CC – Item 2A – Staff Report Public Hearing Consideration of the Negative Declaration for Lorica St. 5 E E
,,,v . ' stat
•
teport
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 20, 1998
RE: PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE LORICA STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Attached for your consideration is a Negative Declaration, prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21000 et. seq. of the Public Resources
Code)for the subject projects. The finding of the Negative Declaration is that the proposed
projects will not have a significant impact on the environment due to the mitigation
measures that have been added to the project.
A Public Hearing to consider the adoption of the Negative Declaration for the projects has
been noticed for Tuesday, January 27, 1998. Pursuant to Sections 15072 and 15073 of
the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, public notice of the availability, intent
to adopt the Negative Declaration and opportunity for public review of the document were
given.
Notice of the Public Hearing regarding the adoption of the Negative Declaration,
opportunity to comment, and the availability of the document was published in the local
paper on November 6, 1997. In addition, copies of the Negative Declaration were mailed
to the State Clearinghouse, adjacent jurisdictions, and to responsible agencies for review.
One letter (see attached)was received from responsible agencies. The letter did not take
issue with the findings contained in the Negative Declaration. �
COUNCIL AGENDA
JAN 2 71996
ITEM N4. ZL • 4.
J
January 20, 1998
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Rosemead City Council:
1. Open the Public Hearing on the adoption of the Negative Declaration for the Lorica
Street Improvements.
2. Following the public hearing, adopt and approve the Negative Declaration for the
Lorica Street Improvements.
Attachments
FGTkj
LORICANE.PUB
r
Public Notice of Availability
Document Type: Negative Declaration
Date: October 30, 1997
Project Title: Lorica Street Improvements
Project Location - Specific: Street Improvements along Lorica Street in the City of Rosemead
Project Location - City: Rosemead Project Location - County: Los Angeles
Description of Project: Improvements include reconstruction and widening of the existing sub-
standard roadway to the standard width of 36 feet, construction of a cul-de-sac new curb and
gutter, sidewalk parkway trees. street lighting and installation of a storm drain mainline system
in Lorica Street and Temple City Boulevard.
Lead Agency: City of Rosemead
Lead Agency Contact Person: Ken Rukavina. City Engineer Phone: 818-288-6671
Address Where Document May Be Obtained:
Agency Name: City of Rosemead
Street Address: 8838 East Valley Boulevard
City/State/Zip: Rosemead Ca 91777
Public Review Period: Begins November 5 1997 Ends November 26 1997
(21 days)
Public Hearing (s):
Date:
Time:
Location: Rosemead City Hall 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead CA 91777
Anyone interested in this matter is invited to comment on the document by written response.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Project Title: Lorica Street Reconstruction and Storm
Drain Improvements
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rosemead
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ken Rukavina, City Engineer
(818) 288-6671
4. Project Location: (See Figure 2)
5. Project Sponsor's Name
and Address: City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
6. General Plan Designation: N/A
7. Zoning: N/A
8. Description of Project:
The proposed project is located in the City of Rosemead, in the County of Los Angeles.
The regional location of the project is shown on Figure 1. The project location is shown
in Figure 2.
The proposed project consists of reconstruction and widening of Lorica Street from Temple
City Boulevard to its terminus. Lorica Street currently dead-ends approximately 500 feet
west of Temple City Boulevard. The existing zoning along the street is M1
(Manufacturing/Light Industrial), however, the predominate use along the street is currently
residential. The existing street does not have any curbs, gutters or sidewalks. The
components of the project include:
• Reconstruction and widening of Lorica Street, from Temple City Boulevard to the
west end from the existing sub-standard roadway to the standard width of 36 feet.
• Reconstruction of the west end of the street as a sub-standard cul-de-sac within the
50 foot public right-of way. The cul-de-sac will have a radius of 24.5 feet.
• Installation of new curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway trees and street lighting.
Goy of Rosemead
1- Negative Declaration
s.
oneni
ligth:
taxona v 4...
r PROJECT SITE
tii_
Udine Soo°
L �� °.
oa wa!!!f t I J
,l,,�p\\ %ow.te. Manm
w
Nemo 91111.°1000 O O !Pt 0 0 O f
tIMwO0 ODM Unto So
OIPM
0 NYn
rt i[OVW? P a .,M
onO
IWttM
1 Sens
IP .PISL
O M
— bttMxP !C
.n 0 O TIP 2 'Oa
tlpti t
I I w p!
H..vwwP b. 0"�2 Oldq Slld °ls1Y.e
12
\ F°WvAtiI t
FIGURE 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
City of Rosemead
-2- Negative Declaration
It
..,t,, � µ r:' ' � 1R� IUiER711e1
�. t
ift : i
L
rl C00E4 at` h' "�.j 14 �f
I3bE'4Aa` si <i 'GiR y Sri '
11 srf p o o x
ev M1SS7. vC 1 ) S� fes-' { rt t
t " m -'5{�uwrw, Rg 1 aY:i t Yq . si - t 8r , 1°9- , `'
� .s . BLVD I aw g ;- eiW ; . f 'i`
4Lt IW9J
� u. crE�E�� :on:
f � c� ' �yfr rJ�
s7 ,
a--I --' — k L.4
Hs.:PH 9NA $T I ' '�,vD it
3 p
# n' F 5 FSB Sr t tie ,' t �a"�. & �■
jWRa > xNt$M4J •SI t R f MF
smum_
�:,...,g�t.^A{6HAiL S 4�.9 ( _ 51 tt +al RA[1H if 2; i
vwi 90 4 J1 K i i4 tI k ai 24 k 4-a-f a, 1gye�p�is �" a
FIGURE 2
LOCATION MAP
City of Rosemead
-3- Negative Declaration
• Reconstruction of pavement.
• Installation of a storm drain mainline system in Lorica Street and Temple City
Boulevard to collect storm runoff. The proposed storm drain will join the existing
storm drain mainline at the intersection of Temple City Boulevard and Valley
Boulevard. Upon completion of the storm drain mainline, the system will be
transferred as a Miscellaneous Transfer Drain (MTD) to the Los Angeles County
Flood Control District for operation and maintenance.
The proposed project would not result in the removal of any scenic resources or the
expansion of the existing right-of-way. For this reason, several aspect of the proposed
project are Categorically Exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
• Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts the repair, maintenance or minor
alteration of existing public facilities, as long as no expansion of use beyond that
previously existing occurs. As specified in Section 15301(c), this includes existing
highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar
facilities except where the activity will involve the removal of a scenic resource
including a strand of trees, a rock outcropping, or an historic building. The
proposed project would not include the removal of any scenic resources. Although
Lorica Street would be widened, as part of the project, there would be no expansion
of use, since the street is a cul-de-sac. The purpose of the widening is to meet City
roadway standards, not to increase capacity.
• Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts projects involving the replacement
or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be
located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the
same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. This includes the
replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving
negligible or no expansion of capacity. The storm drain construction represents a
negligible expansion of capacity.
• Section 15304 exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land,
water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of mature, scenic trees. As
specked in Section 15304(b), this includes new gardening or landscaping. Section
15305 exempts the issuance of minor encroachment permits in instances where the
project will not result in any changes in land use or density.
Although many aspects of the project are exempt for the requirements of environmental
review, the City has chosen to prepare an Initial Study for the project in order to consider
the potential effects of the project as a whole and to fully inform the public, adjacent
jurisdictions, and concerned agencies about the proposed project.
City of Rosemead
-4- Negative Declaration
9. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed):
• Southern California Edison - approval of street lighting improvements.
• Los Angeles County Flood Control District - storm drain improvements.
City of Rosemead
-5- Negative Declaration
B. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental issue areas checked below would potentially be affected by this project,
since there is at least one "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated Impact,"identified for these issue areas on the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/Circulation _ Public Services
_ Population and Housing _ Biological Resources _ Utilities
_ Earth Resources _ Energy and Mineral Resources _ Aesthetics
_ Water — Risk of Upset and Human Health — Cultural Resources
_ Air Quality _ Noise _ Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
C. DETERMINATION (To BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at lease one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets, if the effect is a 'potentially significant impact' or "potential
significant unless mitigated." AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Signature / Date
� Quk
� / Avrrta
(7/4/.
o< "'arnicac�
Printed Name For
City of Rosemead
-6- Negative Declaration
D. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact"answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each questions. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well
as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially
significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of
insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when
the determination is made, an ER is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to
a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program OR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in
Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances).
See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
INFORMATION SOURCES CITED:
1. City of Rosemead General Plan, adopted November 24, 1987.
2. City of Rosemead General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. State
Clearinghouse Number 86070910. Adopted July 1987.
C:y of Rosemead
7- Negative Declaration
CHECKLIST
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact Significant No
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) X.
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan
and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably
not need further explanation.)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? -X-
(source#(s): )
I)) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? XI
( )
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land
uses)? ( ) Xs
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or minority
community)? ( )
XI
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? ( ) 'X
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g.through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) X€..
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
( ) X.
City of Rosemead
-8- Negative Declaration
Potentially
PotentaIy Significant Less Than
Significant Impact Significant No
Issues(and Supperbog Informabon Sources): Impact Mthgaton Impact Impact
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture?( ) X .
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? ( ) X
c) Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? ( ) Xi.
d) Landslides or mudslides? ( ) X..
e) Erosion changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation,grading, or fill? ( ) X.:,
f) Subsidence of the land? ( ) I X,.
g) Expansive soils? ( )
h) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) _ X'.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) aX
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards,such as flooding? ( ) _ X
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g.temperature,dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) _ X
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ( ) - XS
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movement? ( ) Xl
0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ( ) Xf
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) X':
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) X,-.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation? ( ) X-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) X 1,
c) Alter air movement,moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) Xt
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) X;.
City of Rosemead
-9- Negative Declaration
Poten ity
Polentally Significant Less Than
Significant Impact Significant No
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact MNgaton Impact Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.sharp curves
or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
( ) X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
( ) ._
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? X
( )
g) Rail,waterborne,or air traffic impacts? ( )
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
a) Endangered,threatened, or rare species or their
habitats(including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) X:
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X I;
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.oak
forest,coastal habitat,etc.)? ( ) Xs..
d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian,and vernal X
pool)? ( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation X
plans? ( ) -_
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner? ( ) X;;.
Oily of Rosemead
-10- Negative Declaration
Potenbaly
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact Significant No
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil,pesticides, chemicals,or radiation)? ( ) X;
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) _ X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( ) X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass,or trees? ( ) X:
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) X .
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( )
Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or offered government services in
any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) X
b) Police protection? ( ) X
c) Schools? ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? ( ) _ X;; •
e) Other governmental services? ( ) Xs
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) X
b) Communications systems? ( ) X
c) Local or regional watertreatment or distribution X.:.
facilities? ( ) -- -
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) X
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) :X
I) Solid waste disposal? ( ) Xr-
City of Rosemead
-11- Negative Declaration
•
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Slgnikcant Impact Significant No
Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XIII.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic X
effect? ( ) _.
c) Create light or glare? ( ) X:'
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( ) Xi.
d) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values? ( ) X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ( ) X'i
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increases the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? ( ) X'
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) X
City of Rosemead
-12- Negative Declaration
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact Significant No
Issues(and SuppoNng Information Sources): Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
• of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? X•
'.'.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past project,the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects). Xr
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? X.;.
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier DR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(G)(D). In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"potentially significant"or"potentially significant unless
mitigated,"describe the mitigation measures which are incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 2108D(c), 21080.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094 21151;
Sundstmm V. County of Mendocino, 202 CaL App. 3d 296(1988);Leonoff v.Monterey Board of Supervisors,
223 Cal.App. 3d 1337(1990).
City of Rosemead
-13- Negative Declaration
EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST JUDGEMENT:
I. Land Use Planning
a) No Impact-The proposed project would help to reinforce and further the City's
desired land use pattern and circulation system by providing improving the
existing roadway to be consistent with roadway standards and by providing a
more aesthetically pleasing streetscape consistent with the designated land use
pattern.
b) No Impact - The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for the
City, which has received prior environmental review (see Source#2) and would
not have any growth inducing impacts. It therefore would not conflict with any
applicable environmental plans or policies.
c) No Impact - There are no agricultural lands in the vicinity of the proposed
project.
d) No Impact-The proposed project involves the reconstruction and improvement
of an existing street.
II. Population and Housing
a) No Impact-The proposed project would have no effect on the existing or future
housing stock or employment potential of the City. The project is consistent with
the General Plan and thus with the official local and regional population
projections.
b) No Impact-The proposed project would upgrade rather than extend or expand
existing major infrastructure.
c) No Impact-The proposed project would not displace any existing housing. In
addition it would not impact future construction of housing consistent with the
City's General Plan.
III. Geophysical
a) No Impact - As discussed in the ER for the General Plan (Source #2), two
major fault zones are located near the City, including the Raymond Hill Fault
located approximately two miles to the north and the Whittier-Elsinore fault
located approximately five miles to the southeast. Two inactive fault traces
traverse the City from the northwest to the southeast and generally correspond
to the Alhambra Wash and Rubio Wash (see page PS-7 of Source #2). One of
these crosses the project area. However, the City is not included in an Alquist-
Priolo special Studies Zone since no active faults are known or suspected within
the City. Although there is a high degree of certainty that an earthquake of
significant magnitude will occur and impact the City during the "planning period"
City of Rosemead
-14- Negative Declaration
of the Rosemead General Plan, the proposed project will not increase the risk
of people to potential impacts associated with fault rupture.
b) No Impact-The proposed project is not within an area identified in the General
Plan as a potential liquefaction area (see Source#2 page PS-7).
c) No Impact-The proposed project is not within an area with an identified risk of
seiche or tsunami (Source#2).
d) No Impact - The proposed project is not within an area identified as having
landslide or mudslide potential. (See Source #2).
e) No Impact-Although the project will result in some excavation for storm drain
construction, no erosion impacts are anticipated since project construction is
required by the City to comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements.
f) No Impact - The proposed project is not within an area identified as having
subsistence potential. (See Source#2)
g) No Impact - The proposed project is not within an area identified as having
expansive soils. (See Source #2).
h) No Impact - The proposed project is located within a relative flat, urbanize
area. No unique geologic of physical features, other than the two fault traces
discussed under (a) above are present. No significant impact to geologic
features is thus anticipated.
IV. Water
a) Less Than Significant- The proposed project would not significantly alter the
amount of ground cover in the area and thus absorption rates, nor would it
significantly alter the grade in the area. The proposed project includes
construction of a storm drain to serve Lorica Street. This will result in a
beneficial, but less than significant, change in drainage patterns.
b) No Impact-The proposed project is not located within a flood hazard area (see
Source#2, page PS-7).
c) No Impact-The proposed project would not result in a change in the discharge
into surface waters. Construction a the storm drain would improve the
channeling of storm water into the system, but would not substantially alter the
amount of water entering the storm drain system.
d) No Impact-The proposed project should not result in a change in the amount
of water in any surface body.
e) No Impact -The proposed project should not result in a change in the current
or course of any water body.
C,ty of Rosemead
-15- Negative Declaration
f) No Impact -The proposed project will result in only a limited increase in water
consumption associated with the increased landscaping. Therefore, no
significant change in the quantity of ground waters is anticipated. Project
construction should not result in cuts or excavations of sufficient depth to impact
aquifers in the area.
g) No Impact- For the reasons outlined in responses (a) to (f) above, no impacts
to the rate or flow of groundwater are anticipated.
h) No Impact- For the reasons outlined in responses (a) to (f) above, no impacts
to groundwater quality are anticipated.
V. Air Quality
a) No Impact -The proposed project would not result in an increase in capacity
and thus would not affect mobile source emissions.
b) No Impact - The proposed project would not result in an increase in capacity
and thus would not produce additional mobile source emissions. The amount
of particulate emissions construction activities is not anticipated to be of a
magnitude which would affect sensitive receptors. No sensitive receptors have
been identified in the vicinity of planned construction.
c) No Impact - The proposed project is not anticipated to affect air movement,
moisture or temperature, or to affect the local climate.
d) No Impact - The proposed project does not include any components which
would create objectionable odors. The landscaping associated with the project
should have a beneficial impact on the nature of odors in the project vicinity.
VI. Transportation / Circulation
a) Less Than Significant Impact- No long-term impacts on trip patterns or traffic
congestion are anticipated to result from the project. The project will result in a
short-term impact on traffic during project construction which may result in
limited traffic congestion. Short-term impacts include those associated with
streetscape and street improvements and limited traffic disruption during the
construction of the storm drain facilities. Due to the short-term nature of
construction activities, construction related impacts are anticipated to be less
than significant.
b) No Impact - The project does not include any elements which would be
considered safety hazards. Construction of sidewalks should improve
pedestrian safety along this short roadway.
c) Less Than Significant -The cul-de-sac will have a radius of 24.5 feet, which
does not meet the Fire Department standards for new development. It is
however, an improvement over the existing roadway design. The Fire
Department is supportive of the proposed radium, provided that parking is
City of Rosemead
-16- Negative Declaration
restricted in the cul-de-sac area to provide a maximum radium for turning
movements.
Mitigation:
On-street parking in the cul-de-sac area shall be restricted, in accordance with
Fire Department specifications.
d) No Impact-Although parking in the cul-de-sac area will be restricted, sufficient
off-street parking is available to meet the needs of local residents.
e) No Impact - The streetscape improvements have been designed to improve
rather that reduce pedestrian and bicycle safety in the project area.
f) No Impact-The proposed improvements are not anticipated to conflict with the
provision of alternative transportation.
g) No Impact-The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of any rail, water,
or air traffic resources.
VII. Biological Resources
a) No Impact- No rare or endangered plant or animal species have been identified
within the City, which is highly urban in nature. The existing plant and animal
species are consistent with those found in an urban setting. (See Source #2,
page 31).
b) No Impact- No locally designated species have been identified within the City,
which is highly urban in nature The existing plant and animal species are
consistent with those found in an urban setting. (See Source#2, page 31).
c) No Impact - No locally designated natural communities have been identified
within the City, which is highly urban in nature The existing plant and animal
species are consistent with those found in an urban setting. (See Source #2,
page 31).
d) No Impact- No wetlands habitat exists in the project area, which is highly urban
in nature The existing plant and animal species are consistent with those found
in an urban setting. (See Source #2, page 31).
e) No Impact-No wildlife dispersal or migration corridors exist in the project area,
which is highly urban in nature The existing plant and animal species are
consistent with those found in an urban setting. (See Source #2, page 31).
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources
a) No Impact-The proposed project will have a negligible effect on the amount of
energy consumed. The project does not conflict with any adopted energy
conservation plans.
City of Rosemead
4T Negative Declaration
•
b) No Impact-The proposed project will not result in wasteful of inefficient use of
non-renewable resources.
IX. Hazards
a) No Impact -The proposed project does not include any elements which could
result in the release of hazardous substances. All construction will be conducted
in accordance with building and health and safety codes and regulations and
pursuant to applicable OSHA guidelines.
b) Less Than Significant - The proposed project will not significantly alter the
circulation system or its operation. As explained under VI (c), the cul-de-sac will
have a radius of 24.5 feet, which does not meet the Fire Department standards
for new development. It is however, an improvement over the existing roadway
design. The Fire Department is supportive of the proposed radium, provided
that parking is restricted in the cul-de-sac area to provide a maximum radium for
turning movements. A mitigation measure to this effect has been included under
VI (c). Therefore the project is not anticipated to interfere with any emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
c) No Impact -The proposed project does not include any elements which could
result in any anticipated health hazards. All construction will be conducted in
accordance with building and health and safety codes and regulations and
pursuant to applicable OSHA guidelines.
d) No Impact-The proposed project would not result in the exposure of people to
any known health hazards.
e) No Impact-The proposed landscaping will be properly installed and maintained
by the City. Therefore no new fire hazards are anticipated to be created by the
proposed project.
X. Noise
a) No Impact - The proposed project would not result in the generation of
additional traffic. Therefore no noise impacts are anticipated to result from the
project. The additional landscaping may provide some additional buffering of
traffic related noise for land uses located along the street.
b) No Impact - The proposed project would not result in the generation of
additional traffic. Therefore, no long-term traffic-related noise impacts are
anticipated to result from the project. The additional landscaping may provide
some additional buffering of traffic related noise for land uses located along the
street. Project construction may result in an intermittent short-term increase in
noise levels. However, project construction will be conducted in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the City's noise ordinance and applicable regulations
limiting the hours of construction, so as to minimize short term noise impacts.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to result during project
construction.
City of Rosemead
-18- Negative Declaration
XI. Public Services
a) No Impact-The proposed project will not have an effect on the demand for fire
services.
b) No Impact -The proposed project will not have any effect on the demand for
police protection.
c) No Impact -The proposed project will not have any effect on the demand for
school services.
d) Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed project will result in a minor
increase in cost associated with maintenance of the new landscaping. The City
does not consider this cost a significant impact. In addition, the storm drain
which is constructed as part of the project will represent a minor increase for the
Los Angeles County Flood Control District which will be responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the storm drain once the system is transferred as
a Miscellaneous Transfer Drain (MTD), after construction.
e) No Impact- No other impact on governmental services is anticipated.
XII. Utilities and Service Systems
a) Less Than Significant Impact-The proposed project includes the installation
of street lighting. Given the limited extension of services (approximately 500
feet), the alterations in the distribution system are not considered a significant
impact on service or service delivery.
b) Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed project does not include any
components which will affect the communication system in the area.
c) No Impact-The proposed project does not involve any change in the regional
water treatment or distribution facilities, nor will it affect the demand for such
facilities.
d) No Impact-The proposed project does not involve any change in the sewer or
septic tank facilities in the area, nor will it affect the demand for such facilities.
e) Less Than Significant - The proposed project does not involve any major
change in the storm water drainage facilities in the area, nor will it affect the
demand for such facilities. The storm drain which is constructed represents a
minor extension of the existing system and is designed to more effectively
channel existing storm water flows into the system.
f) No Impact - The proposed project does not involve any change in the solid
waste disposal facilities in the area, nor will it affect the demand for such
facilities.
City of Rosemead
-19- Negative Declaration
XIII. Aesthetics
a) Less Than Significant -The proposed project will have a beneficial impact on
the scenic quality of the street system in the project area as a result of the
landscaping and improved lighting.
b) No Impact - The proposed project will improve the general aesthetics of the
project area as a result of the landscaping.
c) No Impact - The proposed project includes the construction of street lighting
along the approximately 500 feet of roadway. Given the design of the street
lighting system, which is consistent with residential street lighting standards, no
significant new light or glare impacts are anticipated. Installation of the
landscaping may result in a limited reduction in light and glare impacts from
headlights.
XIV. Cultural Resources
a) No Impact - There are no known or suspected paleontological sites within the
project area. (See Source #2, page 31). The area is urban in nature and the
project will be carried out in an area which has previously been developed.
b) No Impact - There are no known or suspected archeological sites within the
project area. (See Source #2, page 31). The area is urban in nature and the
project will be carried out in an area which has previously been developed.
c) No Impact-There are no known or suspected historical sites within the project
construction area. (See Source#2, page 31). The area is urban in nature and
the project will be carried out in an area which has previously been developed.
The proposed project has been reviewed by the State Office of Historic
Preservation which made the following determination: "There are no historic
properties that may be affected by the undertaking." (Letter dated July 25, 1997
from Cherilyn E. Widell, State Historic Preservation Officer).
d) No Impact-The proposed project constitutes the improvement of existing public
infrastructure. It would therefore not change the ethnic or cultural values of the
area.
e) No Impact -The proposed project constitutes the improvement of existing public
infrastructure. It would therefore not change the potential uses in the area.
XV. Recreation
a) No Impact-The proposed project constitutes the improvement of existing public
infrastructure. The project does not increase capacity or affect the potential
demand for public services within the City, including park services.
b) No Impact-The proposed project constitutes the improvement of existing public
infrastructure. No recreational opportunities would be affected by the project.
City of Rosemead
-20- Negative Declaration
(Space below for use of County Clerk only/
C C
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE
affiliated with
SGV Newspaper Group
1210 N. Azusa Canyon Road
West Covina, CA 91790
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Proof of Publication of
County of Los Angeles
D
I am a citizen of the United States, and a resident ! NOTICE OF AIILABL ITY OF NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR LORI CA STREET '
of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of I RECONSTRUCTION AND STORM DRAIN
eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in .IMPROVEMENTS
the above-entited matter. I am the principal clerk of NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the general
public of the availability for public review and
the printer of SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE, a comment on the following•prated and its
newspaper of general circulation which has been
environmental
osemeadehas prdocumentation.
paredd a NegativThe
Declaration
adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation for reconstruction and widening.andstorm drain
improvements for Lorca Street in the City of-
by the Superior Court of the County of Los
Angeles, State of California, on the date of Street Improvements:'irnprovements Include
September 10, 1957, Case Number 684891. The reconstruction and widening:of the existing
substandardytothestandardwidthof26-
notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy, feet,constructiontionofof a new cul-de-sac with a265
tter,
has been published in each re ular and entired issue
tont sidewaus,lks,
installation of new,curbs, gu,and
9 sstallatio parkway a storm drain mainline
system in
of said newspaper and not in any supplement
installation of a storm tlrain ma'mliule system ts,
LaStreet,from Temple Cite noulevartl to its
thereof on the following dates, to wit: environmental
terminus. This l Impacts-
been ant-totl the.
CalifornmeMal Imaods'puity Ato the
and
EAoironn@vironmentalAd (CMS/
(Nd Phe Protect
National- Ken aRu Policy tF
(NEPA):ProiM contgtl: K- --- Cityving,
En9lneer. 7
Anr;intereted p rtYiabsf pro ldeWrttten'
11/6/9 7 comment during the public-review period whlcn,
begins on•Navembe.601997, and ends.on
November 27,1997:Asspyotthe documents ore'
on file in the office of thecityenglneer aId ore'
I declare under penalty of perjury that the available:fee!Sview'dt$osenleatl GtwHall,-s
Engineering'.DepartmenL'BBL E: alley:'
foregoing is true and correct. Boulevardt-Rosemeast,'.CaOkp7
mio'91 -a+byy
calling (6261288L671 and ot the'Raerilead CRY
Llbror;,8888ynlley Blvd':'Rosetsleed,Califomle-
91778:All.cammenison'ad should bel
directed to the protect. tact ct noted above....:::
Should this prolleebt bbee'challeiged In courrblssuei.
may be limited to only those Issues raised at the
Executed at West Covina, LA Co. California scheduledpubltchearing described inthis notice,
or in written correspondence delivered at, or
thde
is 6 d y of NOVEMBER 19 97 prior to,the hearing. _vv r
, 1 � Date November b41997 W= Ax
COY Engineer =,'JicNvos
signature Publish:November6,1997 wz •
San Gabriel Volley Tribune-".°'Ad No.l7934
1
STATE Of CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANS90RTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gonmor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION e,.
DISTRICT 7. 120 50. SPRING ST. 11/4
LOS ANGELES. CA 90012-3606
TDD 013) WI—WO November 7, 1997
IGR/CEQA cs/971115
NEG DEC
Rosemead
Lorica Street Improvements
Vic. LA-164-6. 45
Mr. Ken Rukavina
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91777
Dear Mr. Rukavina:
Thank you for including Caltrans in the environmental review
process for the above-mentioned document. Based on the information
received, we have no comments at this time.
If you have any questions regarding our response, refer to
Caltrans IGR/CEQA Record# 971115, and please do not hesitate to
contact me at (213) 897-4429.
Sincerely,
STEPHEN BUSWELL
IGR/CEQA Program Manager