise levels. As identified in the Initial Study,
impacts related to airport operations noise were found to have no impact and are not discussed
herein.
FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE
“Sound” is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being
detected. “Noise” is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may
therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include
general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance and, in the extreme,
hearing impairment.
THE PRODUCTION OF SOUND
Sound has three properties: amplitude and amplitude variation of the acoustical wave (loudness),
frequency (pitch), and duration of the noise. Despite the ability to measure sound, human
perceptibility is subjective, and the physical response to sound complicates the analysis of its
impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such
as “noisiness” or “loudness.”
MEASURING SOUND
Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of sound pressures to a reference
pressure, squared. These units are called bels. To provide a finer description of sound, a bel is
subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure
levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile
produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing
simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dB. This
same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic
volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by three dB.
Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by three dB. A
three-dB change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible
change in sound and a five-dB change is generally readily perceptible. (Caltrans, 2009)
Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound
also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a
purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-2 City of Rosemead
human ear. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies but also in the
way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most
sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower
frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. Hertz is a unit of frequency that
defines any periodic event. In the case of sound pressure, a Hertz defines one cycle of a sound wave
per second (see Figure 1, Hertz Diagram). To approximate the frequency response of the human
ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a
sound level meter.
STANDARDS FOR NOISE EQUIVALENT
Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring noise
have been developed. According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements, the
following are common metrics for measuring noise. (OPR, 2003)
Leq (Equivalent Energy Noise Level): The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound
level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over given sample periods. Leq is
typically computed over 1-, 8-, and 24-hour sample periods.
CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level
during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from
7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00 PM
to 7:00 AM.
Ldn (Day-Night Average Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-
hour day, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 PM and
before 7:00 AM.
CNEL and Ldn are utilized for describing ambient noise levels because they account for all noise
sources over an extended period of time and account for the heightened sensitivity of people to
noise during the night. Leq is better utilized for describing specific and consistent sources because of
the shorter reference period.
Federal and State agencies have established noise and land use compatibility guidelines that use
averaging approaches to noise measurement. The State Department of Aeronautics and the
California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community
noise equivalent level (CNEL).
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-3
FIGURE 11-1 HERTZ DIAGRAM
RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to
measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of ten, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring
intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of ten decibels indicates a sound energy ten times
greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. The most
common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at
three fee is roughly 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100
feet, which can cause serious discomfort. Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the
sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.
NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise
levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not
measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted
decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing
the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.
Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise
environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when
quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite twenty-four-hour noise level
is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of
day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of five decibels to
dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M., and the addition of ten decibels to
dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. These additions are made to
account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound
appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time, but
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-4 City of Rosemead
rater represents the total sound exposure. The City of Rosemead relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to
assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.
SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in
which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.
GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (e.g., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a
spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of six dB for each doubling of
distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path
and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources.
Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical
spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of three dB for each doubling of distance from a line
source.
GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground.
Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation
associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed
in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate
for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (e.g., sites with a reflective surface
between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground
attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (e.g., those sites with an absorptive
ground surface between the source and the receptor such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes
and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally
assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an
overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source.
ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to
calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be
increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion
(e.g., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and
turbulence can also have significant effects.
SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially
attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on
the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-5
such vegetative typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of
noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby residents.
However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation
area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the
line-of-sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to five
dBA of noise reduction. The FHWA does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise
abatement measure.
TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, provided by the
Federal Highway Administration, the level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: the
volume of the traffic, the speed of the traffic, and the vehicle mix within the flow of traffic. Generally,
the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and a greater
number of trucks. A doubling of the traffic volume, assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not
change, results in a noise level increase of three dBA. The vehicle mix on a given roadway may also
have an effect on community noise levels. As the number of medium and heavy trucks increases and
becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise level impacts will increase. Vehicle
noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires on the roadway.
NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for a particular
observation point or receptor by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receptor, or all
three. This concept is known as the source-path-receptor concept. In general, noises control
measures can be applied to any and all of these three elements.
NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by ten to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic
noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor.
Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough
and long enough to block the view of the noise source.
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-6 City of Rosemead
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches
and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial activities. As
ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the
mismanagement of noise impacts impact the economic health and growth potential of a community
by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop, and work. For this reason, land use
compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design
process.
The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that
noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that
developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are
minimized.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Community responses to noise may range from registering a complaint by telephone or letter, to
initiating court action, depending upon each individual’s susceptibility to noise and personal
attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including:
Fear associated with noise producing activities;
Socio-economic status and educational level of the receptor;
Noise receptor’s perception that they are being unfairly treated;
Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise-producing activity;
Receptor’s belief that the noise source can be controlled.
Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to
any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints
will occur. Another twenty-five percent of the population will not complain even in very severe
noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given
noise environment. Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic
noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of on dBA is
associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise
exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain.
Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population as a whole can be expected
to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels. An increase or decrease of one dBA
cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of three dBA
are considered “barely perceptible,” and changes of five dBA are considered “readily perceptible.”
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-7
VIBRATION AND GROUNDBORNE NOISE
Vibration is the movement of mass over time. It is described in terms of frequency and amplitude
and unlike sound; there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Vibration can be
described in units of velocity (inches per second) or discussed in decibel (dB) units in order to
compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration impacts to buildings are
generally discussed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) that describes particle movement over
time (in terms of physical displacement of mass). For purposes of this analysis, PPV will be used to
describe all vibration for ease of reading and comparison. Vibration can impact people, structures,
and sensitive equipment (Caltrans, 2004). The primary concern related to vibration and people is
the potential to annoy those working and residing in the area. Vibration with high enough
amplitudes can damage structures (such as crack plaster or destroy windows). Groundborne
vibration can also disrupt the use of sensitive medical and scientific instruments such as electron
microscopes. Common sources of vibration within communities include construction activities and
railroads.
Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving,
rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and demolition-related activities. Next to pile
driving, grading activity has the greatest potential for vibration impacts if large bulldozers, large
trucks, or other heavy equipment are used.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The State of California defines sensitive receptors as those land uses that require serenity or are
otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals,
and residential uses make up the majority of these areas. Sensitive receptors are located
throughout the city.
EXISTING NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Short-term noise measurements were conducted to identify the ambient noise within the Planning
Area. An American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section SI4 1979, Type 1) Larson Davis
model LxT sound level meter was used to monitor existing ambient noise levels in Planning Area.
The noise meter was programmed in “slow” mode to record noise levels in A-weighted form. The
microphone height was set at five feet. Six 15-minute daytime noise measurements were taken on
Wednesday September 28, 2016.
Ambient noise levels are a composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the
ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given
location. The dominant noise source at all monitoring locations was vehicular traffic. Measurement
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-8 City of Rosemead
locations are shown in Exhibit 11-1 (Noise Measurement Locations). Ambient noise levels
are presented in Table 11-1 (Ambient Noise Levels).
TABLE 11-1 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Site Date Time Leq Lmax Lmin Location
1 9/28/16 11:19 AM – 11:34
AM
69.7 84.1 53.8 Dequine Avenue & Garvey Avenue
2 9/28/16 11:39 AM – 11:54
AM
57.2 66.8 45.3 Jackson Avenue & Newmark Avenue
3 9/28/16 12:00 PM – 12:15
PM
57.0 74.0 45.3 Evelyn Avenue & Garvey Avenue
4 9/28/16 12:21 PM – 12:36
PM
54.5 78.0 39.7 Strathmore Avenue & Virginia Street
5 9/28/16 12:43 PM – 12:58
PM
70.2 88.4 51.6 Pine Street & Garvey Avenue
6 9/28/16 1:03 PM – 1:18 PM 65.5 83.5 48.4 Charlotte Avenue & Garvey Avenue
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-9
EXHIBIT 11-1 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-10 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-11
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Existing traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using Version 2.5 of the Traffic
Noise Model (TNM) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The model uses
traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute equivalent noise
levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and
summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by
calculating distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours assuming a reduction of 6 dB with
every doubling of distance. For roadway analysis, worst-case assumptions about future motor
vehicle traffic and noise levels have been made and were incorporated in the modeling effort.
Specifically, calculations do not assume natural or artificial shielding nor do they assume reflection
from existing or proposed structures or topography.
Traffic volumes and estimated speeds were used with TNM to estimate the noise levels in terms of
CNEL. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepared by KOA Corporation.
Existing traffic volumes are provided in the traffic study. The distances to the CNEL contours for the
roadway are shown in Table 2 (Existing Traffic Noise Levels). Existing traffic noise contours are
shown in Exhibit 11-3 (Existing Traffic Noise Contours).
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-12 City of Rosemead
TABLE 11-2 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
Roadway Segment Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline
of Roadway (feet)
55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Garvey
Avenue
w/o New Ave 582 327 184 104
btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 582 327 184 104
btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 617 347 195 110
btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 617 347 195 110
btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel
Blvd
617 347 195 110
btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 624 351 197 111
btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 624 343 193 108
e/o Walnut Grove Ave 624 351 197 111
Del Mar
Avenue
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 624 389 219 123
s/o Garvey Ave 624 351 197 111
San Gabriel
Boulevard
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 624 473 266 150
s/o Garvey Ave 624 457 257 145
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-13
EXHIBIT 11-2 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-14 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-15
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Noise Abatement and Control was
originally established to coordinate federal noise control activities. After its inception, EPA’s Office
of Noise Abatement and Control issued the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, establishing
programs and guidelines to identify and address the effects of noise on public health, welfare, and
the environment. In response, the EPA published information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (Levels of
Environmental Noise). The Levels of Environmental Noise recommended that the Ldn should not
exceed 55 dBA outdoors or 45 dBA indoors to prevent significant activity interference and
annoyance in noise-sensitive areas.
In addition, the Levels of Environmental Noise identified five dBA as an “adequate margin of safety”
for a noise level increase relative to a baseline noise exposure level of 55 dBA Ldn (i.e., there would
not be a noticeable increase in adverse community reaction with an increase of five dBA or less
from this baseline level). The EPA did not promote these findings as universal standards or
regulatory goals with mandatory applicability to all communities, but rather as advisory exposure
levels below which there would be no risk to a community from any health or welfare effect of
noise.
In 1981, EPA administrators determined that subjective issues such as noise would be better
addressed at more localized levels of government. Consequently, in 1982 responsibilities for
regulating noise control policies were transferred to State and local governments. However, noise
control guidelines and regulations contained in EPA rulings in prior years remain in place by
designated federal agencies, allowing more individualized control for specific issues by designated
federal, State, and local government agencies.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed methodology and significance criteria to
evaluate incremental noise impacts from surface transportation modes (i.e., on road motor vehicles
and trains) as presented in Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (FTA Guidelines). These
incremental noise impact criteria are based on EPA findings and subsequent studies of annoyance
in communities affected by transportation noise. The FTA extended the EPA’s five dBA incremental
impact criterion to higher ambient levels. As baseline ambient levels increase, smaller and smaller
increments are allowed to limit expected increases in community annoyance. For example, in
residential areas with a baseline ambient noise level of 50 dBA CNEL, a less-than-five dBA increase
in noise levels would produce a minimal increase in community annoyance levels, while at 70 dBA
CNEL, only one dBA increase could be accommodated before a significant annoyance increase
would occur.
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-16 City of Rosemead
VIBRATION STANDARDS
The FTA provides guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land
uses. Groundborne vibration and noise levels associated with various types of construction
equipment and activities are summarized in Table 3 (Reference Vibration Source Amplitudes for
Construction Equipment). Table 4 (Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria) shows the
Federal Transit Administration’s maximum acceptable vibration standard for human annoyance in
residences where people normally sleep is 80 VdB (less than 70 vibration events per day).
TABLE 11-3 REFERENCE VIBRATION SOURCE AMPLITUDES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft (in/sec)
at 25 Feet
Approximate Vibration Level
(VL) at 25 Feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112
0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 (upper range) 105
0.170 (typical) 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
Slurry wall 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Notes: PPV is the peak particle velocity. Pile driver amplitude varies greatly based on equipment type
and size.
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 2006.
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-17
TABLE 11-4 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION AND NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA
Land Use Category Groundborne Vibration Impact
Levels (VdB)
Groundborne Noise Impact Levels
(dBA)
Frequent
Events1
Infrequent
Events2
Frequent
Events1
Infrequent
Events2
Category 1: Buildings
where low ambient
vibration is essential
for interior vibrations
65 VdB3 65 VdB3 N/A N/A
Category 2: Residences
and buildings where
people normally sleep
72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA
Category 3:
Institutional land uses
with primarily daytime
use
75 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 48 dBA
1 Frequent Events – more than 70 vibration events per day
2 Infrequent Events – fewer than 70 vibration events per day
3 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for more moderately sensitive equipment
such as optical microscopes.
Source: United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise
and Vibration Assessment, 1995
The FTA and Caltrans have compiled the data from numerous studies related to vibration and have
developed standards for human perception and building damage. The FTA’s maximum acceptable
vibration standard for human annoyance is 78 VdB at nearby vibration-sensitive land uses. The
Caltrans maximum vibration level standard is 0.2 in/sec PPV for the prevention of structural
damage to typical residential buildings.
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-18 City of Rosemead
STATE REGULATIONS
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
CEQA requires lead agencies to consider noise impacts. Under CEQA, lead agencies are directed to
assess conformance to locally established noise standards or other agencies’ noise standards;
measure and identify the potentially significant exposure of people to or generation of excessive
noise levels; measure and identify potentially significant permanent or temporary increase in
ambient noise levels; and measure and identify potentially significant impacts associated with air
traffic.
CALIFORNIA NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1973
Sections 46000-46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise
Control Act of 1973, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and
that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic
damage. It also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban,
suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has
a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and
abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians free
from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
CALIFORNIA NOISE INSULATION STANDARDS (CCR TITLE 24)
In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Development adopted noise
insulation standards for multi-family residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of
Regulations). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise (attributable to outside noise
sources). The regulations also specify that acoustical studies must be prepared whenever a
residential building or structure is proposed to be located near an existing or adopted freeway
route, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit line, or industrial
noise source, and where such noise source or sources create an exterior CNEL (or Ldn) of 60 dBA or
greater. Such acoustical analysis must demonstrate that the residence has been designed to limit
intruding noise to an interior CNEL (or Ldn) of 45 dBA or below [California's Title 24 Noise
Standards, Chap. 2-35].
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES 2003
Though not adopted by law, the State of California General Plan Guidelines 2003, published by the
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (OPR Guidelines), provides guidance
for the compatibility of projects within areas of specific noise exposure. The OPR Guidelines identify
the suitability of various types of development relative to a range of outdoor noise levels and
provide each local community some flexibility in setting local noise standards that allow for the
variability in community preferences. Findings presented in the Levels of Environmental Noise
Document (EPA 1974) influenced the recommendations of the OPR Guidelines, most importantly in
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-19
the choice of noise exposure metrics (i.e., Ldn or CNEL) and in the upper limits for the normally
acceptable outdoor exposure of noise-sensitive uses.
The OPR Guidelines include a Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix which identifies acceptable
and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. Where the
“normally acceptable” range is used, it is defined as the highest noise level that should be
considered for the construction of the buildings which do not incorporate any special acoustical
treatment or noise mitigation. The “conditionally acceptable” or “normally acceptable” ranges
include conditions calling for detailed acoustical study or construction mitigation to reduce interior
exposure levels prior to the construction or operation of the building under the listed exposure
levels.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
According to the Caltrans vibration manual, large bulldozers, vibratory rollers (used to compact
earth), and loaded trucks utilized during grading activities can produce vibration, and depending on
the level of vibration, could cause annoyance at uses within the project vicinity or damage
structures. Caltrans has developed a screening tool to determine of vibration from construction
equipment is substantial enough to impact surrounding uses.
The Caltrans vibration manual establishes thresholds for vibration impacts on buildings and
humans. These thresholds are summarized in Tables 5 (Vibration Damage Potential Threshold
Criteria) and 6 (Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria).
TABLE 11-5 VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Structural Integrity Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Continuous
Historic and some older buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial and commercial structures 2.00 0.50
Source: Caltrans 2013
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-20 City of Rosemead
TABLE 11-6 VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Human Response PPV Threshold (in/sec)
Transient Continuous
Barely perceptible 0.035 0.012
Distinctly perceptible 0.24 0.035
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severely perceptible 2.00 0.40
Source: Caltrans 2013
LOCAL REGULATIONS
CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
Interior and exterior noise standards are included in Chapter 8.36 (Noise Control) of the City of
Rosemead Municipal Code, included below:
8.36.030 – Exemptions
A. The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
1.Activities conducted on public playgrounds and public or private school
grounds, including but not limited to, school athletic or school entertainment
events or programs sponsored by the Rosemead Recreation Department;
2.Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected
with emergency machinery, vehicle, work or warning alarm or bell provided the
sounding of any bell or alarm on any building or motor vehicle shall terminate
its operation within thirty minutes in any hour of its being activated.
3.Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of
any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided such acticities
do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays,
including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, and provided
the noise level created by such activities does not exceed the noise standard of
sixty-five (65) dBA plus the limits specified in Section 8.36.060(B) as measured
on residential property and does not endanger the public health, welfare and
safety;
4.All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment associated with agricultural
operations provided: Operations do not take place between eight p.m. and
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-21
seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or a
federal holiday;
5.Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property provided such
activities take place between the hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m. on any day
except Sunday, or between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Sunday;
6.Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or
federal law, including but not limited to: aircraft, motor vehicles, railroads, and
other interstate carriers;
7.The provisions of this chapter shall not preclude the construction, operation,
maintenance and repairs of equipment, apparatus or facilities of park and
recreation departments, public work projects, or public utilities subject to the
regulatory jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission.
8.36.060 – Noise Standards
A. Exterior Nosie Standards
1. The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall
apply to all receptor properties within a designated noise zone:
Noise
Zone
Type of Land Use (Receptor
Property)
Time Interval Allowable
Exterior
Noise
Level
I Single-, double- or multiple-family
residential
10:00 p.m.–7:00
a.m.
7:00 a.m.-10:00
p.m.
45 dBA
60 dBA
II Commercial 10:00 p.m.–7:00
a.m.
7:00 a.m.-10:00
p.m.
60 dBA
65 dBA
III Industrial or manufacturing Anytime 70 dBA
2.A person shall not in any location of the city create any noise, or allow the
creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise
controlled by such person (hereinafter “noise source”), which causes the noise
level when measured on any property (hereinafter “receptor property”), to
exceed:
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-22 City of Rosemead
a.The applicable noise standard for a cumulative period of time of more than
thirty minutes in any hour; or
b.The applicable noise standard plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more
than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
c.The applicable noise standard plus ten dBA for a cumulative period of more
than five minutes in any hour; or
d. The applicable noise standard plus fifteen dBA for a cumulative period of
more than one minute in any hour; or
e.The noise standard plus twenty dBA for any period of time.
3.In the even the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first three noise limit
categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be
increased to reflect ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level
exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum noise level under said
category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
4.If the receptor property is located on a boundary between two different noise
zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the quieter noise zone shall
apply.
5.If the noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or
stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined,
the measured noise level obtained while the source is in operation shall be
compared directly to the receptor property’s designated land use and for the
time of day the noise level is measured.
B. Interior Noise Standards
1.The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall
apply to all residential receptor property within all noise zones:
Noise
Zone
Type of Land Use (Receptor
Property)
Time Interval Allowable
Exterior
Noise
Level
All Residential Anytime 45 dBA
The noise limit specified above shall be reduced by five dBA for noises consisting
of speech or music, provided, however, that if the ambient noise level exceeds
the resulting standard the ambient shall be standard.
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-23
2.A person shall not at any location within the city create any noise, or allow the
creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise
controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured within
any receptor residential dwelling unit in any noise zone to exceed:
a.The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five
minutes in any hour; or
b.The interior noise standard plus the five dBA for a cumulative period of
more than one minute in any hour; or
c.The interior noise standard plus ten dBA for any period of time.
3.In the even the ambient noise level exceeds the noise limit categories set forth in
subdivisions (2)(e) and (2)(b) above, the cumulative period applicable to said
category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the
ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum
allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the
maximum ambient noise level.
4.If the receptor property is located on a boundary between two different noise
zones, the noise level standard applicable to the quieter noise zone shall apply.
5.If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot be reasonably be
discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can
be determined, the same procedures specified in subsection (A)(5) of this
section shall be deemed proper to enforce the provisions of this chapter.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The noise contours included in the City of Rosemead Noise Element are used as a guide for
planning. According to the General Plan, traffic noise is a significant source of noise within the city.
Many residential uses are affected by traffic noise and are exposed to noise levels of up to 70 dBA
CNEL. Land use compatibility guidelines are the basis for development of the specific noise
standards and are presented in Figure 11-2 (Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix).
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-24 City of Rosemead
FIGURE 11-2 LAND USE NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX
The following General Plan Goals, Policies, and Implementation Actions are applicable to
construction-related and vehicular traffic noise within the Planning Area:
Goal 1: Effective incorporation of noise considerations into land use planning
decisions.
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-25
Policy 1.1: Ensure compliance with standards for interior and exterior noise established within
the Noise Element and Zoning Code.
Policy 1.2: Require new multiple-family residential development to comply with State
regulations if they are to be located in areas where ambient noise levels exceed 60
dB.
Policy 1.3: Periodically review and update the Existing Noise Contours Map to ensure that any
future noise increases not considered in the Noise Element will be identified.
Policy 1.4: Encourage acoustical design in new construction.
Policy 1.5: Require sound walls to be constructed in designated mixed-use districts where
noise-sensitive land uses are located on adjacent properties.
Policy 1.6: Require parking and loading facilities in mixed use districts to be located and
designed to minimize the potential noise impacts to adjacent noise sensitive uses.
Policy 1.7: Provide an acceptable noise environment for existing and future Rosemead
residents.
Implementation Actions
Action 1.1 Enforce the City Noise Ordinance, which specifies acceptable limits of noise for
various land uses located throughout the City.
Action 1.2 Incorporate noise reduction features during site planning to mitigate anticipated
noise impacts on affected noise sensitive land uses. The noise contours, illustrated
on the Existing Noise Contours Map, identify areas within the City exposed to noise
levels greater than 60 dB CNEL and shall be used to identify locations of potential
conflict. Require acoustical analyses, as appropriate, for proposed residential
development within the 60 dB CNEL or higher contour. New developments will be
permitted only if appropriate mitigation measures are included.
Action 1.3 Enforce provisions of the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24) that
specify that indoor noise levels for multi-family residential living spaces shall not
exceed 45 dB CNEL. The standard is defined as the combined effect of all noise
sources, and is implemented when existing or future exterior noise levels exceed 60
dB CNEL. Title 24 further requires that the standard be applied to all new hotels,
motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family
dwellings. The City will additionally apply the standard to single-family dwellings
and condominium conversion projects.
Action 1.4 As a condition of development approval, new commercial and industrial projects
located adjacent to residential areas shall demonstrate reduction of potential noise
impacts on neighboring residential development to acceptable levels.
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-26 City of Rosemead
Goal 2: Reduced noise impacts from transportation sources.
Policy 2.1: Require consideration of noise impacts and mitigation in the design of new roadway
projects and improvements to major or secondary arterials.
Policy 2.2: Reduce transportation noise by prohibiting through truck traffic on local streets in
residential areas.
Policy 2.3: Continue to support the efforts of the Los Angeles County Sheriff to enforce vehicle
codes as they relate to noise generation.
Policy 2.6: Coordinate with other agencies such as MTA before approval of proposed projects
where applicable to mitigate noise impacts.
Implementation Actions
Action 2.1 Enforce State Motor Vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles
through coordination with the California Highway Patrol and the County of Los
Angeles Sheriff’s Department.
Action 2.2 Encourage industrial and commercial activities to restrict their receiving operations
to daytime periods.
Action 2.3 Require new commercial/industrial/mixed use development proposal to designate
delivery and loading/unloading areas away from residential uses.
Action 2.4 Work with other jurisdictions and agencies to monitor and decrease noise levels.
Goal 3: Effective implementation of measures to control non-transportation noise
impacts.
Policy 3.1: Enforce provisions of the Community Noise Ordinance to mitigate noise conflicts.
Policy 3.2: Require that potential sources of noise be considered when approving new
development to reduce the possibility of adverse effects.
Policy 3.3: Evaluate noise generated by construction activities to ensure compliance with the
Community Noise Ordinance.
Policy 3.4: Establish and maintain coordination among the City departments involved in noise
abatement.
Implementation Actions
Action 3.1 Enforce the comprehensive community noise ordinance to ensure that City
residents are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-27
including but not limited to gatherings, entertainment devices, loudspeakers,
loading and unloading, powered model vehicles, and vehicle repairs and alarms.
Action 3.2 All new residential projects to be constructed near existing stationary sources of
noise (including but not limited to industrial activities, commercial facilities, and
public parks with sports activities) must achieve a minimum of 20 dBA of building
noise reduction. Establish a threshold on the number of residential units permitted
near existing stationary sources of noise.
Action 3.3 Reduce construction-related noise using control measures at all construction sites,
including but not limited to the use of mufflers on construction equipment or the
physical separation or machinery from adjacent residential uses.
Action 3.4 The Planning Division shall act as the City noise control coordinating agency and
will ensure the continued operation of City noise enforcement efforts.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Applicable impact significance thresholds concerning noise are based on those specified in
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, pursuant to City of Rosemead’s local implementation
standards. Accordingly, a significant impact could occur if the proposed project would:
A. Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
B. Expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne 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.
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-28 City of Rosemead
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT 11-A, IMPACT 11.C, & IMPACT 11.D
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE
PROTOTYPICAL DEVELOPMENT SITES
The Project is a Specific Plan and thus does not include or authorize any construction activities;
however, growth is anticipated in the Planning Area and can be accommodated by the Specific Plan,
resulting construction noise and increases in traffic noise from operation of future homes and
businesses. This is a programmatic document designed to evaluate the forecasted effects of the
Project on the environment and to determine if those effects may result in significant impacts
pursuant to City’s noise ordinance and compatibility standards. The determinations adopted by the
Lead Agency can be used in the analysis of future projects by way of the tiering mechanism
provided in CEQA. The analysis of effects on the noise environment and the resulting impact
determinations have been developed to maximize the ability for future projects to have reduced
environmental review using tiering and other streamlining opportunities provided by CEQA. Like
parcels have been grouped together based on size, proposed land use, and development status.
Other property attributes are considered where germane to the analysis at hand.
Project-level development thresholds and construction noise scenarios have been generated by
taking into account the area of an average parcel size by proposed land use designation. General
construction equipment use is based on parcel size utilizing the California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod) (see Appendix A for discussion of model input assumptions and model outputs,
respectively).
Construction activities would generate a variety of noise levels associated with different kinds of
construction equipment and the location of staging, construction, storage and access routes.
Demolition, grading, paving, landscaping and building construction processes involve equipment
and vehicles that are known to produce intrusive levels of noise. This will result in temporary
increase in local noise levels near the active construction sites that could adversely affect
neighboring land uses, particularly those where sensitive receptors are located. Construction
activity generates noise that potentially has a short-term impact on ambient noise levels and can
reach high levels that have the potential to impact nearby sensitive land uses.
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-29
Future construction projects within the city will be subject to rules of the noise ordinance. The
construction noise impacts to a particular neighborhood are dependent upon a number of factors
specific to the project. Some of the factors include proximity to sensitive land uses, time of day,
intervening barriers, level of construction (e.g., number and type of construction equipment that is
operating simultaneously), and the duration of the project’s construction phase. Utilizing default
CalEEMod construction equipment for each parcel group discussed in Section 5, Air Quality, worst-
case examples of construction noise at various distances have been modeled utilizing the Federal
Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) and summarized in Table 7
(Construction Noise). RCNM utilizes standard noise emission levels for different types of equipment
and includes utilization percentage, impact, and shielding parameters.
Noise levels will be greatest during the demolition phase of construction for all parcel groups. Table
7 shows maximum noise levels at various distances. Pursuant to Section 8.36.030(A)(3)
(Exemptions), construction work conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on
weekdays and Saturdays is exempt, provided that noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA at residential
property lines. The residential noise standard during construction activities and commercial noise
standard of 65 dBA will be exceeded at all distances up to 851 feet.
TABLE 11-7 CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Distance to Receptor
(feet)
Maximum Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
Reductions Needed to
Meet 65 dBA Standard
50 89.6 -24.6
100 83.6 -18.6
200 77.5 -12.5
500 69.6 -4.6
851 65.0 --
As shown on Table 7, maximum construction noise at all parcel groups could exceed allowable
exterior noise levels at all noise zones at 50, 100, 200, and 500 from construction activity.
Construction activity located 851 feet or more from residential and commercial uses will be within
allowable noise levels and will not require mitigation. Construction activity occurring less than 851
feet from residential and commercial uses will be required to reduce noise levels by up to 24.6 dBA,
and has been required by Mitigation Measure 11.A-1. Mitigation Measure 11.A-1 requires that
construction activity from future construction activity within the Planning Area implement
engineered controls on construction equipment or install temporary sound barriers. The use of
engineered controls includes retrofitting equipment with improved exhaust and intake muffling,
disengaging equipment fans, and installation of sound panels around equipment engines. These
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-30 City of Rosemead
types of controls can feasibly achieve noise level reductions of approximately 10 dBA. Sound
curtains and other noise barriers can be used for general construction noise and achieve reductions
of up to 20 dBA. Use of engineered controls and sound barriers can achieve reductions of up to 30
dBA. Therefore, impacts related to future construction noise within the Planning Area can feasibly
be mitigated to within allowable levels at residential and commercial receptors. Impacts will not be
substantial.
In addition, implementation of the following General Plan Goals and Policies will ensure that
impacts related to construction noise due to future development will be reduced to acceptable
levels.
CATALYTIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES - WEST GATEWAY
Construction noise levels were estimated for receptors located near the West Gateway site. Table 8
(West Gateway Construction Noise Levels) summarizes construction noise levels for each
construction phase. Temporary noise increases will be greatest during the grading phase of
construction. The model indicates that the use of construction equipment such as tractors and
dozers could expose the residential and commercial uses to the east of the project site to a worst-
case noise level of 84.4 dBA Lmax. Worst case construction noise will exceed allowable exterior noise
levels for both residential and commercial receptors. Construction of the West Gateway project will
require construction noise reductions of up to 24.4 dBA and 19.4 dBA for residential and
commercial uses, respectively. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 11.A-1 will achieve reductions
of up to 30 dBA. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure 11.A-1, impacts related to
construction of the West Gateway project will be less than significant.
TABLE 11-8 WEST GATEWAY CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Receptor
Site
Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Architectural
Coating
1 – Residential (N) 79.0 83.6 79.0 78.0 71.6
2 – Residential (E) 79.8 84.4 79.8 78.8 72.5
3 – Commercial (E) 79.8 84.4 79.8 78.8 72.5
4 – Commercial (S) 72.3 76.9 72.3 71.3 65.0
5 – Commercial (W) 71.7 76.3 71.7 70.7 64.4
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE
Construction noise levels were estimated for receptors located near the West Gateway site. Table 9
(LA Auction Site Construction Noise Levels) summarizes construction noise levels for each
construction phase. Temporary noise increases will be greatest during the grading and building
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-31
construction phases of construction. The model indicates that the use of construction equipment
such as tractors and dozers could expose the residential and commercial uses to the west of the
project site to a worst-case noise level of 79.0 dBA Lmax. Worst case construction noise will exceed
allowable exterior noise levels for both residential and commercial receptors. Construction on this
site will require construction noise reductions of up to 19.0 dBA and 14.0 dBA for residential and
commercial uses, respectively. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-1 will achieve reductions of
up to 30 dBA. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-1, impacts related to
construction on the LA Auto Auction Site will be less than significant.
TABLE 11-9 LA AUTO AUCTION SITE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Receptor Demolition
Site
Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Architectural
Coating
1 – Residential (N) 74.5 74.5 75.5 75.5 75.5 68.1
2 – Residential (W) 78.0 78.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 71.6
3 – Commercial (W) 78.0 78.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 71.6
4 – Commercial (S) 68.4 68.4 69.4 69.4 69.4 62.1
5 – Commercial (E) 74.5 74.5 75.5 75.5 75.5 68.1
FUTURE NOISE LEVELS ALONG EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENTS
SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT
Future population and employment growth within the Planning Area would result in increased
traffic and the need for roadway and intersection improvements necessary to maintain desired
levels of service. Increases in traffic could result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels,
e.g., where a roadway segment is proposed to be expanded with additional travel lanes over the
long-term to achieve level of service standards. Roadway noise could also increase on an existing
roadway that will carry increasing traffic volumes. In either set of circumstances, roadway noise
levels could increase to beyond the levels considered acceptable for the adjacent land uses as
defined by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance or General Plan Noise Element.
Cumulative impacts are assessed by accounting for the incremental increase in traffic noise that will
result from realistic development with the implementation of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan’s
horizon year is set for the year 2035. Therefore, cumulative impacts for operational traffic are
addressed for the year 2035, when realistic build out of the Specific Plan is expected to occur. Two
operational scenarios have been created in order to accomplish this – the first involves the
estimated emissions generated by existing land use designations (assuming annual ambient growth
in the area but no further development or alterations to existing development) in the year 2035,
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-32 City of Rosemead
and the second estimates emissions generated by realistic development of the Specific Plan’s land
use designations.
Traffic noise levels at 100 feet from roadway segment centerlines were modeled utilizing the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5. Noise levels were
calculated based on traffic volumes provided by the project traffic study prepared by KOA
Corporation. The traffic study analyzes peak hour traffic at study area intersections. It has been
assumed that peak hour traffic constitutes ten percent of total average daily traffic volumes.
Average daily traffic has been utilized to calculate 24-hours community noise levels (CNEL).
Distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 BA CNEL noise contours under 2035 Without Project and
Specific Plan Buildout conditions were calculated and shown in Table 10 (Future 2035 CNEL
Without Project Traffic Noise Contours) and Table 11 (Future 2035 CNEL Specific Plan Buildout
Traffic Noise Contours). Future Without Project and Future 2035 Specific Plan Buildout noise
contours are shown on Exhibit 11-3 (2035 Without Project Traffic Noise Contours) and Exhibit 11-
4 (2035 Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours). Traffic noise levels identified represent
conservative potential noise exposure. In reality, noise levels may vary from those represented as
the calculations do not assume natural or artificial shielding nor do they assume reflection from
existing or proposed structures or topography. Intervening structures or other noise-attenuating
obstacles between a roadway and a receptor may reduce roadway noise levels at the receptor.
Table 12 (Future 2035 CNEL Noise Level Increase) shows the noise increases due to future
development facilitated by build out of the proposed Specific Plan compared to Future 2035
Without Project conditions. A 3.0 dBA change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally
notice a barely perceptible change in sound, a 5.0 dBA change is generally readily perceptible, and a
10.0 dBA increase is perceived by most people as a doubling of the existing noise level (Caltrans,
2009).
Based on the results of the model, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will not result in
noise increases of 3.0 dBA CNEL along studied roadways. In addition, implementation of the
following General Plan Goals and Policies will ensure that impacts related to increases in traffic
noise due to future development will be reduced to acceptable levels.
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-33
TABLE 11-10 FUTURE 2035 CNEL WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
Roadway Segment
Distance to CNEL Contour from
Centerline of Roadway (feet)
55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Garvey
Avenue
w/o New Ave 582 327 184 104
btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 582 327 184 104
btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 624 351 197 111
btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 638 359 202 114
btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 646 363 204 115
btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 653 367 207 116
btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 638 359 202 114
e/o Walnut Grove Ave 646 363 204 115
Del Mar
Avenue
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 700 394 221 124
s/o Garvey Ave 631 355 200 112
San Gabriel
Boulevard
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 851 479 269 151
s/o Garvey Ave 832 468 263 148
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-34 City of Rosemead
TABLE 11-11 FUTURE 2035 CNEL WITH SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
Roadway Segment
Distance to CNEL Contour from
Centerline of Roadway (feet)
55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Garvey
Avenue
w/o New Ave 684 385 216 122
btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 700 394 221 124
btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 750 422 237 133
btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 785 442 248 140
btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 804 452 254 143
btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 759 427 240 135
btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 750 422 237 133
e/o Walnut Grove Ave 741 417 234 132
Del Mar
Avenue
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 759 427 240 135
s/o Garvey Ave 684 385 216 122
San Gabriel
Boulevard
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 944 531 299 168
s/o Garvey Ave 923 519 292 164
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-35
TABLE 11-12 FUTURE 2035 CNEL NOISE LEVEL INCREASE
Roadway Segment
Without
Project
Project
Buildout
Difference Significant?
dBA at 100 Feet
from Centerline
Garvey
Avenue
w/o New Ave 70.3 71.7 1.4 No
btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 70.3 71.9 1.6 No
btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 70.9 72.5 1.6 No
btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 71.1 72.9 1.8 No
btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 71.2 73.1 1.9 No
btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 71.3 72.6 1.3 No
btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 71.1 72.5 1.4 No
e/o Walnut Grove Ave 71.2 72.4 1.2 No
Del Mar
Avenue
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 71.9 72.6 0.7 No
s/o Garvey Ave 71.0 71.7 0.7 No
San Gabriel
Boulevard
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 73.6 74.5 0.9 No
s/o Garvey Ave 73.4 74.3 0.9 No
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-36 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-37
Exhibit 3
2035 Without Project Traffic Noise Contours
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-38 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-39
Exhibit 11-4
2035 Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-40 City of Rosemead
CATALYTIC OPPORTUNITY DEVELOPMENT SITES - WEST GATEWAY
The West Gateway project will consist of 41,270 square feet of retail use. At a trip rate of 42.7
average daily trips per 1,000 square feet per day as summarized in the traffic study, the West
Gateway project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,762 daily trips. Based on trip
distribution and movements as analyzed in the traffic study, traffic noise has been calculated
utilizing TNM 2.5 under Existing Plus West Gateway Project conditions at 100 feet from the
roadway centerline. Existing and Existing Plus West Gateway Project traffic noise levels are
summarized in Table 13 (West Gateway Traffic Noise Level Impact). As shown in Table 13, Existing
traffic noise levels currently exceed the residential and commercial noise standards of 60 dBA and
65 dBA, respectively. Addition of the West Gateway project will not result in any new violations of
residential and commercial noise standards. In addition, increases in traffic noise due to operation
of the West Gateway project are less than 3 dBA and will therefore not result in perceptible
increases in noise. Impacts are less than significant.
TABLE 11-13 WEST GATEWAY TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL IMPACT
Roadway Segment
Existing
Existing +
Project
Difference Significant?
100 Feet from
Centerline
Garvey
Avenue
w/o New Ave 70.3 70.4 +0.1 No
btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 70.3 70.6 +0.3 No
btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 70.8 71.0 +0.2 No
btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 70.8 71.1 +0.3 No
btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 70.8 71.0 +0.2 No
btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 70.9 71.0 +0.1 No
btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 70.7 70.8 +0.1 No
e/o Walnut Grove Ave 70.9 70.9 +0.0 No
San Gabriel
Boulevard
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 73.5 73.7 +0.2 No
s/o Garvey Ave 73.2 73.3 +0.1 No
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE
There are currently no specific development plans for the former LA Auto Auction site. In order to
provide a worst-case analysis of project impacts, increases in traffic based on maximum buildout
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-41
potential of the site has been assumed. Development at the LA Auto Auction site could consist of up
to 650,000 square feet of general office space, 50,000 square feet of restaurant use, 200,000 square
feet of retail use, a ten-screen movie theater, 159 hotel rooms, 1,678 apartment units, 150
condominium units, and a three-acre city park. Based on trip rates utilized by the traffic study and
CalEEMod default rates, this site may generate up to 37,602 daily trips. Based on trip distribution
and movements as analyzed in the traffic study, traffic noise has been calculated utilizing TNM 2.5
under Existing Plus LA Auto Auction Site Development conditions at 100 feet from the roadway
centerline. Existing and Existing Plus LA Auto Auction Site Development traffic noise levels are
summarized in Table 14 (LA Auto Auction Site Traffic Noise Level Impact). As shown in Table 14,
Existing traffic noise levels currently exceed the residential and commercial noise standards of 60
dBA and 65 dBA, respectively. Addition of development at this site will not result in any new
violations of residential and commercial noise standards. However, uses along Garvey Avenue
between New Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard may be exposed to perceptible increases in traffic
noise (an increase of 3 dBA).
The City of Rosemead General Plan Noise Element recognizes that the primary noise source in the
city is traffic related and that the City has little control over noise produced by transportation
sources. Therefore, City noise programs and General Plan policies focus on reducing the impacts of
transportation-related noise on new development within the City. General Plan goals and policies,
listed above, address impacts of noise through land use planning, design of new construction, and
compliance with State regulation. General Plan Noise Element Policy 1.4 encourages the
consideration of acoustical design in new construction and the construction of sound walls in
designated mixed use districts where noise-sensitive land uses are located on adjacent properties.
In addition, Implementation Action 1.3 requires the enforcement of California Noise Insulation
Standards (Title 24), which specifies that indoor noise levels for residential living spaces and hotels
not exceed 45 dB CNEL. Therefore, future mixed-use developments with residential use along
Garvey Avenue will be required to implement General Plan policy to ensure that traffic noise
impacts to the development are mitigated. However, although implementation of General Plan
policies will mitigate impacts of noise on new development, increases in traffic noise due to
maximum buildout of the LA Auto Auction site may impact existing uses that may remain along
Garvey Avenue.
The Specific Plan will facilitate mixed-use development along the Garvey Avenue corridor with the
intention of providing a pedestrian-oriented environment, which reduces vehicle miles traveled. As
the Specific Plan area develops over time, the addition of mixed-use development will bring more
foot-traffic to the street and reduce the number of cars travelling on Garvey Avenue. Under existing
conditions, however, commercial uses located along Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and San
Gabriel Boulevard will be exposed to perceptible increases in traffic noise due to development of
the LA Auto Auction site. According to the General Plan Noise Element, this segment of Garvey
Avenue is not designated as noise sensitive. In addition, according to the Noise/Land Use
Compatibility Matrix, noise levels of up to 75 dBA is considered Conditionally Acceptable for office,
business commercial, and professional uses. Although this segment of Garvey Avenue is not a
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-42 City of Rosemead
designated noise sensitive area and Conditionally Acceptable noise levels will not be exceeded, the
increase in traffic noise will exceed 3 dBA and will be perceptible to employees and patrons of these
uses. As stated in the General Plan, the City has little control over noise produced by transportation-
related sources. Site design elements that could reduce exposure of existing uses to traffic use
would include the construction of sound barriers (such as walls) along Garvey Avenue to shield
existing uses from increases in traffic noise. Construction of sound barriers as mitigation will not be
feasible as the developer of the LA Auto Auction site has no control over development on private
property owned by other parties. In addition, seeing as exposed uses are community-serving
commercial uses, operators of these uses will likely not agree to constructing sound barriers that
would potentially block their business from view. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation to
reduce increases in noise exposure under existing conditions and impacts will be significant and
unavoidable.
TABLE 11-14LA AUTO AUCTION SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL IMPACT
Roadway Segment
Existing
Existing +
Project
Difference Significant?
100 Feet from
Centerline
Garvey
Avenue
w/o New Ave 70.3 72.4 2.1 No
btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 70.3 73.9 3.6 Yes
btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 70.8 74.1 3.3 Yes
btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 70.8 74.2 3.4 Yes
btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 70.8 74.1 3.3 Yes
btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 70.9 72.5 1.6 No
btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 70.7 72.4 1.7 No
e/o Walnut Grove Ave 70.9 72.5 1.6 No
San Gabriel
Boulevard
btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 73.5 75.0 1.5 No
s/o Garvey Ave 73.2 74.1 0.9 No
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-43
IMPACT 11.B: VIBRATION
Pile drivers and rock blasting are generally the primary cause of construction related vibration
impacts. Such construction methods are employed on a limited basis, on sites where there are
extensive layers of very hard materials that must be loosened and/or penetrated to achieve the
grading plan and place foundation supports. Additional noise impacts could occur where heavy
machinery is required to break up large, hard rocks into smaller fragments. The need for such
methods is determined through site-specific geotechnical investigations that identify the subsurface
materials within the grading envelope, along with the construction methods recommended to
handle the types of materials that are found.
Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks can create perceptible vibration at close proximity;
however, they generally do not cause vibration that could cause structural or cosmetic damage.
Construction equipment and activities are categorized by the nature of the vibration it produces.
Equipment or activities typical of continuous vibration include excavation equipment, static
compaction equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and pile-extraction equipment. Equipment or
activities typical of transient (single-impact) or low-rate repeated impact vibration include impact
pile drivers, blasting, and crack-and-seat equipment. High-rate repeated impact vibrations are
common of jackhammers and pavement breakers. Table 13 (Common Construction Vibration)
summarizes the peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet for common construction equipment.
TABLE 11-15 COMMON CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION
Equipment PPV (in/sec at 25ft)
Crack-and-Seat Operators 2.400
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-44 City of Rosemead
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance
Manual, June 2004
Vibration varies widely with distance and intensity. Vibration from earthmovers and haulers have
no potential to damage buildings after ten feet, while vibration from blasting activities can damage
structures up to 115 feet away. Common mitigation for impact pile drivers include jetting, pre-
drilling, use of cast-in-place or auger cast piles, use of non-displacement piles, and use of pile
cushioning. Vibration can be reduced from breaking of concrete and other materials through use of
hydraulic crushers, saws or rotary rock-cutting heads, hydraulic splitters, and chemicals instead of
using hydraulic breakers.
PROTOTYPICAL DEVELOPMENT SITES
Utilizing default CalEEMod construction equipment for each parcel group discussed in Section 4, Air
Quality, worst-case examples of construction vibration at 50 feet have been modeled and
summarized in Table 14 (Maximum Future Vibration Impacts). The use of vibratory equipment at
50 feet will not cause damage to any structures. Use of a vibratory roller, large bulldozer, loaded
truck, and jackhammer will result in distinctly perceptible vibration and the use of a small
bulldozer will result in barely perceptible vibration.
TABLE 11-16 MAXIMUM FUTURE VIBRATION IMPACTS
Equipment PPVref PPV
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.0853
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0361
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0012
Loaded Truck 0.076 0.0309
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0142
CATALYTIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES
WEST GATEWAY
Construction of the West Gateway site would not require rock blasting, pile driving, or the use of a
jack hammer, but may require the use of a vibratory roller, small bulldozer, and loaded trucks.
Construction vibration is summarized in Table 15 (West Gateway Construction Vibration Impacts).
All of the receptors will experience barely perceptible vibration with the use of a small bulldozer and
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-45
loaded truck. Receptors #1, #2, and #3 will experience distinctly perceptible vibration with the use
of a vibratory roller. However, a vibratory roller will only be utilized during the paving phase,
which will be completed within a maximum of five days. Furthermore, pursuant to the Rosemead
Municipal Code, these construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM
Mondays through Friday and Saturdays. Therefore, the project will not result in excessive, strongly
perceptible vibration.
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-46 City of Rosemead
TABLE 11-17 WEST GATEWAY CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Receptors
Equipment PPVref
Distance
(feet) PPV
1 – Residential (N) Vibratory Roller 0.21 100 0.0346
2 – Residential (E) Vibratory Roller 0.21 91 0.0392
3 – Commercial (E) Vibratory Roller 0.21 91 0.0392
4 – Commercial (S) Vibratory Roller 0.21 215 0.0128
5 – Commercial (W) Vibratory Roller 0.21 230 0.0117
1 – Residential (N) Small Bulldozer 0.003 100 0.0005
2 – Residential (E) Small Bulldozer 0.003 91 0.0006
3 – Commercial (E) Small Bulldozer 0.003 91 0.0006
4 – Commercial (S) Small Bulldozer 0.003 215 0.0002
5 – Commercial (W) Small Bulldozer 0.003 230 0.0002
1 – Residential (N) Loaded Truck 0.076 100 0.0125
2 – Residential (E) Loaded Truck 0.076 91 0.0142
3 – Commercial (E) Loaded Truck 0.076 91 0.0142
4 – Commercial (S) Loaded Truck 0.076 215 0.0046
5 – Commercial (W) Loaded Truck 0.076 230 0.0042
FORMER LA AUTO AUCTION SITE
Construction of the LA Auto Auction site would not require rock blasting, pile driving, or the use of
a jack hammer, but may require the use of a vibratory roller, small bulldozer, and loaded trucks.
Construction vibration is summarized in Table 18 (LA Auto Auction Site Construction Vibration
Impacts). Construction activity will not result in damage to neighboring structures. All of the
receptors will experience less than distinctly perceptible vibration with the use of a small bulldozer
and loaded truck. Receptors #1, #2, and #3 will experience distinctly perceptible vibration. Pursuant
to the Rosemead Municipal Code, these construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00
AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday and Saturdays. Therefore, the project will not result in
excessive, strongly perceptible vibration.
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-47
TABLE 11-18 LA AUTO AUCTION SITE CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Receptors Equipment PPVref Distance
(feet)
PPV
1 – Residential (N) Vibratory Roller 0.21 150 0.0204
2 – Residential/Commercial (W) Vibratory Roller 0.21 100 0.0346
3 – Commercial (S) Vibratory Roller 0.21 300 0.0083
4 – Commercial (E) Vibratory Roller 0.21 150 0.0204
1 – Residential (N) Small Bulldozer 0.003 150 0.0003
2 – Residential/Commercial (W) Small Bulldozer 0.003 100 0.0005
3 – Commercial (S) Small Bulldozer 0.003 300 0.0001
4 – Commercial (E) Small Bulldozer 0.003 150 0.0003
1 – Residential (N) Loaded Truck 0.076 150 0.0074
2 – Residential/Commercial (W) Loaded Truck 0.076 100 0.0125
3 – Commercial (S) Loaded Truck 0.076 300 0.0030
4 – Commercial (E) Loaded Truck 0.076 150 0.0074
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Additional traffic volumes associated with future growth in the planning area would combine with
regional traffic on major, inter-jurisdictional roads and highways leading to Rosemead, which
would contribute to cumulative effects involving roadway noise. The level of traffic noise
attributable to Specific Plan trips that would occur would increase incrementally over time as
development occurs (the Specific Plan horizon year is 2035) and would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to cumulative changes in roadway noise levels in the context of regional
traffic growth.
As part of the Specific Plan area, operational noise has been analyzed for two Catalytic development
sites that are anticipated to be developed in the near term. As discussed, the increase in traffic
volumes due to operation of the West Gateway site will not result in perceptible increases in traffic
noise. Assuming maximum buildout potential of the LA Auto Auction site, near term increases in
traffic volumes will result in perceptible increase in traffic-related noise, resulting in a significant
impact. The analysis herein considers a scale of development of the LA Auto Auction site that is
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-48 City of Rosemead
unlikely to occur. Trip generation utilized to estimate future traffic noise levels within the planning
area assumes realistic development potential, which includes both the West Gateway site and the
LA Auto Auction site. Realistic development of the planning area will not result in cumulatively
considerable contributions to roadway noise levels. However, considering the worst case build out
potential of the LA Auto Auction site, traffic noise contributions associated with development of this
site will be cumulatively considerable.
MITIGATION MEASURES
11.A-1 Prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, the Project Proponent of construction
sites located less than 851 feet from commercial and residential receptors shall implement,
and identify on construction plans, any combination of the following measures to ensure
that project-related short-term construction noise levels are reduced by the appropriate
level as identified below to be reviewed and verified by the Building Department:
Distance to Receptor
(feet)
Maximum Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
Reductions
Needed to Meet
65 dBA Standard
50 89.6 -24.6
100 83.6 -18.6
200 77.5 -12.5
500 69.6 -4.6
851 65.0 --
Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps must be located at least
100 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible, or at maximum distance when necessary to
complete work near sensitive land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented
throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Community
Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.
Construction staging areas must be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible.
This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be
periodically monitored by the Community Development Director or designee during routine
inspections.
Throughout construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is
equipped with included noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This
mitigation measure shall be periodically monitored by the Community Development
Director, or designee during routine inspections.
Idling equipment must be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure may be
periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during
routine inspections.
Environmental Impact Report Noise
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11-49
Equipment must be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling
and banging. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community
Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.
Install sound curtains or other noise barriers along site boundary.
IMPACT DETERMINATION
Noise impacts remain significant and unavoidable after incorporation of Mitigation Measure 11.A-1
with no other feasible mitigation. Impact 11.B will be less than significant.
TABLE 11-19 IMPACT 11.A DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical
West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant by Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation X X X X
Significant and Unavoidable X
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant by Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable X X X X X
Noise Environmental Impact Report
11-50 City of Rosemead
TABLE 11-20 IMPACT 11.B DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical
West
Gateway
Auto Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant X X X X X
Less than Significant by Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant X X X X X
Less than Significant by Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 12-1
12 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW – POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section examines impacts to population growth due to the proposed development of the Specific
Plan Corridor. No substantial displacement of housing or people will occur as identified in the Initial
Study (Appendix A); therefore, that issue is not discussed in this section.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
POPULATION
The 2010 Census reported the population of Rosemead at 53,771. According to the Department of
Finance (DOF), the City of Rosemead has an estimated population of 55,231 as of January 1, 2016. This
DOF figure represents a 0.02 percent increase compared to the 2000 population of 53,505. SCAG’s 2012-
2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) forecasts Rosemead’s population to increase to 55,500 and
58,100 in 2020 and 2035, respectively.
HOUSING
According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Rosemead has an estimated 14,872
housing units as of January 1, 2015. This figure represents a 0.11 percent increase compared to the 2000
estimate of 13,350 housing units. According to SCAG’s 2012-2035 RTP growth estimates, up to 1,600
new dwelling units will be necessary to meet the City’s projected population demand between 2016 and
2035.
The majority of the housing units within the planning area are mobile homes. Specifically, these housing
units are within the mobile home park just east of New Avenue, which lies partly in Rosemead and partly
in Monterey Park; and the Paradise Trailer Park and Apartments, squeezed between two large parcels of
vacant land, the Auto Auction site to the west, and a large triangular parcel bordering Alhambra Wash to
the east. Based on land area, multi-family uses make up 8.5% of the total planning area and single-family
and duplex uses make up 2% of the planning area.
EMPLOYMENT
According to SCAG’s 2012-2035 RTP, Rosemead had an estimated employment base of 16,400 in 2008.
The 2012-2035 RTP forecasts Rosemead’s employment base to increase to 16,900 and 17,600 in 2020
and 2035, respectively.
Population and Housing Environmental Impact Report
12-2 City of Rosemead
PROJECT EFFECTS
The existing baseline environmental conditions involving the density of persons living and working in the
communities surrounding the Planning Area are directly relevant to the future development of the
Planning Area by which new homes and businesses are supported that will provide opportunities for
housing and employment that may or may not have been anticipated by the City’s General Plan, the
State’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projections, or the Integrated Growth Forecast
projections generated by SCAG for use in the RTP, Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and the Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Specific Plan has no direct effect on population or employment
growth as it does not authorize or fund construction of any housing units or non-residential
development. The Specific Plan provides opportunities for the development and redevelopment of new
housing and business locations through land use and development standards conducive to these types
of development. Should properties be developed in the future in accordance with the Specific Plan and
those properties be occupied, the effect would be to increase the population and number of persons
working in the area
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Proposed development of the Planning Area may result in potential impacts to population and housing if
it results in any action which:
A. Induces substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure).
B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
IMPACT 12.A
Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 12-3
POPULATION
Development of the LA Auto Auction/ Landwin site under guidance of the proposed Specific Plan will
include construction of housing and other development that could directly accommodate long-term
growth in the City. The proposed Specific Plan includes land use designations that support development
of up to 1,048 dwelling units accommodating a population of 2,710 residents. Most residential
development would be built almost exclusively within the GSP-MU zone. According to DOF estimates,
the City of Rosemead is anticipated to have a population of 58,100 residents in the year 2035. This
accounts for an increase of 4,595 residents over the 2016 population of 53,505. The Specific Plan does
not include excessive housing units that could lead to additional growth beyond 4,595 residents
forecasted between 2012 and 2035. Impacts related to substantial population growth will be less than
significant. The full build-out scenario of 1,048 units characterizes the worst-case scenario for providing
opportunities for population growth in the area. As such, future residential development proposals in
the Planning Area will be sufficient to provide for a portion of the City’s housing demand while not
inducing substantial growth and will not require future environmental review regarding this issue.
The Specific Plan does include construction of new infrastructure at the LA Auto Auction/Landwin site.
Construction of new infrastructure within the LA Auto Auction/ Landwin site will consist of roadways,
sidewalks, curb gutters, stormwater drainage, electrical, water and sewer utilities; however, these
improvements would be limited to meet local demand and would not make available infrastructure in
an area that was not previously served by the utility provider.
HOUSING
The proposed Project will allow for up to 1,048 additional households. SCAG growth projections indicate
that up to 1,600 new dwelling units will be necessary to meet population demand between 2008 and
2035. Therefore, the 1,048 possible dwelling units generated by the proposed Specific Plan will not
exceed the projected amount by 2035 and will contribute over half of the necessary housing units
needed to accommodate long-term growth. As a result, project-generated households will have a less
than significant impact.
EMPLOYMENT
The proposed Specific Plan has the capacity to support the development of 713,935 gross square feet of
new non-residential commercial space- primarily retail, entertainment, and service operations. Using
the Employment Density Study prepared for the SCAG region (SCAG 2001), the proposed commercial
uses could generate up to 2,197 new employees at one employee per 325 square feet for retail and
services. The SCAG RTP indicated that the City had 16,400 jobs in 2008 and is projected to increase to
17,600 jobs by 2035 for a net increase of 1,200 jobs. The increase created by the proposed Project is not
within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG and, thus, will not be attributable to unanticipated
growth in the area.
Population and Housing Environmental Impact Report
12-4 City of Rosemead
IMPACT 12.B
Rosemead’s population, approximately 55,231, lives in the city’s estimated 14,872 housing units. The
balance of renter/owner in these housing units is roughly 50/50, with slightly more (51.5%) renters than
owners. About 82 percent of Rosemead’s housing units are single-family homes, with 15% of the
remainder being multi-family housing units and the remaining 3% being mobile homes.
The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area is bordered and surrounded by single-family or low-
density multifamily housing in all directions. Most of these residential areas are zoned for “Light
Multiple Residential” use, which allows for a density of up to 12 units per acre. Within the Planning Area
itself, there are a handful of small pockets zoned for residential use. Within the Planning Area there is an
existing trailer park located to the northeast of the Garvey Avenue and New Avenue intersection as well
as the Paradise Trailer Park and Apartments located on the former Landwin site.
The majority of the housing units within the Planning Area are mobile homes. The mobile homes near
the intersection of Garvey Avenue and New Avenue lie partly in Rosemead and partly in Monterey Park.
The Paradise Trailer Park and Apartments are squeezed between two large parcels of vacant land, the
Auto Auction site to the west and a large triangular parcel bordering Alhambra Wash to the east. Based
on land area, multi-family uses make up 8.5 percent of the total land area and single family and duplex
uses make up two percent.
The proposed Specific Plan includes plans to develop the former LA Auto Auction/ Landwin sites with
new mixed-use, commercial-retail, and multi-family housing. However, the Plan does not include plans
to develop the existing mobile home park located near the intersection of Garvey and New Avenue or
any other mobile home parks other than the Paradise Trailer Park and Apartments. Development of the
former LA Auto Auction/ Landwin site would necessitate the removal the existing mobile home units
located within the Paradise Trailer Park and Apartments.
The mobile home park is protected by state law from undue restrictions or excessive requirements to
protect renters and property owners from mistreatment by the park management or outside property
owners. In terms of displacement of those currently living there, residents would have to be “forced” or
“obliged” to leave their homes in order for a potentially significant impact to occur Existing residents
will not be displaced in that property owners and parka management are required to provide adequate
time to find new housing prior to demolition. Pursuant to State law, 60-days advance written notice is
required for tenants living in a unit for over one year or 30-days advance written notice when the
Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 12-5
property owner opens escrow for sale of the site. It is the right of the property owner to dispose of land
as provided by law without forcefully removing any tenants. No displacement of persons will occur, as
such, no impact will occur.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts related to population and housing that could occur from a
combination of the proposed Specific Plan with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects
in the surrounding area. The concern regarding growth naturally involves cumulative considerations, the
context being the Project’s place within the sub-regional (Orange County) and regional (SCAG)
framework for growth projections. Future development projects proposed within the City and
surrounding jurisdictions will serve to absorb projected population, housing, and employment needs in
conjunction with the project. The above analysis indicates that the project will not attract opportunities
that could result in excessive growth while providing adequate opportunities to meet the Planning
Area’s share of local growth estimates. Thus, the Project will not contribute considerably to sub-regional
or regional growth impacts.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
IMPACT DETERMINATION
Impact 12.A will be less than significant and Impact 12.B will result in no impacts.
Population and Housing Environmental Impact Report
12-6 City of Rosemead
TABLE 12-1 IMPACT 12.A DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical West
Gateway
Auto Auction
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact X
Less than Significant X X X X
Less than Significant with Project Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant X X X X X
Less than Significant with Project Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
TABLE 12-2 IMPACT 12.B DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical West
Gateway
Auto Auction
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact X X X X X
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact X X X X X
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-1
13 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This section analyzes traffic impacts at local and Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections
and land use compatibility. This discussion is based primarily on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by
KOA Corporation, attached as Appendix L. As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A), impacts related
to emergency access and conflicts with alternative transportation options were found to be less than
significant and there would be no impacts to air traffic patterns; therefore, these topics will not be
discussed herein.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
The study area includes a total of nine intersections, of which one intersection is located on the
jurisdictional border of the City of Rosemead and the City of Monterey Park.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The roadway classifications and planned roadway cross-sections of the major roadways within the study
area, as identified in the City of Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element, are described below.
FREEWAYS
Freeways are controlled-access, high-speed roadways with grade separated interchanges. They are
intended to carry high volumes of traffic from region to region. The San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate
10) is a six-lane freeway with high-occupancy vehicle lanes in both directions. The facility bisects the
commercial-retail areas of the city. Interstate 10 provides a full-access interchange with the Long Beach
Freeway (Interstate 710) approximately four miles to the west, and with The San Gabriel River Freeway
(Interstate 605) approximately four miles to the east. Via Interstate 10, direct access is provided to Los
Angeles on the west and San Bernardino on the east. The Pomona Freeway (State Route 60) traverses
the southern end of Rosemead with an interchange at San Gabriel Boulevard. The facility generally
parallels the San Bernardino Freeway and has nearby interchanges with the Interstate 710 and
Interstate 605 freeways.
MAJOR ARTERIALS
The function of a Major Arterial is to connect traffic from minor arterials and collectors to other parts of
the city, freeway interchanges, and adjacent major land uses. They are the principle urban
thoroughfares and provide a linkage between activity centers in the City and to adjacent communities.
Major Arterials are designed to move large volumes of traffic, typically in the range of 40,000 to 60,000
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-2 City of Rosemead
vehicles per day. They are generally served by regional transit routes and are the primary truck routes in
the community. There are currently four major arterials within the City of Rosemead:
Valley Boulevard
Garvey Avenue
San Gabriel Boulevard
Rosemead Boulevard
MINOR ARTERIALS
The primary purpose of Minor Arterials is to serve as an intermediate route carrying traffic between
local streets and Major Arterials. They are designed to carry moderate levels of traffic, generally in the
range of 15,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day. Within Rosemead, these roadway facilities were previously
referred to as Secondary Arterials. These well-placed streets complete the well-balanced arterial
circulation system, which the City has constructed to provide an efficient flow of traffic to places of
importance while protecting residential neighborhoods. The following study area roadways within the
City of Rosemead are classified as Minor Arterials:
Del Mar Avenue
Graves Avenue
New Avenue
Rush Street
Temple City Boulevard
Lower Azusa Road
Mission Drive
Walnut Grove Avenue
COLLECTOR ROADS
The primary function of a collector road is to connect a neighborhood area with nearby arterials.
Collector roads are intended to move traffic between local streets and arterials and commonly carry less
than 15,000 vehicles per day. The following study area roadways within the City of Rosemead are
classified as Collector Roads:
Encinitas Avenue
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-3
Grand Avenue
Hellman Avenue
Ivar Avenue
Loftus Drive
Marshall Street
Muscatel Avenue
Ramona Boulevard
Rio Hondo Avenue
Rosemead Place
LOCAL STREETS
Local Streets are designed to principally provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access to individual
parcels throughout the City. They are intended to carry low volumes of traffic, and are typically two-lane
roadways.
TRUCK ROUTES
The existing truck route network within Rosemead provides for truck access to local business, and to
some extent, provides routes for trucks to travel through the City to other destinations.
TRANSIT SERVICE
Public transportation in the Planning Area consists of fixed-route bus service and dial-a-ride service. This
latter type of service is an advance reservation, shared ride transportation service for senior residents or
disabled of any age and their attendants. The Planning Area is served by bus transit lines operated by
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, City of Rosemead, and City of Montebello.
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Field observations conducted in December 2013 indicate nominal pedestrian and bicycle activity within
the study area. There is currently a Class I bicycle path that runs along the Rio Hondo Creek Channel.
However, there are currently no designated bicycle paths or bike lanes on any streets within the City of
Rosemead. Class I bike paths and Class II bicycle lanes are proposed for five major arterials within the
city, including San Gabriel Boulevard, Garvey Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, Valley Boulevard, and Mission
Drive.
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-4 City of Rosemead
Class I bikeways, referred to as a “bike path,” is a separate travel-way for bicyclists. They are typically
used to serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide right-of-way exist, permitting
such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets. They provide opportunities
not offered by a road system. Class II bikeways, also referred to as “bike lanes,” are intended to
delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and motorists, and to provide for more predictable
movements of each. Bike lane signs and pavement marking help define the bikeway. A more important
reason for bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room
exists for safe bicycling on existing streets.
EXISTING (2015) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The analysis of existing roadway and intersection operations within the Planning Area was conducted for
weekday a.m. and p.m. peak-hour conditions. Traffic counts were conducted for the Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by KOA Corporation in May 2014, and year 2015 was defined for existing conditions.
Ambient growth was added to the counts to define existing volumes. The results of the analysis of
existing peak-hour intersection LOS are summarized in Table 13-1 (Study Intersection Performance for
Existing Peak-Hour conditions) below.
TABLE 13-1 STUDY INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE FOR EXISTING PEAK-HOUR CONDITIONS
Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS
1 Del Mar Avenue/ Hellman Avenue 0.797 C 0.672 B
2 San Gabriel Boulevard/ Hellman Avenue 0.819 D 0.779 C
3 New Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.716 C 0.712 C
4 Jackson Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.602 B 0.559 A
5 Del Mar Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.786 C 0.774 C
6 Kelburn Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.508 A 0.536 A
7 San Gabriel Boulevard/ Garvey Avenue 0.768 C 0.855 D
8 Delta Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.618 B 0.558 A
9 Walnut Grove Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.772 C 0.889 D
ICU – Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS – Level of Service, ranging from A (good) to F
(poor)
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, all the study area intersections currently operate at acceptable
LOS D values or better under existing conditions. At the intersections of San Gabriel Boulevard/ Garvey
Avenue and Walnut Grove Avenue/ Garvey Avenue, LOS D conditions are approaching LOS E (near-
capacity) conditions during the p.m. peak hour.
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-5
EXISTING (2015) FREEWAY CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
The existing freeway mainline LOS analysis for Interstate 10 used information from the Caltrans website
to determine existing average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes, directional flow count data, and
peak-hour factoring. The relevant Caltrans reports are the 2013 Traffic Volumes Book and the 2013 Peak
hour Volume Data report. The results of the existing freeway LOS calculations are summarized in Table
4.13-2 (I-10 Freeway Conditions Analysis) below. The LOS values are based on volume and lane inputs
and the density of traffic in the peak hour and peak direction using the Highway Capacity Manual
software.
TABLE 13-2 I-10 FREEWAY CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
Freeway Mainline Location Existing
Cars Per Hour
Per Lane
LOS
I-10 Ahead of San Gabriel Blvd. 1,948 D
I-10 Back of Del Mar 1,965 D
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Los Angeles County CMP is administered by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA). The CMP identifies and establishes a system for monitoring regional transportation
facilities. This information is used to link local land use decisions and their impacts on regional
transportation and air quality, and to develop partnerships among transportation decision makers to
find solutions that serve the region. Local jurisdictions, such as ROsemead, are required to participate in
the CMP to receive their portion of state gas tax revenue. The nearest CMP arterial monitoring
intersection to the Specific Plan area is on Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard. The nearest CMP
mainline freeway monitoring location to the planning area is on the Interstate 10 freeway, near
Rosemead Boulevard.
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
The LOS standard in Los Angeles County is LOS E, except where base year LOS is worse than E. In such
cases, the base year LOS is the standard. 1992 has been established as the base year for Los Angeles
County. Caltrans and local jurisdictions conducted traffic counts at designated monitoring locations
along the system in order to determine the base year LOS. This is the standard employed by the City in
ecvalauting intersection performance.
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-6 City of Rosemead
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Applicable impact significance thresholds concerning traffic and transportation are based on those
specified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, pursuant to Rosemead’s local implementation
standards. Accordingly, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts if it would:
A. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
B. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
C. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
IMPACT 13.A
FUTURE (2035) WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project examined study area roadway network
operations in the future buildout (year 2035), with existing land use and estimated growth. This
established a pre-project or baseline scenario for analysis of potential traffic impacts under the Specific
Plan land use updates.
BACKGROUND GROWTH
To estimate future baseline conditions (future traffic volumes without the Specific Plan), existing
volumes were increased by a growth rate determined by the regional traffic model maintained by the
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-7
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and last updated to provide traffic projections
through the year 2035. This traffic analysis therefore defines the year 2035 as the buildout year.
STUDY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection peak-hour performance and LOS values for the future (year 2035) without-project scenario
are summarized in Table 13-3 (Intersection Peak-Hour LOS Future (2035) Without-Project Conditions)
below.
TABLE 13-3
INTERSECTION PEAK-HOUR LOS FUTURE (2035) WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS
Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS ICU Value LOS
1 Del Mar Avenue/ Hellman Avenue 0.889 D 0.735 C
2 San Gabriel Boulevard/ Hellman Avenue 0.863 D 0.809 D
3 New Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.745 C 0.734 C
4 Jackson Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.598 A 0.555 A
5 Del Mar Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.829 D 0.810 D
6 Kelburn Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.553 A 0.589 A
7 San Gabriel Boulevard/ Garvey Avenue 0.812 D 0.895 D
8 Delta Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.660 B 0.601 B
9 Walnut Grove Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.814 D 0.943 E
ICU – Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS – Level of Service, ranging from A (good) to F (poor)
Based on the LOS summary for this scenario provided by Table 13-3, eight of the nine study intersections
would operate at good levels of service LOS value D or better. The intersection of Walnut Grove and
Garvey Avenue would worsen from LOS D to E during the p.m. peak hour. The study intersections that
would operate at LOS E or F during this scenario is on a major arterial, and would potentially operate at
poor levels of service due to high traffic volumes on the primary arteries of the study area, as area
growth occurs into the buildout year.
FUTURE (2035) WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS
This scenario includes background traffic growth and potential new area development under the
proposed Specific Plan, in addition to other cumulative/area planned projects assumed to be built within
the buildout timeframe. Using the inputs of land use data from the Specific Plan process, this scenario
estimates the effects of both regional development and population growth and the land use changes
proposed for the Specific Plan area.
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-8 City of Rosemead
ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT UNDER SPECIFIC PLAN
KOA was provided details from the Specific Plan land use map, based on commercial floor area increases
and residential unit increases in various areas of the study area. Trip generation for these land uses was
analyzed and impacts were examined.
The development of a traffic forecast for a specific plan takes into account the type and density of future
land uses within the analyzed area, and the location and potential interaction of various land use types,
as well as the characteristics and capacity of each of the major roadways and intersections.
The incremental (net) development increase/decrease by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) was derived by
subtracting the intensity of the proposed Specific Plan land uses from that of the existing land uses. The
changes in development intensities would include parcel turnover and redevelopment (recycling), as
well as new development envisioned by the Specific Plan.
For the analysis, two land use plan scenarios were analyzed, Realistic Buildout and Maximum Buildout.
The following summarizes the total commercial building square feet and residential units for the
Realistic Buildout scenario:
Commercial Uses: 1,175,475 square feet
Residential Uses: 892 dwelling units
The following summarizes the total commercial building square feet and residential units for the
Maximum Buildout scenario:
Commercial Uses: 1,929,335 square feet
Residential Uses: 1,147 dwelling units
PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The potential development intensity changes – square feet of floor area for non-residential uses such as
commercial and industrial, and number of units for residential uses – from the existing land uses to the
proposed Specific Plan land uses are calculated below.
The trip totals were calculated using rates for the various non-residential and residential land use types
considered in the land use plan, based on the Trip Generation Manual (9th edition), published by ITE.
Internal trip capture reductions, for trips that would remain local to each TAZ area were included, which
would constitute walking trips or trips by other non-vehicle modes due to attraction between
commercial and residential uses. Internal trip capture reductions were taken based on the Trip
Generation Manual.
The following land uses were utilized to calculate the trip generation estimates for non-residential and
residential uses, and the rates are provided in Table 13-4 (Trip Generation Rates) below.
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-9
Shopping Center
General Office
Restaurant – Fast-Food
Restaurant – Sit-Down
Apartments
Condominium
TABLE 13-4
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use Units Daily
Total
AM Peak PM Peak
In Out Total In Out Total
Shopping Center (ITE 820)/ Retail KSF 42.70 62% 38% 0.96 48% 52% 3.71
General Office (ITE 710) KSF 11.03 88% 12% 1.56 17% 83% 1.49
Restaurant – Fast Food (ITE 933) KSF 716.00 60% 40% 43.87 51% 49% 26.15
Restaurant – Sit-Down (ITE 932) KSF 127.15 55% 45% 10.81 60% 40% 9.85
Apartments (ITE 220) DU 6.65 20% 80% 0.51 65% 35% 0.62
Condominium (ITE 230) DU 5.81 17% 83% 0.44 67% 33% 0.52
The trip generation changes due to incremental (net) development increase associated with the
proposed Realistic Buildout land use plan is summarized within Table 13-5 (Trip Generation Change by
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) – Peak Hours) below. The increased development that would be allowed
under the proposed Plan could, at a realistic density, generate the following new vehicle trips:
Commercial Uses: 79,799 daily trips, including 4,670 in a.m. peak, 2,820 in p.m. peak
Residential Uses: 5,467 daily trips, including 415 in a.m. peak, 496 in p.m. peak
The Realistic Buildout scenario number of trips was analyzed in the impact analysis, in order to provide a
more accurate analysis of potential impacts. Negative trip generation numbers within Table 13-5 are
caused by reductions in overall trips, due to expected localized reductions in land use mix and intensity.
“In” and “Out” designations refer to the relationship of the trips by direction to the generating uses.
The trip totals were calculated using rates for the various non-residential and residential land use types
considered in the land use plan, based on the Trip Generation Manual (9th edition), published by ITE.
Internal trip capture reductions, for trips that would remain local to each TAZ area were included, which
would constitute walking trips or trips by other non-vehicle modes due to attraction between
commercial and residential uses. Internal trip capture reductions were taken based on the Trip
Generation Manual.
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-10 City of Rosemead
Credits for transit use were taken based on the proximity of the Metro Local Bus 70 to Metro Rapid Bus
770, which both operate on Garvey Avenue with a peak frequency of 6 to 15 minutes. Credit rates were
based on guidance within the Congestion Management Program.
Trips were distributed to the study area based on directional distribution percentages from the local
RSA, defined by the Metro regional planning model for the CMP.
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-11
TABLE 13-5
TRIP GENERATION CHANGE BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) – PEAK HOURS
TAZ Commercial Net Trips Residential Net Trips
Daily
Total
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Total
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
2157-1 3,489 127 82 209 63 65 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2157-2 2,023 72 46 118 35 37 122 2 8 10 8 4 12
2165-1 7,265 268 168 436 130 135 265 128 2 9 11 8 5 13
2165-2 4,682 167 107 274 81 83 164 65 1 4 5 4 2 6
2165-3 -456 -16 -11 -27 -12 -13 -25 307 5 19 24 18 19 27
2165-4 15,856 567 357 924 274 286 560 1,688 24 103 127 101 51 152
2165-5 10,169 364 229 593 176 183 359 1,165 16 71 87 69 36 105
2170-1 3,427 122 77 199 59 61 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2170-2 21,952 785 495 1,280 380 396 776 1,316 18 81 99 79 41 120
2176-1 10,941 391 247 638 188 197 385 609 9 38 47 37 18 55
2184-1 451 16 10 26 8 8 16 65 1 4 5 4 2 6
Total 79,799 2,863 1,807 4,670 1,382 1,438 2,820 5,467 78 337 415 328 168 496
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-12 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-13
FUTURE (2035) WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS
A level of service analysis was conducted for future With-Project conditions, based on the addition of
trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed Specific Plan land use changes. The results of the
analysis for this scenario are provided within Table 13-6 (Study Intersection Operations – Future (2035)
With Project Conditions. Intersections that would operate at LOS values of E or F are indicated by
highlighted values.
TABLE 13-6
STUDY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – FUTURE (2035) WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS
Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS
1 Del Mar Avenue/ Hellman Avenue 0.994 E 0.808 D
2 San Gabriel Boulevard/ Hellman Avenue 1.026 F 0.908 E
3 New Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 1.046 F 0.935 E
4 Jackson Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.960 E 0.787 C
5 Del Mar Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 1.255 F 1.092 F
6 Kelburn Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 1.045 F 0.911 E
7 San Gabriel Boulevard/ Garvey Avenue 1.307 F 1.188 F
8 Delta Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 0.866 D 0.732 C
9 Walnut Grove Avenue/ Garvey Avenue 1.161 F 1.070 F
ICU – Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS – Level of Service, ranging from A (good) to F
(poor)
With the intensities of development under the proposed land use plan, the data within Table 13-6
indicates that eight of the study intersections would operate at poor LOS values of E or F during the peak
hours. The following intersections would worsen to or within LOS E or F due to the implementation of
the Realistic Buildout land use plan:
Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave – Worsening from LOS D to LOS E in the a.m. peak hour
San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave – Worsening from LOS D to F in the a.m. peak hour and from
LOS D to E in the p.m. peak hour
New Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS C to F in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS C to
LOS E in the p.m. peak hour
Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS A to E in the a.m. peak hour
Del Mar Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS D to F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours
Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS A to F in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS A
to E in the p.m. peak hour
San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS D to F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours
Walnut Grove Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS D to F in the a.m. peak hour and from
LOS E to F p.m. peak hour
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-14 City of Rosemead
The number of study intersections operating at LOS E or F during peak hours would increase due to the
proposed land use plan, over future baseline conditions without the Plan, due to planned changes in
permitted development intensity.
Each of these study intersections that would operate at LOS E or F during this scenario is on a major
arterial with large delays for vehicles approaching from the minor/controlled roadway.
SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACTS
This section evaluates the impact of incremental traffic growth between the future Without-Project
(baseline) and future With-Project (the proposed Specific Plan) scenarios. To ensure that adequate
mobility is maintained within a Specific Plan or General Plan project area, locations are typically
identified for potential improvements, where cumulative impacts of future land use changes would
occur over the timespan of the plan. These improvements would then be implemented as new
development occurs, as they become justified and are physically and financially feasible within the
scope of individual projects.
This section provides a discussion of significant impacts at the program level (all potential future land
use changes under the Specific Plan) at the study intersections, and a framework for implementation of
program-level mitigation measures to be implemented over multiple years that would mitigate the
identified significant traffic impacts.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT STANDARDS
A significant impact is normally defined when new vehicle trips generated by a specific project or groups
of projects would cause level of service values, volume-to-capacity ratios, or other measured variables
to deteriorate below a minimum acceptable threshold or increase by a set maximum amount. These
thresholds and maximums are specified by the local agency.
The performance standards used to evaluate traffic volumes and design capacities on the study area
roadway system were based on peak-hour operations of the analyzed study intersections. The
significant impact standards applied to this analysis are defined below.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
The City of Rosemead Engineering Department has established specific thresholds for Project-related
increases in the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) of study intersections. The following increases in peak
hour V/C ratios are considered significant impacts:
Level of Service Without-Project V/C* Project-Related V/C Increase
F 1.00 or more Equal to or greater than 0.02
*Without-Project V/C is based on future volumes with ambient growth only.
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-15
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
The City of Monterey Park has established specific thresholds for Project-related increases in the
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values of signalized study intersections. The following increases in
peak-hour ICU values are considered significant traffic impacts:
Existing ICU Project-Related Increase in ICU
0.000 – 0.700 Equal to or greater than 0.06
>0.701 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.04
>0.801 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.02
>0.901 Equal to or greater than 0.01
Mitigation measures are also required, based on the County CMP guidelines, if approval and
construction of a project will result in increased peak hour trips of 50 or more on CMP arterial and
increased peak-hour trips of 150 or more on freeway monitoring locations.
SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT DETERMINATIONS
The determination of significant impacts of the proposed Specific Plan land uses at the study
intersections, by the future analysis year of 2035, is summarized within Table 13-7 (Significant Study
Area Traffic Impacts) below. Out of the total nine study intersections, operations at the following
number of intersections would worsen to or within deficient LOS values of E or F, due to anticipated new
trips that would be generated by the realistic land uses allowed under the proposed land use plan:
In the AM peak hour – eight intersections
In the PM peak hour – six intersections
Six of the nine study intersections would be significantly-impacted during both the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours.
San Gabriel Boulevard & Hellman Avenue (a.m. peak hour)
New Avenue & Garvey Avenue (a.m. peak hour)
Del Mar Avenue & Garvey Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
Kelburn Avenue & Garvey Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
San Gabriel Boulevard & Garvey Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
Walnut Grove & Garvey Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
Recommended mitigation measures are summarized in Table 13-8 (Recommended Study Intersection
Mitigation Measures and Effects) below.
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-16 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-17
TABLE 13-7
SIGNIFICANT STUDY AREA TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Study Intersections Peak
Hour
2015 2035 W/O
Project
2035 W Project Var. Impact?
ICU
Value
LOS ICU
Value
LOS ICU
Value
LOS
1 Del Mar Avenue/Hellman Avenue - 0.797 C 0.889 D 0.994 E 0.105 No
PM 0.672 B 0.735 C 0.808 D 0.073 No
2 San Gabriel Boulevard/ Hellman Avenue AM 0.819 D 0.863 D 1.026 F 0.163 Yes
PM 0.779 C 0.809 D 0.908 F 0.099 No
3 New Avenue/ Garvey Avenue AM 0.716 C 0.745 C 1.046 F 0.301 Yes
PM 0.712 C 0.734 C 0.935 E 0.201 No
4 Jackson Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.602 B 0.598 A 0.960 E 0.362 No
PM 0.559 A 0.555 A 0.787 C 0.232 No
5 Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.786 C 0.829 D 1.255 F 0.426 Yes
PM 0.774 C 0.810 D 1.092 F 0.282 Yes
6 Kelburn Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.508 A 0.553 A 1.045 F 0.492 Yes
PM 0.536 A 0.589 A 0.911 E 0.322 No
7 San Gabriel Boulevard/ Garvey Avenue AM 0.768 C 0.812 D 1.307 F 0.495 Yes
PM 0.855 D 0.895 D 1.188 F 0.293 Yes
8 Delta Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.618 B 0.660 B 0.866 D 0.206 No
PM 0.558 A 0.601 B 0.732 C 0.131 No
9 Walnut Grove Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.772 C 0.814 D 1.161 F 0.347 Yes
PM 0.889 D 0.943 E 1.070 F 0.127 Yes
ICU – Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS – Level of Service, ranging from A (Good) to F (Poor)
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-18 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-19
TABLE 13-8
RECOMMENDED STUDY INTERSECTION MITIGATION MEASURES AND EFFECTS
Study Intersection Peak
Hour
2035 W/O Project 2035 W Project Impact? Mitigation Measures W/ Mitigation Significant?
ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS
2 San Gabriel Boulevard
Hellman Avenue
AM 0.863 D 1.026 F Yes Signal Coordination 0.996 E No
PM 0.809 D 0.908 E No 0.878 D No
3 New Avenue
Garvey Avenue
AM 0.745 C 1.046 F Yes EB and WB add 3rd thru lane 0.879 D No
PM 0.734 C 0.935 E No 0.785 C No
5 Del Mar Avenue
Garvey Avenue
AM 0.829 D 1.255 F Yes EB and WB add 3rd thru lane 1.054 F Yes
PM 0.810 D 1.092 F Yes 0.938 E No
Kelburn Avenue
Garvey Avenue
AM 0.553 A 1.045 F Yes EB and WB add 3rd thru lane 0.812 D No
PM 0.589 A 0.911 E No 0.686 B No
7 San Gabriel Boulevard
Garvey Avenue
AM 0.812 D 1.307 F Yes EB and WB add 3rd thru lane 1.153 F Yes
PM 0.895 D 1.188 F Yes 1.072 F Yes
9 Walnut Grove Avenue
Garvey Avenue
AM 0.814 D 1.161 F Yes EB and WB add 3rd thru lane 0.977 E No
PM 0.943 D 1.070 F Yes 0.912 E No
EB – Eastbound, WB – Westbound
1 Corridor signal coordination credit (three percent of capacity) was applied to the impact study intersection #2. At the impacted intersections along Garvey Avenue,
the installation of a third thru lane was included as a long-term City project.
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-20 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-21
MITIGATION MEASURES
The physical mitigation measures summarized in Table 13-8, plus corridor traffic signal
synchronization/coordination on San Gabriel Boulevard all locations, would reduce the significant traffic
impacts at all but two of the identified locations to a level of insignificance. At these two locations,
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. A three percent capacity improvement was assumed
for the San Gabriel Blvd Corridor improvements. The physical improvement benefits were calculated in
terms of level of service. Some LOS values would be improved by the mitigation/improvements package,
but some would remain at LOS E due to the physical constraints of existing development that prevent
adequate expansion of right-of-way to accommodate projected traffic flows.
Conceptual cost estimates were calculated for the improvements required to mitigate potentially
significant traffic impacts. Signal coordination at the intersection of San Gabriel boulevard at Hellman
Avenue is estimated from $15,000 for clock-based synchronization to $135,000 for live synchronization
using wired interconnect. Traffic generated from within the Specific Plan is the sole contributer to the
performance decrease past LOS E, thus, 100 percent of the cost to implement signal coordination would
need to be collected via fair-share payment from future development projects. Improvements to Garvey
Avenue are estimated at $190,000. Specific Plan traffic is also the direct contributer of traffic
performance degradation along this corridor and would be responsible for 100 percent of the
improvement costs, if necessary.
SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACTS UNDER MONTEREY PARK THRESHOLDS
A supplemental analysis was undertaken for the study intersection located on the jurisdictional border
of the City of Rosemead and City of Monterey Park. The previous sub-section of the report analyzed
impacts using the City of Rosemead impact guidelines. Impacts are analyzed here using the City of
Monterey Park impact guidelines. Table 13-9 (City of Monterey Park Significant Traffic Impacts) provides
the analysis for the intersection located on the City border, using City of Monterey Park impact
guidelines.
TABLE 13-9
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Study Intersections Peak
Hour
2015 2035 W/O Projecy 2035 W Project Var. Impact?
ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS
3 New Avenue/
Garvey Avenue
AM 0.716 C 0.745 C 1.046 F 0.301 Yes
PM 0.712 C 0.734 C 0.935 E 0.201 Yes
ICU – Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS – Level of Service, ranging from A (Good) to F (Poor)
Per the City of Monterey Park impact guidelines, this study intersection would be significantly impacted
during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The same mitigation measure identified for New Avenue at
Garvey Avenue would be applied per the City of Monterey Park guidelines but would reduce the impact
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-22 City of Rosemead
to acceptable levels, further necessitating the addition of a right-turn lane at the westbound approach..
This mitigation measure is feasible due to the presence of existing development that prevents adequate
right-of-way expansion. There are no other feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to further
reduce this impact and it remains significant and unavoidable.
FREEWAY INTERCHANGE RAMP AND MAINLINE OPERATIONS
Potential freeway facility impacts were also considered per Caltrans traffic study guidelines. Existing
volumes were compiled from Caltrans data, via Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data reports from
2013. The year 2013 is the most recent available data summarized by Caltrans. The volumes for this
analysis are indicated in bold text under the “Back Peak Hour” and “Ahead Peak Hour” headings in Table
13-10 (Caltrans Volume Data for Interstate 10 in Vicinity of Project) for the Interstate 10 facility. The
“Back” and “Ahead” labels refer to the direction on the freeway facility from the analyzed location. Per
Caltrans definitions for data collection and analysis, Back volumes are further west and Ahead volumes
are further east, in relation to the overall facility direction of travel within the region.
TABLE 13-10
CALTRANS VOLUME DATA FOR INTERSTATE 10 IN VICINITY OF PROJECT
Route Post
Mile
Location Back
Peak
Hour
Back
Peak
Month
Back
AADT
Ahead
Peak
Hour
Ahead
Peak
Month
Ahead
AADT
10 25.327 South San Gabriel
Del Mar Avenue
14,300 231,000 227,000 14,400 233,000 229,000
10 25.837 Rosemead
San Gabriel Boulevard
14,400 233,000 229,000 14,200 229,000 225,000
Growth factors used within the primary traffic impact analysis were utilized here to existing Interstate
10 volumes from the year 2013 to the area buildout-year of 2035. The buildout year for the regional
traffic model is 2035, and Caltrans review of freeway facility impacts is usually the model buildout year.
The annual growth rate applied to the analysis of the study intersection was based on the SCAG model
and for the 27-year period between existing year-2008 and future year-2035 conditions, with a resulting
factor of 1.06. As the Caltrans base AADT volumes are from the year 2013, the growth factor applied to
these volumes was adjusted to a 22-year period, with a resulting factor of 1.049. The resulting buildout
volume calculations for nearby mainline freeway segments – two on the Interstate 10 – was applied to
the mainline operations analysis summarized below.
FREEWAY MAINLINE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL ANALYSIS
A freeway mainline level of service calculation was conducted, using the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) software, as the use of the HCM methodology is required for analysis by Caltrans traffic study
guidelines. Caltrans-published mainline AADT volumes, peak hour factors, and directional proportion of
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-23
flow were all used as inputs. Table 13-11 (Interstate 10 Mainline Daily LOS Calculations) summarizes the
results of this analysis, for mainline segments on the Interstate 10 facility north of the Specific Plan area.
Under the future 2035 Without-Project conditions, all freeway segments, under a planning scenario
analysis for daily volumes would operate at LOS D. The level of service value would worsen to LOS E with
the addition of the new trips generated by the Specific Plan. As the overall Specific Plan, at the program
level, would create potentially adverse LOS on the Interstate 10 freeway mainline, major projects within
the Plan area should be reviewed for both localized impacts that overlap with the identified locations of
Significant impacts and for potential freeway corridor impacts.
TABLE 13-11
INTERSTATE 10 MAINLINE DAILY LOS CALCULATIONS
Freeway Mainline Location Future 2035 Baseline Without
Project Conditions
Future 2035 With Specific
Plan
Land Use Conditions
Flow Rate
(pc/h/ln
Density
(pc/m/ln)
LOS Flow Rate
(pc/h/ln)
Density
(pc/m/ln)
LOS
I-10 Ahead of San Gabriel Boulevard 2,043 33.1 D 2,162 36.5 E
I-10 Back of Del Mar Avenue 2,061 33.6 D 2,298 41.0 E
Note: Density not reported when free-flow speed is computed to be low.
Pc/h/ln – Passenger Car per Hour per Lane
FREEWAY INTERCHANGE INTERSECTION HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL ANALYSIS
The existing counts for the highway ramp intersections near the Planning Area were collected in year
2014 and quoted from the Garvey Avenue Plaza Mixed Use Development Traffic Impact Study conducted
by VA Consulting, Inc. (February 2015). The annual growth rate applied to the analysis of the study
intersections was compounded for the 21-year period between year-2014 and future year-2035
conditions, with a resulting factor of 1.109. The annual growth rate was calculated based on the Metro
Congestion Management Plan, using growth factors defined for the Regional Statistics Area (RSA) No.
25, where the Garvey Avenue corridor is located.
Table 13-12 (Freeway Ramp Intersection Highway Capacity Manual Analysis) provides a summary of the
HCM-based analysis, defined for analysis by Caltrans traffic study guidelines, that was conducted for the
study intersections tat are freeway interchange ramp intersections and immediately adjacent
intersections. This analysis was conducted by applying this analysis methodology to the analysis
conducted for future year-2035 with and without project conditions. The results indicate that using the
applied operations methodology, the following notable changes in operation would occur:
The San Gabriel boulevard/I-10 Westbound Ramp intersection would worsen from LOS B to LOS
C during the a.m. peak hour.
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-24 City of Rosemead
The San Gabriel Boulevard/I-10 Eastbound Ramp intersection would worsen from LOS B to LOS C
during the a.m. peak hour and from LOS C to LOS D during the p.m. peak hour.
The Walnut Grove Avenue/I-10 Westbound Ramp intersection would worsdn from LOS A to LOS
B during the a.m. peak hour.
The San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue intersection would worsen from LOS D to LOS E
during the a.m. peak hour.
TABLE 13-12
Freeway Ramp Intersection Highway Capacity Manual Analysis
Study Intersections
Peak
Hour
Without Project With Project
ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS
1 San Gabriel Boulevard/I-10 WB Ramp AM 0.678 B 0.753 C
PM 0.749 C 0.773 C
2 San Gabriel Boulevard/I-10 EB Ramp AM 0.642 B 0.709 C
PM 0.784 C 0.808 D
3 San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue AM 0.824 D 0.901 E
PM 0.813 D 0.873 D
4 Walnut Grove Avenue/I-10 WB Ramp AM 0.596 A 0.611 B
PM 0.621 B 0.632 B
5 Walnut Grove Avenue/Hellman Avenue AM 0.719 C 0.746 C
PM 0.814 D 0.830 D
6 I-10 EB Ramp/Hellman Avenue AM 0.634 B 0.684 B
PM 0.626 B 0.664 B
Identified poor level of service would occur due to realistic buildout of the proposed Specific Plan at the
intersection of San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue in the a.m. peak hour. This intersection,
however, does not directly affect freeway operations and ramp queuing is directly controlled/affected
by other upstream intersections. Mitigation measures are not recommended at this intersection.
FREEWAY RAMP QUEUE ANALYSIS
The Synchro signal timing and synchronization program was used to analyze the conditions at the four
off-ramps to the Planning Area analyzed in Table 13-10 for year-2035 conditions with and without the
project. Table 13-13 (Freeway Ramp Queue Highway Capacity Manual Analysis) summarizes the queuing
analysis conducted for these freeway -offramps. Figures 1 and 2 of the Technical Memorandum
prepared by KOA Corporation on August 19, 2015 (See Appendix M) provide illustrative measurements
of the analyzed off-ramp vehicle queuing length capacities at the worst-case queuing locations:
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-25
Figure 1: San Gabriel Boulevard and I-10 WB off-ramp queuing length measures approximately
580 feet, from the gore point where the on-ramp and off-ramp facilities split, to the end of the
off-ramp at the San Gabriel Boulevard intersection.
Figure 2: San Gabriel Boulevard and I-10 EB off-ramp queuing length measures approximately
598 feet, from the gore point where the on-ramp and off-ramp facilities split, to the end of the
off-ramp at the San Gabriel Boulevard intersection.
At the two San Gabriel Boulevard off-ramps in the direction of the Planning Area (connecting via right-
turn movements to the southbound San Gabriel Boulevard), the queue length would not be significantly
exceeded in the without-project period, but would lengthen with additional vehicle trips added from the
with-project scenario. The queues in the with-project scenario would not exceed the length of the off-
ramps. As such, it is concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not cause the off-ramp
queuing length capacity to be exceeded and mitigation measures are not recommended.
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-26 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-27
TABLE 13-13
FREEWAY RAMP QUEUE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL ANALYSIS
Study Ramps
Peak
Hour
Without Project With Project
HCM 95th
% Queue
Vehicles
HCM 95th
% Queue
Length
(feet)
Ramp
Length
(feet)
Queue/
Ramp
HCM 95th
% Queue
Vehicles
HCM 95th
% Queue
Length
(feet)
Ramp
Length
(feet)
Queue/
Ramp
1 San Gabriel Boulevard/I-
10 WB Ramp
Eastbound Right-Turn Eastbound Right-Turn
AM 4.9 122.5 580 0.211 14.5 362.5 580 0.625
PM 13.5 337.5 580 0.582 21.7 542.5 580 0.935
2 San Gabriel Boulevard/I-
10 EB Ramp
Eastbound Right-Turn Eastbound Right-Turn
AM 3.3 82.5 598 0.138 10.6 265.0 598 0.443
PM 6.6 165.0 598 0.276 12.4 310.0 598 0.518
4 Walnut Grove Avenue/I-
10 WB Ramp
Eastbound Right-Turn Eastbound Right-Turn
AM 4.7 117.5 492 0.239 6.2 155.0 492 0.315
PM 6.2 155.0 492 0.315 7.3 182.5 492 0.371
6 I-10 EB Ramp/Hellman
Avenue
Southboun Southbound
AM 7.4 185.0 1,100 0.168 10.2 254.0 1,100 0.231
PM 8.3 208.0 1,100 0.189 8.7 217.0 1,100 0.197
Note:
1. the ramp length for ramp #1 is measured from the gore point where the on-ramp and off-ramp split to the end of the off-ramp.
2. the ramp length for ramp #2 is measured from the gore point where the on-ramp and off-ramp split to the end of the off-ramp.
3. the ramp length for ramp #4 is measured from the gore point where the main lane and off-ramp split to the end of the off-ramp
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-28 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Transportation and Traffic
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-29
IMPACT 13.B
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was created statewide because of Proposition 111 and is
implemented locally by the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG). The CMP for Los
Angeles County requires that the traffic impact of individual development projects of potentially
regional significance be analyzed. A specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways comprises the
CMP system. A project could have a potentially significant impact on a CMP facility and require
preparation of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) if the project meets the following criteria:
At CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on-ramps or off-ramps, the
proposed project will add 50 or more vehicle trips during either AM or PM weekday peak hours.
At CMP mainline freeway-monitoring locations, where the project will 150 or more trips, in
either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours.
The nearest CMP arterial monitoring intersection to the Planning Area is on Rosemead Boulevard at
Valley Boulevard. Based on the Project trip generation and the distance of this CMP location from the
study intersections, it is not expected that 50 or more new trips per hour would be added to this
location.
The nearest CMP mainline freeway-monitoring location to the Planning Area is on the Interstate 10
freeway, near Rosemead Boulevard. Based on the Project trip generation, the Project is not expected to
add more than 150 new trips per hour to any freeway segments near the Specific Plan area. Therefore,
impacts to CMP facilities will be less than significant and the proposed project will not conflict with the
Los Angeles County CMP.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MITIGATION MEASURE 13.A-1
Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit fair share payments to the
Building and Safety Division consistent with the roadway improvements identified in the project traffic
impact analysis, and listed below, and the requirements of the City’s Development Impact Fee program.
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-30 City of Rosemead
The following improvements shall be implemented by Horizon Year 2035 unless otherwise
stated.
San Gabriel Boulevard/ Hellman Avenue
Signal Coordination
New Avenue/ Garvey Avenue
Additional 3rd thru lane for eastbound and westbound
Del Mar Avenue/ Garvey Avenue
Additional 3rd thru lane for eastbound and westbound
Kelburn Avenue/ Garvey Avenue
Additional 3rd thru lane for eastbound and westbound
San Gabriel Boulevard/ Garvey Avenue
Additional 3rd thru lane for eastbound and westbound
Walnut Grove Avenue/ Garvey Avenue
Additional 3rd thru lane for eastbound and westbound
IMPACT DETERMINATION
Impact 13.A remains significant and unavoidable after consideration of Mitigation Measure 13.A-1.
Impact 13.B will be less than significant without mitigation incorporation.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13-31
TABLE 13-14 IMPACT 13.A DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant Underutilized Prototypical
West
Gateway
Auto Auction
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant by Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation X X X X
Significant and Unavoidable X
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant with Project
Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable X X X X X
TABLE 13-15 IMPACT 13.B DETERMINATION SUMMARY
Determination Vacant
Underutilize
d
Prototypic
al
West
Gateway
Auto
Auction/
Landwin
Project Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant X X X X X
Less than Significant by Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact
Less than Significant X X X X X
Less than Significant by Design
Less than Significant with Regulations
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Transportation and Traffic Environmental Impact Report
13-32 City of Rosemead
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 14-1
14 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW – UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
This section analyzes the availability of infrastructure capacity for water and wastewater services to
meet the needs of the proposed project and each system’s current and future obligations. As identified
in the Initial Study, no impacts related to storm drains were identified and impacts related to
compliance with federal, state, and local solid waste regulations solid waste services were determined
to be less than significant; therefore, those topics are not discussed herein.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
WASTEWATER
Sanitary sewer service for the project site is provided by the City of Rosemead. The existing local
wastewater collection system within the Specific Plan area is owned and operated by the City.
Wastewater in the South San Gabriel System is collected by gravity sewers and lift stations owned by the
City, as well as by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD). The wastewater is transported
through trunk sewers to LACSD’s San Jose Creek and Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plants (WRP).
The San Jose Creek WRP provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for an average dry
weather flow (DWF) of 100 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd). The plant serves a largely urban
population of approximately one million people. About 35 mgd of treated effluent from San Jose Creek
WRP is reused at 17 different sites. The recycled water is primarily used for groundwater recharge and
agricultural and landscape irrigation. The remaining effluent (65 mgd) is discharged into the San Gabriel
River.
The Whittier Narrows WRP provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for an average DWF of
15 mgd. The plant serves a population of approximately 150,000 people. According to the LACSD, nearly
all of the treated effluent is reused as groundwater recharge into the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Coastal
Spreading Grounds or for irrigation at an adjacent nursery. Any remaining effluent is discharged into the
San Gabriel River.
Because the Whittier Narrows and San Jose Creek WRPs treat wastewater for a larger population than
exists in the South San Gabriel System, an estimated per capita wastewater generation factor was used
to calculate the volume of wastewater generated by GSWC’s customers in South San Gabriel. Based on
the populations served and the average wastewater treatment rates for the San Jose Creek and Whittier
Narrows WRPs as detailed above, the average per capita wastewater generation factor for both of these
WRPs is 100 gallons per person per day. This factor was used to estimate existing and projected volumes
of wastewater collected and treated in the South San Gabriel System.
Because all of the effluent from Whittier Narrows and San Jose Creek WRPs is treated to meet Title 22
recycled water standards, 100 percent of the treated effluent meets such standards. However, out of
the combined wastewater effluent (115 mgd) from these two treatment plants, 50 mgd (43 percent) of
Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Impact Report
14-2 City of Rosemead
the treated water is actively reused throughout the region. Therefore, the assumption is that 43 percent
of the treated wastewater that is collected in the South San Gabriel System is recycled while the
remaining 57 percent is discharged into the unlined portions of the San Gabriel River. Although the
majority of the water that is discharged into the San Gabriel River will contribute to groundwater
recharge through the riverbed, LACSD does not consider this an active recycled water use.
Although much of the wastewater generated in the South San Gabriel System is recycled, all of the reuse
sites are elsewhere in the LACSD system, and there are no existing uses of recycled water within the
boundaries of the South San Gabriel service area.
At the project level, the majority of the existing sewer pipes within the planning area are 8-inch
diameter with varied slopes along the flow path which then connects to downstream sewer trunk
connections. There are five sewer trunk connections in the planning area. Between New Avenue and Del
Mar Avenue there are currently two existing 8-inch sewer lines on both sides of Garvey Avenue within
the planning area that account for discharge flows which are then collected downstream to a 36-inch
trunk sewer. Between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard there are currently two existing 8-inch
sewers on both sides of Garvey Avenue that are collected and discharged downstream to a 27-inch
trunk sewer. The remaining planning areas between San Gabriel Boulevard and Charlotte Avenue are
tributary to 8-inch sewer lines along San Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue and discharged
downstream to a 21-inch trunk sewer.
WATER SUPPLY
The domestic water supply within the City of Rosemead is served by six water suppliers: Adams Ranch
Mutual Water Company, Amarillo Mutual Water, California American Water, Golden State Water
Company, San Gabriel County Water District, and San Gabriel Valley Water. The Garvey Avenue Corridor
Specific Plan area is within the Golden State Water Company’s (GSWC) service area, also known as the
South San Gabriel System. The make-up of the service area is primarily characterized residential, mixed
commercial, and office uses.
GSWC obtains its water supply from two major sources: imported water from Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, and GSWC operated groundwater wells located within the Rosemead
service boundary. In the GSWC’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan- South San Gabriel System, the
availability of water from each source is estimated through the year 2035, as shown in Table 14-1
(Current and Planned Water Supply for the South San Gabriel System.
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 14-3
TABLE 14-1
CURRENT AND PLANNED WATER SUPPLY FOR THE SOUTH SAN GABRIEL SYSTEM (AC-FT/YR)
Source 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Purchased from USGVMWD 338 2,097 2,375 2,604 2,828 3,015
Groundwater1 2,352 1,313 1,134 991 850 733
Recycled Water 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2,689 3,410 3,509 3,595 3,678 3,748
Source: Golden State Water Company 2010 Urban Water Management Plan- South San Gabriel System
1 Based on projected use in the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. 2015-2035 groundwater
projections assume a long-term average OSY of 190,000 ac-ft.
Within the Garvey Ave Specific Plan area, the existing Garvey Avenue water line is served by three
segments of 6”, 8”, and 12” mains. The following summarizes the existing size and locations of the water
mains at each section of Garvey Avenue:
Between New Avenue and Jackson Avenue. Two water mains located in this portion of Garvey
Avenue serve existing uses on both sides of Garvey Avenue. Specifically, a 6” ci main located
north of the centerline, and a 12” pvc main located south of the center line. New Avenue,
located on the westerly end of the Specific Plan area, is currently served by a 10” pvc main north
of Garvey Avenue and a 12” pvc main south of Garvey Avenue. The side streets -- Dequine
Avenue, Lindy Avenue, Prospect Avenue, and Jackson Avenue are served by a 6” pvc or 8” pvc
main.
Between Jackson Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. Garvey Avenue is served by an 8” ci main located
northerly of the centerline. Evelyn Avenue, a side street, is served by an 8”ci main and Del Mar
Avenue is served by a 10”ac main.
Between Del Mar Avenue and Charlotte Avenue. Garvey Avenue is served by a 12” ac main
located north of the centerline from Del Mar Avenue to Denton Avenue and a 12” pvc main
located south of the centerline from Denton Avenue to Falling Leaf Avenue and a 12” stl (cl)
from Falling Leaf Avenue to Charlotte Avenue. San Gabriel Boulevard is served by a 8”ci main
south of Garvey Avenue and a 10” pvc main north of Garvey Avenue. The side street, Brighton
Avenue, is served by a 8”ci main south of Garvey Avenue and a 8” pvc main northerly of Garvey
Avenue; Strathmore Avenue is served by a 8” ac or di main; Denton Avenue is served by a 12” ac
main; Kelburn Avenue, Falling Leaf Avenue & Pine Street are served by a 6” ci main; Gladys
Avenue is served by a 6” pvc main; Lima Avenue is served by a 8” pvc main, and Charlotte
Avenue by a 8” ac main.
Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Impact Report
14-4 City of Rosemead
The existing water pressure, under normal daily operations, will range from about 40 psi to 85 psi. The
pressure gradually goes up from New Avenue to Charlotte Avenue. The elevation at New Avenue is at
approximately 310 feet with a gradual decline to approximately 300 feet in elevation at Charlotte
Avenue. These water lines are the main feeds to provide water service to the Specific Plan Area.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), originally passed by Congress in 1974, protects public health by
regulating the nation's public drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and
requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources, including rivers, lakes, reservoirs,
springs, and ground water wells. SDWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally
occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. The USEPA, states, and
water purveyors then work together to make sure that these standards are met. There are a number of
threats to drinking water. Improperly disposed of chemicals, animal wastes, pesticides, human wastes,
wastes injected deep underground, and naturally occurring substances can all contaminate drinking
water. Likewise, drinking water that is not properly treated or disinfected, or which travels through an
improperly maintained distribution system, may also pose a health risk. Originally, SDWA focused
primarily on treatment as the means of providing safe drinking water at the tap. The 1996 amendments
recognize source water protection, operator training, funding for water system improvements, and
public information as important components of safe drinking water.
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established primary drinking water standards in the
Clean Water Act Section 304. States are required to ensure that potable water retailed to the public
meets these standards. Standards for a total of 81 individual constituents have been established under
the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended in 1986. The USEPA may add additional constituents in the
future. State primary and secondary drinking water standards are promulgated in CCR (Sections 64431-
64501). Secondary drinking water standards incorporate non-health risk factors including taste, odor,
and appearance.
CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Enacted in 1976, the California Safe Drinking Water Act is codified in Title 22 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR). Potable water supply is managed through local agencies and water districts, the State
Department of Water Resources (DWR), the Department of Health Services (DHS), the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), USEPA, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Water right applications
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 14-5
are processed through the SWRCB for properties claiming riparian rights or requesting irrigation water
from state or federal distribution facilities. The DWR manages the State Water Project (SWP) and
compiles planning information on supply and demand within the state.
SB 610 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15155
SB 610 enacted Sections 10910-10915 of the State Water Code, to require a local land use authority to
consult with the local water purveyor to prepare or obtain a water supply assessment (WSA), prior to
completing an environmental impact assessment for a specified water demand project, defined below.
Section 15155 of the State CEQA Guidelines was added to directly incorporate these water code
provisions into the CEQA process.
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
• A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
250,000 square feet of floor space.
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more
than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet
of floor area.
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision.
• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of
water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.
If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then project is defined as any
proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would
account for an increase of ten percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing
service connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or
greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an
increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections.
These requirements are applicable to development projects and not land use planning efforts such as
the proposed Specific plan.
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
Pursuant to Section 10610 et. al. of the California Water Code (Urban Water Management Planning Act),
any water district servicing 3,000 or more customers or provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water per year
Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Impact Report
14-6 City of Rosemead
is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The analysis contained in a UWMP is
designed to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its service to meet the needs of its customers in
normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. Normal and dry years refer to categories of projected water supply
in times of regular rainfall and in times of drought. UWMPs must be updated every five years on years
ending with zero and five. The Act describes the contents of a UWMP as follows:
• Description of service area including current climate and population and project populations
estimates in five-year increments over 20 years
• Description of existing and planned water supply over the same 5-year increments including
groundwater and surface water resources
• Water supply reliability and methods to compensate for shortages during dry years
• Opportunities for long-term and short-term water exchange or transfer
• Description of water use and demand estimates based on land use for past, current, and
projected quantities
• Description of current and planned projects and programs designed to meet the service needs
of the customer base
• Description of opportunities for use of desalinated water
• Preparation of a staged water shortage contingency plan for up to a 50 percent shortage over
three years
• Information on use and opportunities for use of recycled water
CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 13.12 (Sewage and Industrial Waste) of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code includes
regulations for the provision, maintenance, and financing of water and sewer services and systems.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Applicable impact significance thresholds concerning utilities and service systems are based on those
specified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, the proposed project’s impacts are
assessed in terms of whether it would:
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. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or need new or expanded entitlements.
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 14-7
D. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT 14.A & 14.B
Future development within the planning area guided by the policies of the proposed Garvey Avenue
Corridor Specific Plan could affect RWQCB treatment standards by increasing wastewater production. As
stated previously, Wastewater in the South San Gabriel System is collected by gravity sewers and lift
stations owned by the City, as well as by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD). The
wastewater is transported through trunk sewers to LACSD’s San Jose Creek and Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plants (WRP). The San Jose Creek WRP provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment
for an average dry weather flow (DWF) of 100 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd). The plant
serves a largely urban population of approximately one million people. About 35 mgd of treated effluent
from San Jose Creek WRP is reused at 17 different sites. The recycled water is primarily used for
groundwater recharge and agricultural and landscape irrigation. The remaining effluent (65 mgd) is
discharged into the San Gabriel River. The Whittier Narrows WRP provides primary, secondary, and
tertiary treatment for an average DWF of 15 mgd.
Anticipated development within the Planning Area not associated with the LA Auto Auction/ Landwin
and the West Gateway sites will likely be limited to the restoration and renovation of existing structures
with potential for adaptive reuse. New development could also occur on vacant and underutilized sites
within the Planning Area. Individual residential and commercial development projects will not result in
any wastewater treatment violations because these projects are considered nominal to the daily
operation of the treatment plant and are consistent with existing and previous uses in the Planning Area
served by the WRP. A wastewater treatment plant would typically require modification to its adopted
wastewater discharge requirements (WDRs) in cases where the facility is exceeding its permitted
maximum daily effluent discharge volume or if the constituents of discharge contain pollutant levels
Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Impact Report
14-8 City of Rosemead
exceed permit requirements. Individual development projects do not generate pollutants or volumes
substantial enough to cause the treatment plant to violate its permit requirements.
The City’s Municipal Code requires incremental expansion of wastewater treatment facilities based on
new development through the collection of Development Fees. This ensures that adequate funding is
available to meet future facility’s needs, should expansion be necessary. Wastewater treatment
requirements are administered by the RWQCB. Projects constructed and operated through
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will be incrementally responsible through payment of fees
and adherence to any special requirements for discharging grey and black waters such that discharge
the wastewater treatment plant can properly produce effluent discharges that are within acceptable
quality tolerances for discharge into downstream water bodies. Based on the anticipated demand for
wastewater and water services, impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements will be
less than significant. The Planning Area is served by LACSD and the City of Rosemead with existing
infrastructure to serve the Planning Area such that future individual projects found consistent with the
Specific Plan and determined to be exempt or covered as a special situation project would not be barred
due to lack of utilities or adequate service systems.
Over the long term, population and employment growth would likely require expanded water supplies
to meet increased demand. Golden State Water Company provides water to the population of the
planning area. The City receives its water from two main sources: imported water from Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, and GSWC operated groundwater wells located within the
Rosemead service boundary. In total, the City relies on 87percent groundwater and 13percent imported
water. Currently, the total water demand for retail customers within the South San Gabriel System is
approximately 3,410 acre-feet annually. The City is forecasting an increase in demand to approximately
3,478 acre-feet annually by year 2035 within the South San Gabriel System. The proposed Specific Plan
does not contain policies or programs that would conflict with existing policies and standards designed
to conserve water, such as the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. The Rosemead General Plan
Resource Management Element includes policies aimed at managing and protecting water resources
that provide supplies to Rosemead residents and businesses (see Policy 3.1 through 3.5). Moreover, the
City has adopted a Water Conservation Ordinance to meet a State-mandated 50 percent reduction in
water use. With continued City consultation with local water districts regarding the City’s growth
projections and proposed development projects, combined with implementation of water efficiency
programs, water supply should be able to meet demands. Based on existing water supplies and existing
and proposed water conservation efforts, impacts related to the need for new or expanded water
supplies would be less than significant.
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 14-9
IMPACT 14.C
The proposed project could result in significant impacts if the project required additional water supplies
than are currently entitled. Future development of Prototypical Development Sites and vacant and
underutilized sites within the Planning Area will likely be limited to the restoration and renovation of
existing structures with potential for adaptive reuse; however, some new construction is anticipated.
Water demand from these types of projects will not require increases in trunk width, extension of
conveyance lines, or specially treated water to serve the Planning Area and surrounding service areas.
Fire prevention tends to require most of the flow demand and pressure. Typically, each new hydrant
requires a fire flow of 1500 gallons per minute (gpm) at a residential pressure of 20 PSI. The 12-inch
mainline on Garvey Avenue has a pressure between 40 and 85 PSI which is adequate to provide fire
protection as well as domestic water demand for drinking, irrigation, etc. In order to service any new fire
hydrants located away from Garvey Avenue. New 8-inch water lines would have to be constructed and
connected to the existing 12-inch mainline on Garvey. All new water lines will be constructed and
financed by private developers.
According to the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for the Golden State Water Company’s South San
Gabriel System, water supply and demand for the year 2010 was 2,575 acre feet. Water supply and
demand in the South San Gabriel System is projected to be 3,478 acre feet for the year 2035 under
normal and dry year conditions. Over the long-term, population and employment growth will likely
require expanded supplies in order to meet increases in demand. The proposed Specific Plan has the
capacity to support a population of up to 2,710 persons. Using a per capita consumption rate of 96
gallons per day (the five-year average per the UWMP) and the 20 percent conservation factor included
in the UWMP, the projected full buildout population of 2,710 (including the LA Auto Auction/ Landwin
and West Gateway developments) would require approximately 291 AFY in the year 2035. This is below
the year 2035 projection of 3,478 for the South San Gabriel System as identified in the UWMP. Based on
these estimates, there will be sufficient water to meet the long-term demand of the Planning Area.
The proposed Specific Plan does not contain policies or programs that would conflict with existing
policies and standards designed to conserve water, such as the General Plan Resource Management
Element and the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. The proposed Specific Plan includes policies
supporting green building and sustainable building practices that will support water conservation
Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Impact Report
14-10 City of Rosemead
efforts. Based on existing water supplies and existing and proposed water conservation efforts, impacts
related to the need for new or expanded water supplies will be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None.
IMPACT DETERMINATION
Not applicable.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 15-1
15 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW – ALTERNATIVES
PURPOSE
Pursuant to Sections 151266 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this chapter discusses a range of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the main objectives of the project while
avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant environmental effects that would occur
as a result of construction and operation of the project. An examination of such alternatives is intended
to foster informed decision-making and public participation in the examination of the project’s
environmental merits and disadvantages.
RATIONALE FOR ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible, unreasonable, or overly speculative.
There is no standard set forth in the CEQA Guidelines for the number of alternatives that must be
addressed. Instead, the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of potentially
feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The range of
alternatives is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the unique characteristics of the
project location, the project objectives, the environmental setting, and the potentially significant
impacts that are associated with the project. Accordingly, the specific criteria established by the CEQA
Guidelines, and used in this EIR, for the selection of a reasonable range of alternatives for the project
are whether it:
(1) Accomplishes most of the project’s main objectives that are to:
1. Add up to 1,048 new dwelling units and up to 1.3 million square feet of new commercial space.
2. Support catalytic development that provides a mix of retail, entertainment, and service
businesses as agents for the creation of a neighborhood “main street” along Garvey Avenue that
will serve as a focal point for adjacent neighborhoods.
3. Provide for the gradual phasing out of industrial uses and development of new mixed-use
commercial and residential uses.
4. Encourage design that enhances the character of the city and the Garvey Avenue through
“place making”.
5. Enrich the pedestrian and bicycle environment along Garvey Avenue.
(2) Avoids or substantially reduces one or more of the significant environmental effects associated
with the project.
Alternatives Environmental Impact Report
15-2 City of Rosemead
Impact 5. A The proposed project will conflict with implementation of the South Coast Air Basin
Air Quality Management Plan. After consideration of reasonable mitigation, impacts
are found to be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5. B Construction and operation of the proposed project will exceed daily thresholds for
oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter and remain significant and unavoidable
after consideration of reasonable mitigation.
Impact 5.C Construction of the proposed project will not result in a considerable contribution to
cumulative air quality impacts in the South Coast Air Basin. Operation of the
proposed project will contribute considerably to regional air quality impacts and have
been found to be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 7. A Construction and operation of the proposed project will result in greenhouse gas
emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. After
consideration of reasonable mitigation, impacts are found to be significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 11.C Operation of the proposed project will result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project. After consideration of
reasonable mitigation, impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 13. A Impacts on the performance of the local and regional transportation systems due to
increased traffic generation from the proposed mixed-use development in
consideration of cumulative traffic increases over the long-term and short-term
construction-related impacts will be significant and unavoidable with implementation
of existing regulations and mitigation measures.
ALTERNATIVES SELECTION
A total of four alternatives were screened to determine which alternatives should be further analyzed in
the EIR. The screening process considered how the alternatives relate to the project objectives and the
ability of the alternatives to reduce the adverse environmental impacts associated with the project. The
alternatives considered are described below.
ALTERNATIVE 1, NO PROJECT
According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the evaluation of alternatives in an EIR shall
include a no project scenario, defined as “. . . what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services.” Alternative 1 would perpetuate development of the proposed
project area through existing regulations and master plans.
Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 15-3
ALTERNATIVE 2, REDUCED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
This alternative examines reduced development alternatives based on those thresholds that are
exceeded by the proposed project. Development potential is reduced inversely proportional to the
magnitude of impact difference to the threshold. Air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, and
transportation and traffic were found to be significant and unavoidable. For this alternative, a 50
percent decrease in development potential has been used to avoid those impacts.
ALTERNATIVE 3, SPECIFIC PLAN VARIATIONS
This alternative considers a variety of different configurations for the project site. Because of the size of
the proposed planning area, changes could be made to the configuration of land uses within the
planning area in order to avoid localized impacts. However, any feasible alternative variation to the
configuration of the proposed planning area would find it difficult to come up with the proper
assemblage of parcels and vacant land to accommodate moving the LA Auto Auction/ Landwin site to
another location within the Specific Plan area.
ALTERNATIVE 4, ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
This alternative assumes that the scale and operational characteristics of the proposed project would
remain the same; therefore, an alternative location must support 88 acres of contiguous development
along a 1.2-mile corridor. Alternative locations are considered to reduce or avoid potential immediate
impacts to the areas surrounding the project area.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
OBJECTIVES SCREENING
The four alternatives were screened for consistency with the objectives of the project and the ability to
avoid one or more significant impacts associated with the project. With five project objectives, any
alternative meeting three or more of the objectives is considered to meet most of the objectives. Two of
the alternatives were found to meet most of the objectives of the project. The alternatives that either
do not meet most of the project’s objectives, or were incapable of reducing impacts, were not
considered for further evaluation in the EIR. Table 15-1 (Objectives Screening) summarizes the screening
results. A detailed discussion of the objectives screening is provided herein.
Alternatives Environmental Impact Report
15-4 City of Rosemead
TABLE 15-1 OBJECTIVES SCREENING
Alternative Objectives
1 2 3 4 5
1 No Project No No No No No
2 Reduced Development Potential No Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 Specific Plan Variations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 Alternative Locations Yes No Yes No No
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCREENING
The alternatives were screened to determine if they reduce or avoid one or more significant impacts
identified above. Table 15-2 (Impact Screening) summarizes the screening results. A detailed discussion
of the impact screening is provided herein. Table 15-3 (Summer Criteria Pollutant Emissions)
summarizes the daily criteria pollutant emissions from each alternative (only summer emissions have
been included for sake of comparison). Table 15-4 (Daily Trips) summarizes daily trip generation from
each alternative.
TABLE 15-2 IMPACT SCREENING
Alternatives Impact 5.A Impact 5.B Impact 5.C Impact 7.A Impact 11.C Impact 13.A
1 No Project - - - - - -
2 Reduced Development Potential - - - - - -
3 Specific Plan Variations = = = = = =
4 Alternative Locations = = = = = =
TABLE 15-3 SUMMER CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY)
Alternatives ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
1 No Project 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Reduced Development Potential 41 54 166 <1 28 16
3 Specific Plan Variations 409 510 1,660 3 397 159
4 Alternative Locations 409 510 1,660 3 397 159
TABLE 15-4 DAILY TRIPS
Alternatives Daily Trips
Weekday
1 No Project 0
2 Reduced Development Potential 8,526
3 Specific Plan Variations 85,266
4 Alternative Locations 85,266
Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 15-5
ALTERNATIVES REJECTED
ALTERNATIVE 3, SPECIFIC PLAN VARIATIONS
Alternative Specific Plan configurations would meet all project objectives because the same number of
dwelling units and commercial space would be provided. Although this alternative would meet all
project objectives, it fails to substantially reduce or avoid any significant impacts. Because the
Alternative 3 density and intensity would remain the same, it would generate the same amount of
vehicle trips as the proposed project; therefore, significant and unavoidable traffic and noise impacts
would remain the same. Construction and operation-related air quality and greenhouse gas impacts
would remain the same because this alternative would include the same intensity the same as the
proposed project. Even though Alternative 3 meets most of the project objectives, it was rejected from
further analysis because it will not avoid or substantially reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts.
ALTERNATIVE 4, ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
Based on the review of vacant parcels and parcel assemblages within the City, there are no similar sites
approximately 88 acres in area and 1.2 miles in length that could accommodate a project of this size.
Moreover, the catalytic development at the former LA Auto Auction site that is unique to this project
would not be able to be developed at any other location within the City. Therefore, this alternative was
rejected due to lack of actual alternative locations. This alternative would meet less than a majority of
the project objectives because it could not be constructed and thus no impact comparison can be made.
Hypothetically, if an alternative location were available, this alternative would result in similar impacts
as the proposed project except that those impacts would be transferred to another part of the City.
Alternatives Environmental Impact Report
15-6 City of Rosemead
ALTERNATIVES SELECTED
ALTERNATIVE 1, NO PROJECT
The No Project alternative would not meet any of the project objectives because it will not result in the
addition of up to 1,048 new dwelling units and up to 1.3 million square feet of new commercial space.
Furthermore, it would not result catalytic development that provides for a mix of uses that would act to
create a neighborhood “main street” that will serve as a focal point. It would also not provide for the
gradual phasing out of industrial uses, encourage design that enhances the character of the city and the
corridor, or enrich the pedestrian and bicycle environment along Garvey Avenue. This alternative would
avoid all significant impacts because it would not generate any criteria pollutant emissions, greenhouse
gases, increases in ambient noise, or vehicle trips. Alternative 1 was selected for evaluation because of
CEQA mandate although it does not meet the objectives of the project.
ALTERNATIVE 2, REDUCED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
This alternative would meet most of the objectives of the project as it would provide the same type of
uses and services, on a reduced scale. It would not meet the objective of generating up to 1,048 new
dwelling units and up to 1.3 million square feet of new commercial space because of the reduced size.
Reducing the project size by 90 percent could avoid most or all significant and unavoidable impacts
resulting from the project. Because Alternative 2 meets most of the project objectives and could reduce
or avoid significant and unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts, it was selected for further analysis.
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
The following compares the general impacts from Alternative 1 Alternative 2 to project-related impacts
to determine which would result in the fewest impacts to the environment. Table 15-5 (Alternatives
Impact Comparison Summary) summarizes the comparison of alternatives to the project’s
environmental impacts.
Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 15-7
TABLE 15-5 ALTERNATIVES IMPACT COMPARISON SUMMARY
Impact Project Alternative
1 2
Aesthetics M - =
Agricultural and Forestry Resources N = =
Air Quality S - -
Biological Resources L - =
Cultural Resources M - =
Geology and Soils L - =
Greenhouse Gas Emissions S - -
Hazards and Hazardous Materials L - -
Hydrology and Water Quality L - -
Land Use and Planning L - =
Mineral Resources N = =
Noise S - -
Population and Housing L - -
Public Services L - -
Recreation L - -
Transportation and Traffic S - -
Utilities and Service Systems L - -
Source: MIG, 2016
Key
S Significant and Unavoidable
M Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
L Less than Significant Impact
N No Impact
+ Impact is greater than project
= Impact is similar to project
- Impact is less than project
ALTERNATIVE 1, NO PROJECT COMPARISON
SIMILAR IMPACTS
According to the Initial Study prepared for the project, no impacts to agricultural, forestry, or mineral
resources will occur because these resources do not exist in the project vicinity. Because these resources
could not be impacted by the project, these resources would similarly not be impacted by not
constructing or operating the project and leaving the project site vacant.
REDUCED IMPACTS
Alternatives Environmental Impact Report
15-8 City of Rosemead
Virtually all impacts related to the project would be reduced by simply not changing the baseline
conditions as identified in Alternative 1. The No Project alternative would not result in the construction
or operation of any development; therefore, existing conditions would persist. Views of scenic vistas,
the visual character of the site, and the generation of light and glare would not change. No increase in
criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, or odors would result. No changes to on-site habitat or other
biological features of the project site would occur. No potential impacts to historic, archaeological,
paleontological, or buried remains could occur. There would be no increased potential for the loss of
human life of property due to seismic hazards or geotechnical concerns. Risk of upset due to the use,
transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would not increase. Emergency evacuation and
accessibility plans would not change nor would the exposure to wildfire potential. No new uses would
be placed within the safety compatibility area of any private or public airport facility. The potential to
impact surface or groundwater quality would not change nor would the potential for flooding,
inundation, seiche, mudflow, or tsunami. No changes to the City’s General Plan or Zoning Code would be
required. No changes to ambient noise, whether permanent, periodic, or temporary, would occur and
no new uses would be placed within the noise contours of any private or public airport facility. No
change in population or employment would occur and thus no increase in public services would occur.
No increase in the need for recreational facilities would be needed. No increase in traffic would occur
and no changes to roadway design, emergency accessibility, or air traffic would result. No increase in the
need for water, sewer, storm drain, or solid waste infrastructure would be needed.
ALTERNATIVE 2, REDUCED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
SIMILAR IMPACTS
The visual character of Alternative 2 and the proposed project would be similar due to comparable
architectural treatment. Neither the project nor Alternative 2 would result in odors as they are not
considered uses of odor concerns by SCAQMD. According to the Initial Study prepared for the project,
no impacts to agricultural, forestry, or mineral resources will occur because these do not exist on the
project site or in the vicinity. Because these resources could not be impacted by the project, these
resources would similarly not be impacted by Alternative 2. Impacts to biological resources would
remain the same because the entirety of the site will be cleared as a result of both project and
Alternative 2 scenarios. Impacts to cultural resources would remain the same because both the project
and Alternative 2 would require substantial subsurface earthwork to construct parking structures and
thus have the similar potential to have buried cultural resources discovered, albeit at a reduced scale for
Alternative 2. Geotechnical considerations would be similar because both the project and Alternative 2
would be constructed on the same site; however, the amount of earthwork and intensity of design
would be reduced in Alternative 2. Neither the project nor Alternative 2 would result in safety,
operational, nor noise impacts related to airport operations because the project site is not located
within the influence area of any airport. Neither the project nor Alternative 2 would divide a community
because they will be constructed on the same site and impacts related to General Plan consistency
Environmental Impact Report Alternatives
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 15-9
would be the same because the same entitlements and amendments would be required to construct
and operate the project and Alternative 2.
REDUCED IMPACTS
Impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and light/glare would decrease concurrently with the
reduction in intensity and density because this alternative would be constructed at a reduced massing,
density, and intensity when compared to the proposed project. The potential for use, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials and wastes and associated risk of upset would be reduced because
Alternative 2 would be constructed and operated at a smaller scale and intensity than the project.
Impacts related to on- and off-site hydrological considerations would be reduced because Alternative 2
would be constructed and operated at a smaller scale and intensity than the project. Alternative 2 would
reduce impacts related to population because it would reduce the number of potential new dwelling
units as compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would reduce impacts to public services
because it would reduce the potential population and commercial space which would reduce demand
on public services. Compared to the proposed project Alternative 2 would result in less population and
reduced demand on recreation and park services. Alternative 2 will also reduce demand on utilities and
services systems due to the reduced potential for population growth and ne commercial space. As
discussed previously, a 90 percent reduction in the project size would avoid all significant and
unavoidable operational air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and traffic impacts. Construction-related
criteria pollutant emissions (at the regional level) and noise impacts would be reduced due to the
reduced construction program that would be needed to complete the reduced development potential.
Traffic-related and periodic operational noise would also decrease based on the reduction in project
size. Impacts to public and utility services would also decrease concurrently with the reduction in
dwelling units and commercial space that would result from decreasing the project size by 90 percent.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 1 is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in the
fewest environmental impacts when compared to the project. However, pursuant to Section
15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, when the environmentally superior alternative is the No
Project alternative, another environmentally superior alternative must be selected among the remaining
alternatives. Based on this provision, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative because it
would result in fewer environmental impacts when compared to the project.
Alternatives Environmental Impact Report
15-10 City of Rosemead
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 16-1
16 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW – ANALYSIS OF LONG TERM EFFECTS
CEQA requires discussion of cumulative, growth-inducing, energy, and the long-term impacts of proposed
projects. The following sections address these issues as related to approval of the proposed project.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
According to Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact is defined as two or more individual
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts. An environmental impact report must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s
incremental impacts are cumulatively considerable (Section 15130(a)). An impact is considered cumulatively
considerable when the incremental impacts of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects
(Section 15065(a)(3)). The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and the
likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effect
attributable to the proposed project alone (Section 15130(b)). According to Section 15130 of the CEQA
Guidelines, an environmental impact report must describe and analyze cumulative impacts only if the impact is
significant and the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.
Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines identify two methods to determine the scope of related projects for
cumulative impact analysis:
List-of-Projects Method: a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of
the agency.
Summary-of-Projections Method: a summary of projections contained in an adopted general
plan or related planning document or in a prior environmental document that has been
adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions
contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and
made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
Cumulative impacts analysis in this section and in the focused environmental issues analyzed in Section four to
fourteen of this EIR, the projections method was used based on forecasts in adopted local and regional planning
documents. The relevant planning documents include the City of Rosemead General Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS). Even though the proposed Specific Plan includes construction and operation of specific developments
that would be conducive to the list method, the projections method is an appropriate analytical choice in that
the Specific Plan is a programmatic document. As such, hypothetical comparison is more indicative of long-term
impacts just as project-to-project analysis is indicative of near-term, physical impacts.
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-2 City of Rosemead
The analysis provided in the project Initial Study determined that the project would result in No Impacts
regarding various environmental issues identified in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist. As noted above,
CEQA does not require an EIR to provide cumulative analyses for environmental issues that are determined to
be not significant when the proposed project’s incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable; therefore,
the environmental issues discussed in Section 13 resulting in No Impact determinations are not addressed in the
cumulative analysis below.
AESTHETICS
SCENIC VISTAS AND RESOURCES.
The context for assessing cumulative impacts to scenic vistas and resources includes the potential for the
proposed project to obstruct views of a scenic vista or resource in conjunction with other potential future
development to obstruct scenic views over the long-term. The Rosemead General Plan does not identify any
scenic vistas. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains from within the Planning Area are intermittently obstructed by
existing development but generally visible when looking north down road corridors. The proposed project would
not cause substantial changes in existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains; therefore, the proposed project
would not have a substantial direct adverse effect on scenic vistas or resources and is not considered
cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts related to scenic vistas and resources would be less than
significant.
LIGHT AND GLARE.
The context for assessing cumulative impacts from light includes existing and future light sources surrounding
the project site and in the general environment within the City of Rosemead. Development within the Planning
Area will result in new light sources including the potential for increased pedestrian lighting, electric signs,
security lighting, street parking lighting, and street lights. The City of Rosemead regulates outdoor lighting for all
multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, residential/commercial mixed-use, and commercial/industrial
mixed-use development pursuant to Chapter 17.88 (Lighting) of the Municipal Code. Exterior lighting is required
to be adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and undesirable illumination to adjacent properties or
streets. This will ensure that development within the Planning Area is adequately illuminating on-site uses for
security purposes without impacting adjacent properties. As a result, the proposed project would not have a
substantial direct adverse effect relating to light is not considered cumulatively considerable. Cumulative
impacts related to light would be less than significant.
Glare effects may occur when luminance within the visual field is created that is significantly greater than the
luminance to which one’s eyes are adjusted. Glare is generated during the daytime from reflective surfaces such
as glass, polished metals, or snow. Halos (rings of light around a light source) occur at night. In relationship to
development, glare can be generated from projects using reflective building materials. Glare effects may result
in general annoyance, physical discomfort, or a temporary loss in visibility. The proposed Specific Plan includes
development standards and design guidelines related to building materials. The Specific Plan does not permit
building materials that could generate glare. Adherence to the Specific Plan development standards will reduce
the likelihood of creating glare within the Planning Area; therefore, the proposed project would not have a
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 16-3
substantial direct adverse effect relating to glare is not considered cumulatively considerable. Cumulative
impacts related to glare would be less than significant.
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES
The context for assessing cumulative air quality impacts is the South Coast Air Basin in terms of national and
State criteria pollutant standards. The immediate vicinity of the Planning Area is the context for localized levels
of criteria pollutants and toxic emissions. As discussed in Section 5, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would
result in significant cumulative long-term emissions impacts within the Planning Area. Proposed mixed-
use/higher-density development policies would implement an important regional strategy to encourage more
compact urban/infill development, which helps reduce total vehicle trips and average trip distances. This would
help reduce vehicle emissions. The City would continue to evaluate short-term, construction-related impacts
and long-term impacts for discretionary land use projects, so that best available control measures can be
applied, where warranted, to minimize the effects of individual development projects. Long-term emissions of
PM10 and PM2.5 generated by development under the Specific Plan could interfere with attainment of
SCAQMD PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Therefore, long-term cumulative air quality impacts on the region would
remain potentially significant and unavoidable, and the Specific Plan would make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to those impacts.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Paleontological Resources. The context for assessing cumulative impacts to buried paleontological resources is
the presence of any native, subsurface soil in which paleontological resources have the potential to occur. A
significant impact would occur if construction projects collectively destroyed paleontological resources that
provide prehistoric information to the extent that such information would be permanently lost. Most likely
surficial and near-surface paleontological resources in the Planning Area would have been destroyed or
recovered as a result of past development and redevelopment; therefore, cumulative impacts related to the loss
of paleontological resources would be less than significant.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
There is generally no geographic context for assessing project-level cumulative impacts caused by strong seismic
ground shaking, ground failure, and expansive soils because geological hazards are site specific. Developing on
one project site would not increase geological hazards on surrounding sites such that a cumulative increase in
the potential for loss of property or life would occur. Any future development would be subject to site-specific
soils reports and design features to minimize impacts related to geology and soils as required by the California
Building Code. No cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would occur.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous Materials. During construction of future development within the Planning Area, there will be some
level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes that are typical of construction projects.
This will typically include fuels and lubricants for construction machinery and coating materials (e.g. paints).
Routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage,
application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up will be as required by state and federal
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-4 City of Rosemead
regulations will be implemented to ensure that construction activities do not unduly expose people or the
environment within or outside of the Planning Area to significant hazard. The proposed project does not
propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances.
Furthermore, impacts associated with the use of hazardous materials or wastes will be less than significant with
implementation of existing regulations. Therefore, impacts related to the routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials would not be cumulatively considerable.
Emergency Access. The project does not involve any roadway closures or other changes in circulation that could
result in local or area wide changes to the ability for emergency vehicles to maneuver or gain access to any
properties within the vicinity. Cumulative impacts will not occur.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Drainage and Run-off. Future development within the Planning Area will be subject to the provisions of the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to protect downstream water quality pursuant to the
Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges into stormwater drains or channels from construction sites of one acre or
larger are regulated by the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
(Order 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ)) issued by the State Water
Quality Control Board. The General Permit was issued pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as authorized by the Clean Water
Act. Compliance with the General Permit involves developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifying best management practices (BMPs) that a project will use to minimize
pollution of stormwater. The SWPPP BMPs will follow the guidelines set forth by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB). Proponents of future projects within the Planning Area will be required to comply with
NPDES permit requirements through the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction activities.
Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems in the project area. Impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable.
NOISE
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not generate new stationary noise sources outside of the
Planning Area and would not, therefore, result in cumulatively considerable noise impacts involving stationary
noise sources. Additional traffic volumes associated with future growth in the Planning Area would combine
with regional traffic on major, inter-jurisdictional roads and highways leading to Rosemead, which would
contribute to cumulative effects involving roadway noise. The level of traffic noise attributable to the Specific
Plan trips that would occur outside the Planning Area would increase incrementally over a long period of time
and would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative changes in roadway noise levels in
the context of regional traffic growth.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Rates of growth will occur in response to a variety of regional and national socioeconomic factors, including
birth rates, migration from other states and other countries, land values, employment opportunities, interest
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 16-5
rates, housing supply, demand and pricing, and broad regional and national economic conditions. Growth
forecasts have been developed by SCAG. The projected population growth within the City limits of Rosemead
from 2008 to 2035 is approximately 8 percent. The proposed Specific Plan could accommodate an additional
2,711 residents within the Planning Area. By itself, the proposed Specific Plan would not induce substantial
growth elsewhere within the region. The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan would accommodate up to 1,048
new dwelling units and over 1.3 million square feet of new commercial space. The additional residential units
provided by the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate employees of additional jobs created within the
Planning Area. Although increases in population, housing, and employment could be greater than anticipated by
SCAG, the City of Rosemead would be providing sufficient housing to accommodate increases in population and
employment, all within its borders. Therefore, with consideration of other long-range plans and regional
projections, the proposed Specific Plan would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative
impacts on population, housing, and employment.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed Specific Plan will not result in substantial population or employment growth as analyzed in Section
8 of this EIR; therefore, substantial increases in the demand for public services will not occur such that local or
areawide agencies would need to construct new facilities in order to meet total demand of the Project when
combined with existing demand. Cumulatively considerable impacts will be less than significant.
RECREATION
The context for assessing cumulative environmental impacts associated with the accelerated deterioration of
existing regional parks or recreational facilities is the extent of the jurisdiction providing the service. Long-term
redevelopment of the Planning Area will result in new residential units resulting in the incremental need for
local and regional park facilities. Standards for recommended park space vary. The National Parks and
Recreation Association (NPRA) recommends a minimum of 2.5 acres of park space per 1,000 persons. The
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recommends a minimum of 4 acres per 1,000 persons.
Based on the City’s 2008 estimated population of 57,422 persons, the city should provide a minimum of 144
acres of park land to meet the NRPA standards and 230 acres per SCAG guidelines. The City currently has
approximately 43.25 acres of parkland. According to the NRPA and SCAG recommendations, the City lacks
approximately 101 and 187 acres of parkland, respectively. According to the General Plan EIR, park deficiency is
common in older communities such as Rosemead where park standards were established after community
buildout or near-buildout and little or no vacant land currently exists for park use. Population based standards
and park fee ordinances were not in existence when older communities were initially being established. While a
park deficit will still exist after mitigation measures are implemented, the resulting impact is not considered
significant because the park standards were established after the older parts of Rosemead were developed.
Moreover, residents of Rosemead have access to the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, a 1,092-acre regional
park immediately southeast of the City. Approximately 25 percent of Rosemead residents live within a one-mile
radius of the Whittier Narrows Recreation area, and approximately 80 percent live within a two-mile radius.
Therefore, cumulative impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-6 City of Rosemead
Cumulative circulation and Congestion Management Program (CMP) impacts through the year 2035 (the Specific
Plan horizon year) are analyzed in Section 13 and found to be less than significant. The nearest CMP arterial
monitoring intersection to the Planning Area is on Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard. Based on the
Project trip generation and the distance of this CMP location from the study intersections, it is not expected that
50 or more new trips per hour would be added to this location. Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Route 60 (SR-60)
would not experience 150 or more Specific Plan-related trips in either direction during the peak hour. The
proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with regional plans such as the CMP, Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP), and Regional Mobility Plan (RMP); therefore, the project would not make a considerable contribution
to cumulative impacts related to regional traffic and circulation.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The context for assessing cumulative impacts on utilities and services systems varies depending on the service
area and capacity of the utility, which may vary from the Planning Area, San Gabriel Valley, or (in terms of water)
even statewide. Long-term maintenance and potential expansion of water, wastewater, flood control, and solid
waste disposal facilities would be required as the region continues to grow and existing infrastructure ages. All
utility providers currently impose development impact fees, connection fees, and service fees designed to
maintain and incrementally expand infrastructure to meet existing and growing demand. Future development in
the Specific Plan vicinity and throughout the region would be subject to such fees in accordance with applicable
ordinances and service master plans. The General Plan includes policies and mitigation measures that support
water conservation and recycling, and adequacy of services systems, which would reduce impacts on regional
utilities. The UWMP’s for Adams Ranch Mutual Water Company, Amarillo Mutual Water, California American
Water, Golden State Water Company, San Gabriel County Water District, and San Gabriel Valley Water indicate
that future water supply would be sufficient to accommodate future populations within Rosemead. Therefore,
the proposed Specific Plan has been determined to result in less than significant impacts related to water supply
and would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on water supply.
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the contents of an EIR must address the growth-
inducing impacts of a project, as follows:
Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project. Discuss the ways in which the project could
foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either
directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which
would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water
treatment plant might, for example, allow more construction in service areas). Increase in the
population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new
facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of
some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly
affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that
growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the
environment.
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 16-7
Growth-inducing effects include ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population
growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
A common example is a major infrastructure project or road extension that provides urban service capacities to
currently undeveloped areas, thus removing an obstacle to population growth.
The proposed project includes housing and commercial components that will accommodate future residential
and employment growth as identified in Section 12 of this EIR. The proposed project does not include the
upgrading or extension of any utility, roadway, or other service to any areas where it does not currently exist.
The SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects an estimated
population of 58,100 by 2035. Based on the current and projected numbers, the anticipated residents that will
be accommodated by the Specific Plan is within the anticipated growth for the City of Rosemead. In addition, no
new expanded infrastructure is proposed that could accommodate additional growth in the area that is not
already possible with existing infrastructure. Impacts related to population growth will be less than significant.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
This energy conservation analysis has been prepared pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section
21100(b)(3) and Appendix F of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
The purpose of this analysis is to assess the short- and long-term energy demand of the proposed Project,
identify proposed and required conservation measures, and assess the extent to which the proposed Project
would conserve energy. Project energy demand would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary if it does not
increase energy demand over typical construction and operating requirements.
Energy demand and conservation effectiveness are primarily based on demand surveys utilized in the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and provided in the project greenhouse gas emissions analysis.
CalEEMod estimates energy demand for purposes of modeling greenhouse gas emissions.
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the goal of assessing energy conservation in a project is to
ensure the wise and efficient use of energy. Energy efficiency is achieved by decreasing energy consumption,
decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The guidelines for
analysis of energy conservation provided in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines are provided herein.
CEQA APPENDIX F: ENERGY CONSERVATION
I. Introduction
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-8 City of Rosemead
The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal
include:
(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption,
(2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and
(3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California Environmental
Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with
particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see
Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(3)). Energy conservation implies that a project’s cost effectiveness be
reviewed not only in dollars, but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, cost effectiveness
may be determined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. A lead agency may consider the extent
to which an energy source serving the project has already undergone environmental review that adequately
analyzed and mitigated the effects of energy production.
II. EIR Contents
Potentially significant energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR to the extent relevant and
applicable to the project. The following list of energy impact possibilities and potential conservation measures is
designed to assist in the preparation of an EIR. In many instances, specific items may not apply or additional
items may be needed. Where items listed below are applicable or relevant to the project, they should be
considered in the EIR.
A. Project Description may include the following items:
1. Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation and/or
removal of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of
materials and equipment required for the project.
2. Total energy requirements of the project by fuel type and end use.
3. Energy conservation equipment and design features.
4. Identification of energy supplies that would serve the project.
5. Total estimated daily vehicle trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed
per trip by mode.
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 16-9
A. Environmental Setting may include existing energy supplies and energy use patterns in the region and
locality.
B. Environmental Impacts may include:
1. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each
stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the
energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed.
2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional
capacity.
3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.
5. The effects of the project on energy resources.
6. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient
transportation alternatives.
A. Mitigation Measures may include:
1. Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during
construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain
measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed.
2. The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including
transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste.
3. The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
4. Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems.
5. Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
A. Alternatives should be compared in terms of overall energy consumption and in terms of reducing
wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.
B. Unavoidable Adverse Effects may include wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy
during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal that cannot be feasibly
mitigated.
C. Irreversible Commitment of Resources may include a discussion of how the project preempts future
energy development or future energy conservation.
D. Short-Term Gains versus Long-Term Impacts can be compared by calculating the project’s energy costs
over the project’s lifetime.
E. Growth Inducing Effects may include the estimated energy consumption of growth induced by the
project.
ENERGY DEMAND
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-10 City of Rosemead
Short-term energy demand would result from development construction facilitated by the proposed Specific
Plan. This would include energy demand from worker and vendor vehicle trips and construction equipment
usage. Long-term energy demand would result from operation of various development types (land uses)
facilitated by the Specific Plan. This would typically include energy demand from vehicle trips, electricity and
natural gas usage, and water and wastewater conveyance. This section describes the energy needs of these
activities.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Future development facilitated by the Specific Plan would result in short-term energy demand during site
preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and painting activities associated with new development.
Energy demand results from equipment use and worker, vendor, and hauling trips. Although no specific
development is proposed at this time, energy demand associated with construction activities has been
estimated. Worker and vendor trips have been estimated based on the construction schedule assumptions used
in the preparation of the project air quality and climate change analysis. The California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod) estimates construction schedule, phase length, and construction equipment based on the
size of the proposed project. The air quality and climate change analysis analyzes potential development
scenarios on Prototypical sites and maximum potential development on two Catalytic sites. The largest
Prototypical development site size is 7.34 acres. Construction schedule, phasing, equipment, and trips from this
development scenario has been utilized to estimate short-term energy demand.
Vendor trips are based on construction vendor trip data compiled by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District. Fuel consumption from worker and vendor trips are estimated by evaluating the number
of vehicle trips and travel distances required to complete each construction phase. Fuel economy for the worker
vehicle fleet mix (70 percent automobile and 30 percent light duty truck) is estimated at 38.7 miles per gallon
(mpg) in 2017 based on estimates prepared by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and is projected to
improve each year.1 Although no specific development is proposed as this time for Prototypical sites and
development schedules have not been proposed for Catalytic sites, fuel economy for the year 2017 has been
utilized to provide a worst-case analysis. Should future development activity occur in years following 2017, fuel
efficiency will be improved. Fuel efficiency for the vendor medium duty vehicle fleet mix and hauling heavy duty
fleet mix is estimated using data provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the
adopted national medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption standard.2 Worker vehicles are assumed to
be gasoline and vendor/hauling vehicles are assumed to be diesel. Fuel demand for worker and vendor trips for
each construction phase activity is calculated as follows:
Fuel = Trips * Length * Days
Economy
Where:
Fuel = Total Fuel Demand (gallons)
Trips = Daily Worker/Vendor Trips
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 16-11
Length = Trip Length (miles)
Economy = Fuel Economy of Vehicle Fleet (miles/gallon)
Days = Total Days of Activity
Fuel demand for hauling trips for each demolition activity is calculated as follows:
Fuel = Trips * Length * Days
Economy
Where:
Fuel = Total Fuel Demand (gallons)
Trips = Daily Hauler Trips
Length = Trip Length (miles)
Economy = Fuel Economy of Vehicle Fleet (miles/gallon)
Days = Total Days of Activity
Calculations for total worker, vendor, and hauler fuel consumption for Prototypical sites are provided in Table
16-1 (Prototypical Site - Construction Worker Gasoline Demand), Table 16-2 (Prototypical Site - Construction
Vendor Diesel Demand), and Table 16-3 (Prototypical Site - Construction Hauler Diesel Demand). Total gasoline
consumption from worker trips is estimated to be 67,342.71 gallons and estimated total on-road diesel
consumption is estimated at 14,304.62 gallons.
Calculations for total worker, vendor, and hauler fuel consumption for Catalytic sites are provided in Table 16-4
(Catalytic Sites - Construction Worker Gasoline Demand), Table 16-5 (Catalytic Sites - Construction Vendor Diesel
Demand), and Table 16-6 (Catalytic Sites - Construction Hauler Diesel Demand). For the West Gateway site, total
gasoline consumption from worker trips is estimated to be 1,692.21 gallons and estimated total on-road diesel
consumption is estimated at 1,702.71 gallons. For the LA Auto Action site, total gasoline consumption from
worker trips is estimated to be 20,074.81 gallons and estimated total on-road diesel consumption is estimated
at 123,489.41 gallons.
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-12 City of Rosemead
TABLE 16-1
PROTOTYPICAL SITE - CONSTRUCTION WORKER GASOLINE DEMAND
Phase Trips Trip
Length
Total
Miles
Fuel
Economy
gal/day Total
Days
Total
Demand
Demolition – Buildings 15 14.7 220.5 38.7 5.70 10 56.98
Demolition – Asphalt 15 14.7 220.5 38.7 5.70 10 56.98
Site Preparation 18 14.7 264.6 38.7 6.84 10 68.37
Grading 15 14.7 220.5 38.7 5.70 20 113.95
Building Construction 753 14.7 11,069.1 38.7 286.02 230 65,785.35
Paving 15 14.7 220.5 38.7 5.70 20 113.95
Architectural Coating 151 14.7 2,219.7 38.7 57.36 20 1,147.13
Total Worker Gasoline Use (gal) 67,342.71
TABLE 16-2
PROTOTYPICAL SITE - CONSTRUCTION VENDOR DIESEL DEMAND
Phase Trips Trip
Length
Total
Miles
Fuel
Efficiency
gal/day Total
Days
Total
Demand
Building Construction 196 6.9 1,352.4 22.1 61.19 230 14,074.75
Total Vendor Diesel Use (gal) 14,074.75
TABLE 16-3
PROTOTYPICAL SITE - CONSTRUCTION HAULER DIESEL DEMAND
Phase Trips Trip
Length
Total
Miles
Fuel
Efficiency
Total
Demand
Demolition – Buildings 495 10 4,950 22.1 223.98
Demolition – Asphalt 13 10 130 22.1 5.88
Total Hauler Diesel Use (gal) 229.86
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 16-13
TABLE 16-4
CATALYTIC SITES - CONSTRUCTION WORKER GASOLINE DEMAND
Phase Trips Trip
Length
Total
Miles
Fuel
Economy
gal/day Total
Days
Total
Demand
WEST GATEWAY SITE
Demolition 10 14.7 147 38.7 3.80 10 37.98
Site Preparation 5 14.7 73.5 38.7 1.90 1 1.90
Grading 10 14.7 147 38.7 3.80 2 7.60
Building Construction 42 14.7 617.4 38.7 15.95 100 1,595.35
Paving 18 14.7 264.6 38.7 6.84 5 34.19
Architectural Coating 8 14.7 117.6 38.7 3.04 5 15.19
West Gateway Site Total Worker Gasoline (gal) 1,692.21
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE
Demolition – Buildings 572 14.7 8,408.4 38.7 217.27 5 1,086.36
Demolition – Asphalt 2,862 14.7 42,071.4 38.7 1,087.12 15 16,306.74
Site Preparation 15 14.7 220.5 38.7 5.70 10 56.98
Grading 20 14.7 294.0 38.7 7.60 35 265.89
Building Construction 15 14.7 220.5 38.7 5.70 370 2,108.14
Paving 18 14.7 264.6 38.7 6.84 20 136.74
Architectural Coating 15 14.7 220.5 38.7 5.70 20 113.95
LA Auto Auction Site Total Worker Gasoline Use (gal) 20,074.81
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-14 City of Rosemead
TABLE 16-5
CATALYTIC SITES - CONSTRUCTION VENDOR DIESEL DEMAND
Phase Trips Trip
Length
Total
Miles
Fuel
Efficiency
gal/day Total
Days
Total
Demand
WEST GATEWAY SITE
Building Construction 18 6.9 124.2 22.1 5.62 100 561.99
West Gateway Site Total Vendor Diesel Use (gal) 561.99
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE
Building Construction 832 6.9 5,740.8 22.1 259.76 370 96,112.94
Total Vendor Diesel Use (gal) 96,112.94
TABLE 16-6
CATALYTIC SITES - CONSTRUCTION HAULER DIESEL DEMAND
Phase Trips Trip
Length
Total
Miles
Fuel
Efficiency
Total
Demand
WEST GATEWAY SITE
Grading 2,521 10 25,210 22.1 1,140.72
West Gateway Site Total Hauler Diesel Use (gal) 1,140.72
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE
Demolition – Buildings 58 10 580 22.1 26.24
Demolition – Asphalt 505 10 5,050 22.1 228.51
Grading 59,939 10 599,390 22.1 27,121.72
Total Hauler Diesel Use (gal) 27,376.47
Diesel fuel consumption by construction equipment has been estimated based on the construction schedule and
equipment usage assumptions used in the preparation of the project air quality and climate change analysis. The
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 16-15
construction schedule and equipment assumptions are based on SCAQMD construction survey data that
accounts for equipment needs at over 50 construction sites. Fuel usage is determined by evaluating the
anticipated usage of each piece of equipment at an estimated fuel use rate of 0.04 gallons per horsepower
hour.3 Equipment fuel demand for each construction phase activity is calculated as follows:
Fuel = HP * Load * Rate * Pieces * Hrs * Days
Where:
Fuel = Total Fuel Demand (gallons)
HP = Horsepower of Equipment
Load = Load Factor of Equipment
Pieces = Number of Equipment Required for Activity
Hrs = Hours per Day Equipment is in Operation
Days = Total Days of Activity
Calculations for total construction equipment diesel consumption are provided in Table 16-7 (Prototypical Site -
Construction Equipment Diesel Demand). Total off-road diesel consumption after all construction phases is
estimated to be 29.552.87 gallons.
Calculations for total construction equipment diesel consumption are provided in Table 16-8 (Catalytic Sites -
Construction Equipment Diesel Demand). Total off-road diesel consumption after all construction phases is
estimated to be 4,971.66 gallons for the West Gateway site and 48,419.56 gallons for the LA Auto site.
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-16 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-17
TABLE 16-7
PROTOTYPICAL SITE - CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DIESEL DEMAND
Phase and Activity Equipment Type Horse
Power
Load
Factor
Fuel
Rate
Fuel
Use/Hr
No.
Equipment
Hrs/Day Total
Days
Total Fuel
Use
Demolition - Buildings Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0.04 2.37 1 8 10 189.22
Demolition - Buildings Excavators 158 0.38 0.04 2.40 3 8 10 576.38
Demolition - Buildings Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.40 0.04 3.95 2 8 10 632.32
Demolition - Asphalt Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0.04 2.37 1 8 10 189.22
Demolition - Asphalt Excavators 158 0.38 0.04 2.40 3 8 10 576.38
Demolition - Asphalt Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.40 0.04 3.95 2 8 10 632.32
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.40 0.04 3.95 3 8 10 948.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 4 8 10 459.39
Grading Excavators 158 0.38 0.04 2.40 1 8 20 384.26
Grading Graders 187 0.41 0.04 3.07 1 8 20 490.69
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.40 0.04 3.95 1 8 20 632.32
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 3 8 20 689.09
Building Construction Cranes 231 0.29 0.04 2.68 1 7 230 4,314.16
Building Construction Forklifts 89 0.20 0.04 0.71 3 8 230 3,930.24
Building Construction Generator Sets 84 0.74 0.04 2.49 1 8 230 4,574.98
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 3 7 230 6,933.95
Building Construction Welders 46 0.45 0.04 0.83 1 8 230 1,523.52
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-18 City of Rosemead
Paving Pavers 130 0.42 0.04 2.18 2 8 20 698.88
Paving Paving Equipment 132 0.36 0.04 1.90 2 8 20 608.26
Paving Rollers 80 0.38 0.04 1.22 2 8 20 389.12
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 78 0.48 0.04 1.50 1 6 20 179.71
Total Construction Equipment Diesel Demand (gal) 29,552.87
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-19
TABLE 16-8
CATALYTIC SITES - CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DIESEL DEMAND
Phase and Activity Equipment Type Horse
Power
Load
Factor
Fuel
Rate
Fuel
Use/Hr
No.
Equipment
Hrs/Day Total
Days
Total Fuel
Use
WEST GATEWAY SITE
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0.04 2.37 1 8 10 189.22
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.40 0.04 3.95 1 1 10 39.52
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 2 6 10 172.27
Site Preparation Graders 187 0.41 0.04 3.07 1 8 1 24.53
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 1 8 1 11.48
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0.04 2.37 1 8 2 37.84
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 24 0.40 0.04 0.38 1 1 2 0.77
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 2 6 2 34.45
Building Construction Cranes 231 0.29 0.04 2.68 1 4 100 1,071.84
Building Construction Forklifts 89 0.20 0.04 0.71 2 6 100 854.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 2 8 100 2,296.96
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 0.04 0.20 4 6 5 24.19
Paving Pavers 130 0.42 0.04 2.18 1 7 5 76.44
Paving Rollers 80 0.38 0.04 1.22 1 7 5 42.56
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 1 7 5 50.25
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 78 0.48 0.04 1.50 1 6 5 44.93
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-20 City of Rosemead
West Gateway Site Total Construction Equipment Diesel Demand (gal) 4,971.66
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE
Demolition - Buildings Excavators 158 0.38 0.04 2.40 3 8 5 288.19
Demolition - Buildings Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.83 0.04 2.69 1 8 5 107.57
Demolition - Buildings Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.40 0.04 3.95 2 8 5 316.16
Demolition - Asphalt Excavators 158 0.38 0.04 2.40 3 8 15 864.58
Demolition - Asphalt Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.83 0.04 2.69 1 8 15 322.70
Demolition - Asphalt Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.40 0.04 3.95 2 8 15 948.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 4 8 10 459.39
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.40 0.04 3.95 3 8 10 948.48
Grading Excavators 158 0.38 0.04 2.40 2 8 35 1,344.90
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.40 0.04 3.95 1 8 35 1,106.56
Grading Graders 187 0.41 0.04 3.07 1 8 35 858.70
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 2 8 35 803.94
Grading Scrapers 367 0.48 0.04 7.05 2 8 35 3,945.98
Building Construction Cranes 231 0.29 0.04 2.68 1 7 370 6,940.16
Building Construction Forklifts 89 0.20 0.04 0.71 3 8 370 6,322.56
Building Construction Generator Sets 84 0.74 0.04 2.49 1 8 370 7,359.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0.04 1.44 3 7 370 11,154.61
Building Construction Welders 46 0.45 0.04 0.83 1 8 370 2,450.88
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-21
Paving Pavers 130 0.42 0.04 2.18 2 8 20 698.88
Paving Rollers 80 0.38 0.04 1.22 2 8 20 389.12
Paving Paving Equipment 132 0.36 0.04 1.90 2 8 20 608.26
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 78 0.48 0.04 1.50 1 6 20 179.71
Total Construction Equipment Diesel Demand (gal) 48,419.56
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-22 City of Rosemead
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-23
OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan could support the development of approximately 1.3 million square feet
of non-residential development and an estimated 1,048 dwelling units. The Project traffic study analyzes
Realistic Development of up to 1,175,475 square feet of non-residential use and 892 residential dwelling units.
Long-term energy demand for the operation of realistic Specific Plan buildout has been estimated. In addition,
long-term energy demand for the operation of future development at the West Gateway site and the LA Auto
Auction site have been estimated. Note that modeled development for the West Gateway site and the LA Auto
Auction site is based on maximum potential development given the size of each respective site. Maximum
buildout potential for this Catalytic site have been utilized to provide a worst-case analysis of operational
activities and energy demand.
MOBILE SOURCES
Employees, vendors, and customers of the additional residential and commercial uses will result in the
generation of vehicle trips to and from the Planning Area. This will result in the use of gasoline and diesel fuels
over the life of the Specific Plan. Vehicle trips from the Planning Area were estimated utilizing CalEEMod. Similar
to construction worker and vendor trips, fuel consumption by operation-related vehicles will depend on the
number of trips and the length of the trip. Operational trip type, trip length, and fleet mix were generated in
CalEEMod from data provided by ARB and SCAQMD.
REALISTIC SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT
For commercial uses, 64.4 percent of trips are assumed to be customer to commercial (C-C) trips, 16.6 percent
of trips are assumed to be employee trips (C-W), and 19 percent of trips are assumed to be commercial to non-
work (C-NW) trips such as deliveries. For residential, 40.2 percent of trips are assumed to be home to work (H-
W) trips, 19.2 percent of trips are assumed to be home to school (H-S) trips, and 40.6 percent of trips are
assumed to be home to non-work (H-O) trips. Annual operational fuel demand was calculated as follows:
FuelTT = TVM
Economy
Where:
Fuel = Total Annual Fuel Demand (gallons)
TVM = Total Annual Vehicle Miles
Economy = Fuel Economy of Vehicle Fleet (miles/gallon)
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-24 City of Rosemead
Calculations for annual mobile source fuel consumption are provided in Table 16-9 (Specific Plan Buildout -
Mobile Source Gasoline Demand) and Table 16-10 (Specific Plan Buildout - Mobile Source Diesel Demand).
Mobile sources from the realistic buildout of the Specific Plan will require approximately 2,991,768 gallons of
gasoline per year and 1,467,963 gallons of diesel per year at buildout.
TABLE 16-9
SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT - MOBILE SOURCE GASOLINE DEMAND
Trip Type Annual Vehicle Miles Fuel Economy Total Demand
Commercial Customer-to-Commercial 82,696,522 38.7 2,136,861
Commercial Employee Trips 21,316,184 38.7 550,806
Residential Home-to-School 3,804,028 38.7 98,295
Residential Home-to-Work 7,964,684 38,7 205,806
Total Operational Gasoline Demand (gal) 2,991,768
TABLE 16-10
SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT - MOBILE SOURCE DIESEL DEMAND
Trip Type
Commercial Commercial-to-Non
Work
8,043,935 22.1 363,979
Residential Home-to-Non Work 24,398,042 22.1 1,103,984
Total Operational Diesel Demand (gal) 1,467,963
WEST GATEWAY SITE
For commercial uses, 64.4 percent of trips are assumed to be customer to commercial (C-C) trips, 16.6 percent
of trips are assumed to be employee trips (C-W), and 19 percent of trips are assumed to be commercial to non-
work (C-NW) trips such as deliveries. Calculations for annual mobile source fuel consumption are provided in
Table 16-11 (West Gateway Site - Mobile Source Gasoline Demand) and Table 16-12 (West Gateway Site -
Mobile Source Diesel Demand). Mobile sources from the development of the West Gateway site will require
approximately 66,693 gallons of gasoline per year and 27,395 gallons of diesel per year at buildout.
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-25
TABLE 16-11
WEST GATEWAY SITE - MOBILE SOURCE GASOLINE DEMAND
Trip Type Annual Vehicle Miles Fuel Economy Total Demand
Commercial Customer-to-Commercial 2,052,079 38.7 53,025
Commercial Employee Trips 528,952 38.7 13,668
Total Operational Gasoline Demand (gal) 66,693
TABLE 16-12
WEST GATEWAY SITE - MOBILE SOURCE DIESEL DEMAND
Trip Type
Commercial Commercial-to-Non-Work 605,427 22.1 27,395
Total Operational Diesel Demand (gal) 27,395
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE
As analyzed in this EIR, the LA Auto Auction Site is anticipated to be developed with residential use, general
office, restaurant, hotel, movie theatres, strip mall, and a city park. For residential, 40.2 percent of trips are
assumed to be home to work (H-W) trips, 19.2 percent of trips are assumed to be home to school (H-S) trips,
and 40.6 percent of trips are assumed to be home to nonwork (H-O) trips. For general office use, 48 percent of
trips are assumed to be customer to commercial (C-C) trips, 33 percent of trips are assumed to be employee
trips (C-W), and 19 percent of trips are assumed to be commercial to nonwork (C-NW) trips such as deliveries.
For restaurant use, 72.5 percent of trips are assumed to be customer to commercial (C-C) trips, 8.5 percent of
trips are assumed to be employee trips (C-W), and 19 percent of trips are assumed to be commercial to nonwork
(C-NW) trips such as deliveries. For hotel use, 61.6 percent of trips are assumed to be customer to commercial
(C-C) trips, 19.4 percent of trips are assumed to be employee trips (C-W), and 19 percent of trips are assumed to
be commercial to nonwork (C-NW) trips such as deliveries. For movie theatre use, 79.2 percent of trips are
assumed to be customer to commercial (C-C) trips, 1.8 percent of trips are assumed to be employee trips (C-W),
and 19 percent of trips are assumed to be commercial to nonwork (C-NW) trips such as deliveries. For strip mall
use, 64.4 percent of trips are assumed to be customer to commercial (C-C) trips, 16.6 percent of trips are
assumed to be employee trips (C-W), and 19 percent of trips are assumed to be commercial to nonwork (C-NW)
trips such as deliveries. For city park, 48 percent of trips are assumed to be customer to commercial (C-C) trips,
33 percent of trips are assumed to be employee trips (C-W), and 19 percent of trips are assumed to be
commercial to nonwork (C-NW) trips such as deliveries.
Calculations for annual mobile source fuel consumption are provided in Table 16-13 (LA Auto Auction Site -
Mobile Source Gasoline Demand) and Table 16-14 (LA Auto Auction Site - Mobile Source Diesel Demand). Mobile
sources from the maximum development of the LA Auto Auction site will require approximately 908,073
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-26 City of Rosemead
additional gallons of gasoline per year and 602,442 additional gallons of diesel per year compared to existing
conditions.
TABLE 16-13
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE - MOBILE SOURCE GASOLINE DEMAND
Trip Type Annual Vehicle Miles Fuel Economy Total Demand
Existing
Residential Home-to-School 186,283 38.7 4,814
Residential Home-to-Work 390,029 38.7 10,078
Total Existing Operational Gasoline Demand (gal) 14,892
Proposed
Commercial Customer-to-Commercial 18,120,588 38.7 468,232
Commercial Employee Trips 5,726,888 38.7 147,982
Residential Home-to-School 3,837,178 38.7 99,152
Residential Home-to-Work 8,034,092 38,7 207,599
Total Proposed Operational Gasoline Demand (gal) 922,965
Total Net Operational Gasoline Demand (gal) 908,073
TABLE 16-14
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE - MOBILE SOURCE DIESEL DEMAND
Trip Type
Existing
Residential Home-to-Non Work 393,910 22.1 17,824
Total Existing Operational Diesel Demand (gal) 17,824
Proposed
Commercial Commercial-to-Non
Work
5,593,852 22.1 253,115
Residential Home-to-Non Work 8,114,033 22.1 367,151
Total Proposed perational Diesel Demand (gal) 620,266
Total Net Operational Diesel Demand (gal) 602,442
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-27
ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS USE
Electricity and natural gas would be required to provide energy to future residential and commercial uses for
indoor and outdoor lighting, office equipment, building cooling and heating, kitchen operations, and water
heating. Energy demand was estimated using CalEEMod default calculations. The annual electricity demand will
be approximately 20,142,340 kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr) and natural gas demand by 16,659,830 thousand
British Thermal Units per year (kBTU/yr) before the incorporation of energy conservation measures at buildout
of the Specific Plan. Development of the West Gateway site will increase annual electricity demand by
approximately 1,012,325 kWh/yr and natural gas demand by approximately 68,087 kBTU/yr without
consideration of energy conservation measures. Development of the LA Auto Auction site will increase annual
electricity demand by approximately 22,588,852 kWh/yr and natural gas demand by approximately 53,907,869
kBTU/yr without consideration of energy conservation measures.
WATER AND WASTEWATER
Electricity will indirectly be required to treat and convey water to development sites and convey wastewater
away from the site. Water demand was estimated using CalEEMod default calculations. Electricity demand for
water-related energy is estimated using the CEC Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California.4
Water demand is estimated to be approximately 235.19 million gallons per year (MGY) (without consideration of
CALGREEN building code requirements) at buildout of the Specific Plan. Wastewater discharges were estimated
at 188.15 MGY. Without consideration water conservation measures, development of the West Gateway site is
estimated to demand approximately 4.93 MGY and wastewater discharges were estimated at 3.94 MGY.
Without consideration water conservation measures, development of the LA Auto Auction site is estimated to
demand an additional approximately 434.05 MGY and wastewater discharges were estimated at 347.25 MGY.
Indirect energy demand for water and wastewater purposes is calculated as follows:
IndirectW = (DW * Supply) + (DW * Treat) + (DW * Distribute)
Where:
Indirect = Indirect Electricity Demand (kWh/year)
D = Demand/Discharge (million gallons per year)
Supply = Electricity Required to Supply (kWh)
Treat = Electricity Required to Treat (kWh)
Distribute = Electricity Required to Convey (kWh)
W = Water or Wastewater
Indirect electricity demand for water and wastewater treatment and conveyance at buildout of the Specific Plan
is detailed in Table 16-15 (Specific Plan Buildout - Indirect Electricity Demand). At Specific Plan buildout, water
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-28 City of Rosemead
and wastewater treatment and conveyance will be approximately 2,972,546 kWh/yr of electricity without
consideration of water conservation measures.
TABLE 16-15
SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT - INDIRECT ELECTRICITY DEMAND
Source MGY Supply Treat Distribute Total
Water 235.19 9,727 111 1,272 2,612,984
Wastewater 188.15 -- 1,911 -- 359,562
Indirect Demand Without Water Conservation (kWh/yr) 2,972,546
Indirect electricity demand for water and wastewater treatment and conveyance for the West Gateway site is
detailed in Table 16-16 (West Gateway Site - Indirect Electricity Demand). With development of the West
Gateway site, water and wastewater treatment and conveyance will be increase by approximately 62,317
kWh/yr of electricity without consideration of water conservation measures.
TABLE 16-16
WEST GATEWAY SITE - INDIRECT ELECTRICITY DEMAND
Source MGY Supply Treat Distribute Total
Water 4.93 9,727 111 1,272 54,779
Wastewater 3.94 -- 1,911 -- 7,538
Indirect Demand Without Water Conservation (kWh/yr) 62,317
Indirect electricity demand for water and wastewater treatment and conveyance for the LA Auto Auction site is
detailed in Table 16-17 (LA Auto Auction Site - Indirect Electricity Demand). With development of the LA Auto
Auction site, water and wastewater treatment and conveyance will be increase by approximately 5,485,958
kWh/yr of electricity without consideration of water conservation measures.
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-29
TABLE 16-17
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE - INDIRECT ELECTRICITY DEMAND
Source MGY Supply Treat Distribute Total
Existing
Water 3.71 9,727 111 1,272 67,272
Wastewater 4.84 -- 1,911 -- 9,257
Existing Indirect Demand Without Water Conservation (kWh/yr) 76,529
Proposed
Water 440,11 9,727 111 1,272 4,889,644
Wastewater 352.09 -- 1,911 -- 672,843
Proposesd Indirect Demand Without Water Conservation (kWh/yr) 5,562,487
Net Indirect Demand Without Water Conservation (kWh/yr) 5,485,958
ENERGY DEMAND BY SOURCE
Short- and long-term energy demand without consideration of energy and water conservation measures are
summarized in Table 16-18 (Specific Plan Buildout - Energy Demand by Source), Table 16-19 (West Gateway Site
- Energy Demand by Source), and Table 16-20 (LA Auto Auction Site - Energy Demand by Source). Electricity
demand has been summarized by production source, based on the Emissions and Generation Resource
Integrated Database (eGRID) for Southern California Edison (SCE).5
ENERGY CONSERVATION
Future development within the Specific Plan Area will be subject to state water efficiency regulations pursuant
to the California Building Code (CBC) that will reduce long-term energy demand. These requirements would
reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy over the long-term. The following
quantifies energy demand reductions pursuant to these requirements.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
Pursuant to the CBC CALGREEN requirements, future development projects will be subject to the following
requirements:6
20 percent reduction in water demand (5.303.2)
20 percent reduction in wastewater discharges (5.303.4)
Reduce Water and Wastewater Demand (5.303.2 & 5.303.4)
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-30 City of Rosemead
The minimum 20 percent reduction in water demand and wastewater discharges would decrease indoor water
demand and wastewater discharges. This would result in a concurrent reduction in energy demand to supply,
treat, and convey water and wastewater.
CONCLUSION
With implementation of existing regulations, energy demand for future development within the Specific Plan
Area will not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-31
TABLE 16-18
SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT - ENERGY DEMAND BY SOURCE
Activity Gasoline
(gal/yr)
Diesel
(gal/yr)
Natural
Gas
(kBTU/yr)
Electricity (kWh/yr)
Coal Oil Natural
Gas
Other
Fossil
Nuclear Unknown Wind Solar Geothermal Biomass Hydro
Construction – Prototypical Site
Worker 67,343 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Vendor -- 14,075 -- -- -- -- -- --
Hauler -- 230
Equipment -- 29,553 -- -- -- -- -- --
Operational – Reasonable Buildout of Specific Plan
Mobile 2,991,768 1,467,963 -- -- -- -- -- --
Natural Gas -- -- 16,659,830 -- -- -- -- --
Direct
Electricity
-- -- -- 127,239 171,190 12,098,718 18,289 1,871,485 66,450 979,401 137,552 1,265,946 634,363 2,771,687
Indirect
Electricity
-- -- -- 18,778 25,264 1,785,492 2,699 276,188 9,806 144,537 20,300 186,825 93,617 409,037
Total 3,059,111 1,511,821 16,659,830 146,017 196,453 13,884,210 20,988 2,147,673 76,256 1,123,938 157,852 1,452,771 727,980 3,180,724
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-32 City of Rosemead
TABLE 16-19
WEST GATEWAY SITE - ENERGY DEMAND BY SOURCE
Activity Gasoline
(gal/yr)
Diesel
(gal/yr)
Natural
Gas
(kBTU/yr)
Electricity (kWh/yr)
Coal Oil Natural
Gas
Other
Fossil
Nuclear Unknown Wind Solar Geothermal Biomass Hydro
Construction
Worker 1,692 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Vendor -- 562 -- -- -- -- -- --
Hauler -- 1,141
Equipment -- 4,972 -- -- -- -- -- --
Operational
Mobile 66,693 27,395 -- -- -- -- -- --
Natural Gas -- -- 68,087 -- -- -- -- --
Direct Electricity -- -- -- 6,395 8,604 608,064 919 94,058 3,340 49,223 6,913 63,625 31,882 139,301
Indirect
Electricity
-- -- -- 394 530 37,431 57 5,790 206 3,030 426 3,917 1,963 8,575
Total 68,386 34,069 68,087 6,789 9,133 645,495 976 99,848 3,545 52,253 7,339 67,541 33,845 147,876
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-33
TABLE 16-20
LA AUTO AUCTION SITE - ENERGY DEMAND BY SOURCE
Activity Gasoline
(gal/yr)
Diesel
(gal/yr)
Natural
Gas
(kBTU/yr)
Electricity (kWh/yr)
Coal Oil Natural
Gas
Other
Fossil
Nuclear Unknown Wind Solar Geothermal Biomass Hydro
Existing
Construction
Worker -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Vendor -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Hauler -- --
Equipment -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Operational
Mobile 14,892 17,824 -- -- -- -- -- --
Natural Gas -- -- 1,211,971 -- -- -- -- --
Direct
Electricity
-- -- -- 7,169 9,646 681,719 1,031 105,451 3,744 55,186 7,751 71,332 35,744 156,175
Indirect
Electricity
-- -- -- 35,138 47,276 3,341,169 5,051 516,827 18,351 270,470 37,986 349,602 175,185 765,426
Existing Total 14,892 17,824 1,211,971 42,308 56,922 4,022,888 6,081 622,279 22,095 325,656 45,737 420,934 210,929 921,601
Proposed
Construction
Worker 20,075 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Analysis of Long Term Effects Environmental Impact Report
16-34 City of Rosemead
Vendor -- 96,113 -- -- -- -- -- --
Hauler -- 27,376
Equipment -- 48,420 -- -- -- -- -- --
Operational
Mobile 922,965 620,266 -- -- -- -- -- --
Natural Gas -- -- 55,119,840 -- -- -- -- --
Direct
Electricity
-- -- -- 149,863 201,629 14,249,961 21,541 2,204,249 78,265 1,153,546 162,010 1,491,041 747,157 3,264,513
Indirect
Electricity
-- -- -- 35,138 47,276 3,341,169 5,051 516,827 18,351 270,470 37,986 349,602 175,185 765,426
Proposed Total 943,040 792,175 55,119,840 185,001 248,904 17,591,130 26,592 2,721,077 96,615 1,424,016 199,996 1,840,643 922,342 4,029,940
Net Total 928,148 774,351 53,907,869 142,693 191,982 13,568,242 20,511 2,098,798 74,520 1,098,360 154,259 1,419,709 711,413 3,108,339
Environmental Impact Report Analysis of Long Term Effects
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16-35
REFERENCES
1 California Air Resources Board. Technical Assessment. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions Under
CAFÉ Standards and ARB Regulations Adopted Pursuant to AB1493. January 2008 2 Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Federal Register/Vol. 76,
N0. 179/Thursday, September 15, 2011/Rules and Regulations. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. September 15, 2011 3 Pratt, David. Fundamentals of Construction Estimating. 2nd Ed. 2004 4 California Energy Commission. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. 2006
5 United States Environmental Protection Agency. eGRIDweb: Southern California Edison Co.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/ [August 2016] 6 California Building Standards Commission. California Building Code. January 2011
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 17-1
17 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires a statement indicating the reason that various possible
significant effects are determined not to be significant and therefore are not discussed in the EIR. The
Initial Study prepared for the project and circulated for public review on April 21, 2016 and April 24,
2016 included the determination that the impacts listed below would not occur or would be less than
significant; therefore, these topics were not addressed further in this EIR. Please refer to Appendix B
(Initial Study) for explanations of the basis for these conclusions.
AESTHETICS
Scenic Vista – No Impact
Damage to Scenic Resources – No Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Convert Farmland of Statewide Importance – No Impact
Zoning Conflicts – No Impact
Rezoning Conflicts – No Impacts
Loss of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use – No Impact
Other Changes to the Existing Environment – No Impact
AIR QUALITY
Objectionable Odors – No Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Adverse Effects on Candidate Sensitive Species – No Impact
Adverse Effects on Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Communities – No Impact
Adverse Effects on Federally Protected Wetlands – No Impact
Interference with Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species – No Impact
Conflict with Local Biological Resources Policies or Ordinances – No Impact
Conflicts with Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plans – No Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Disturbance of Human Remains – Less Than Significant Impact
Effects Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Impact Report
17-2 City of Rosemead
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Rupture or Known Earthquake Faults – Less Than Significant Impact
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking – Less Than Significant Impact
Seismic-related Ground Failure/Liquefaction – Less Than Significant Impact
Landslides – No Impact
Substantial Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil – Less Than Significant Impact
On- or Off-Site Landslides/ Subsidence/Liquefaction – Less Than Significant Impact
Expansive Soil – Less Than Significant Impact
Inadequate Soil for Waste Tank Use – No Impact
HAZARDS AND HARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous Materials Transport/Use/Disposal – Less Than Significant Impact
Significant Hazard Involving Accidental Release of HAZMAT – Less Than Significant Impact
Hazardous Emissions within Range of Proposed/Existing Schools – Less Than Significant Impact
Safety Hazards Within Airport Land Use Plan – No Impact
Safety Hazards Within the Vicinity of a Private Airstrip – No Impact
Interference with Emergency Evacuation Plans – No impact
Significant Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death due to Wildland Fires – No Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Standards/Waste Discharge Requirements – Less Than Significant Impact
On- or Off-Site Erosion or Siltation due to Site Drainage Pattern – No Impact
On- or Off-Site Flooding due to Site Drainage Pattern – No Impact
Substantial Runoff Water/Polluted Runoff – No Impact
Substantially Degrade Water Quality – No Impact
Housing Within 100-yard Flood Hazard Area – No Impact
Place Within 100-yard Flood Hazard Area Causing Redirection of Flood Flows – No Impact
Significant Risk due to Failure of Levee or Dam– Less Than Significant Impact
Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow – No Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Physically Divide an Established Community – No Impact
Conflict with Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plans – No Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES
Loss of Valuable Mineral Resources – No Impact
Loss of Mineral Resources Recovery Site – No Impact
Environmental Impact Report Effects found Not to Be Significant
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 17-3
NOISE
Excessive Noise Levels Within Airport Land Use Plan – No Impact
Excessive Noise Levels Within the Vicinity of a Private Airstrip – No Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Displacement of Existing Housing – No Impact
Displacement of People Necessitating Replacement Housing - No Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES
Substantial Adverse Impacts to Maintain Acceptable Service Ratios/Response Times for any of
the Public Services listed below:
Fire Protection – Less Than Significant Impact
Police Protection – Less than Significant Impact
Schools – Less Than Significant Impact
Parks – Less Than Significant Impact
Other Public Facilities – Less Than Significant Impacts
RECREATION
Increased Use of Regional Parks/Recreational Facilities – Less Than Significant Impact
Construction/Expansion of Recreational Facility – Less Than Significant Impact
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Increase in Traffic Levels – No Impact
Design Feature Hazard Increase – No Impact
Inadequate Emergency Access – Less Than Significant Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
Construction of New Storm Water Drainage Facility/Effects – No Impact
Adequate Solid Waste Disposal Services – Less Than Significant Impact
Compliance with Federal, State and Local Solid Waste Regulations – Less Than Significant Impact
Effects Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Impact Report
17-4 City of Rosemead
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 1
18 PREPARATION TEAM
LEAD AGENCY
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
PLANNING DIVISION
8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, 91770
CONSULTANTS TO THE LEAD AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
MIG
1500 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 10
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, 92507
951.787.9222
Christopher Brown, Director of Environmental Services
Christopher Purtell, Senior Archaeologist
Olivia Chan, Senior Analyst
Cameron Hile, Assistant Analyst
Hayden Agnew-Wieland, Assistant Analyst
Katherine Zamora, Project Technician
AESTHETICS
MIG
1500 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 10
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, 92507
951.787.9222
AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT
MIG
1500 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 10
Preparation Team Environmental Impact Report
2 City of Rosemead
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, 92507
951.787.9222
Olivia Chan, Senior Analyst
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MIG
1500 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 10
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, 92507
951.787.9222
Christopher Purtell, Senior Archaeologist
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MIG
1500 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 10
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, 92507
951.787.9222
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
LAND USE AND PLANNING
NOISE
MIG
1500 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 10
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, 92507
951.787.9222
Olivia Chan, Senior Analyst
POPULATION AND HOUSING
MIG
1500 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 10
Environmental Impact Report Preparation Team
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, 92507
951.787.9222
TRANSPORTATIONS AND TRAFFIC
KOA CORPORATION
1100 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, #201
MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA, 91754
323.260.4703
Brian Marchetti, Senior Transportation Engineer
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 19-1
19 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
None
Organizations/Persons Consulted Environmental Impact Report
19-2 City of Rosemead
City of Rosemead
20 BIBLIOGRAPHY
California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement.
November 2009.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003
California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration
Guidance Manual. June 2004
Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 2006
California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance
Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis. September 2013
United States Bureau of Mines. Mining Machinery Noise Control Guidelines. 1983
United States Bureau of Mines. Noise Abatement Techniques for Construction Equipment. August
1979
Sound Seal. Sound Seal Sound Curtains Exterior Grade Noise Control.
http://www.soundcurtains.com/exterior-grade-noise-control.pdf [October 2014]
California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement.
November 2005
Agency, California Environmental Protection. State Water Resources Control Board. n.d.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/low_impact_development/.
September 2016.
Bureau, U.S. Census. Quickfacts: Rosemead, California. n.d.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/0662896. September 2016.
Company, Golden State Water. "2010 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Gabriel Final
Report." August 2011.
—. "2015 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Gabriel." September 2016.
Corporation, KOA. Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR. May 26, 2016.
Engineers, Institute of Transportation. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. Volume 2 and Volume
3. 2012.
Finance, California Department of. Reports and Research Papers. E-5 Population and Housing
Estimates for Cities , Counties, and State 2011-2015. n.d.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. September 2016.
—. Reports and Research Papers. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
State 2011-2016. n.d. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/.
September 2016.
—. Reports and Research Papers. E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates, 2000-2010. n.d.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-8/. September 2016.
Finance., California Department of. Reports and Research Papers. E-8 Historical Population and
Housing Estimates, 2000-2010. n.d.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-8/. September 2016.
GSWC. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Gabriel. Monterey Park: Golden
State Water Company,l
Governments, Southern California Association of. "2012-2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communites Strategy. Growth Forecast Appendix. Table 18: Proposed
2012-2035 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast." April 2012.
Governments, Southern California Association of. "2012-2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Growth Forecast Appendix. Table 18: Proposed
2012-2035 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast." April 2012.
MIG. "Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Technical Memoranda Compedium." October 2, 2014.
MIG. "City of Rosemead General Plan Update EIR: Land Use Chapter." April 2010.
Institute, The Brookings. Handbook for Applying the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.
1999.
MIG. "Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Technical Memoranda Compendium." October 2, 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts: Rosemead City, California.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/0662896 [Accessed September,
2016].
California Department of Finance. Reports and Research Papers. E-5 Population and Housing
Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State 2011-2016.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ [Accessed September
2016].
California Department of Finance. Reports and Research Papers. E-8 Historical Population and
Housing Estimates, 2000-2010.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-8/ [Accessed September
2016].
Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan
<20 Bibliography 3
California Department of Finance. Reports and Research Papers. E-5 Population and Housing
Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State 2011-2015.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ [Accessed September
2016].California Department of Finance. Reports and Research Papers. E-8 Historical
Population and Housing Estimates, 2000-2010.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-8/ [Accessed September
2016].
Southern California Association of Governments. 2012-2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Growth Forecast Appendix. Table 18: Proposed
2012-2035 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast. Adopted April 2012.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2012-2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Growth Forecast Appendix. Table 18: Proposed
2012-2035 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast. Adopted April 2012.
SWRCB. (2016). Low Impact Development – Sustainable Storm Water Management.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/low_impact_development/
[Accessed September 2016]
FTA. (2006). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington DC: Federal Transit
Administration.
CALTRANS. (2013, September). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.
Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento: California Department of Transportation.
USBM. (1983). Mining Machinery Noise Control Guidelines. Washington DC: United States Bureau of
Mines.
Golden State Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Gabriel Final
Report. August 2011.
MIG | Hogle-Ireland, Inc. Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Technical Memoranda
Compendium. October 2, 2014.
MIG | Hogle-Ireland, Inc. Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Technical Memoranda
Compendium. October 2, 2014.
Golden State Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Gabriel Final
Report. August 2011.
Golden State Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan – South San Gabriel System
Final Report. August 2011.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 | Riverside, CA 95207
951-787-9222 | www.migcom.com